My RC2 unit breakdown.

[dave123]

Thought I might put down my corps unit list. This is what I had for early Moscow. I got decisive victories in every battle on normal difficulty. After this, I went straight to the USA. I think that this game really favors artillery over other units. Interested in other players breakdown.

3 Calvary.
1 ss infantry (it was free)
7 tanks (PZ IVD)
2 panzerjager IB
8 mobile artillery. (5 sturmpanzer I, 3 Wrfrahmen 40, the 40's are better, but expensive)
5 BF 109 (2E, 3F)
4 BF110D
1 JU88

notes:
I think Calvary are overpowered. They are fast and with them, who needs infantry? In the original PG, Pioneers were a must, and you really needed infantry to take cites, now just suppress away with artillery and take cities with tanks. In another campaign. I kept them all the way through the USA, and at 13-14 strength, they were still useful. They are very cheap to keep at over strength as well.

I won't upgrade my tanks until tigers and panthers come out.

The panzerjager IB's are just to have something with come experience when the jadgpanthers come out. Elefants are better, but speed is essential against the Americans, so I go with Panthers and Jadgpanthers over Elefants and Jadgtigers.

The artillery are the kings of the battlefield!

I see no reason to upgrade fighters until the Me262 comes out if you fight the Russians. In fact, if it were not that I panic some during the invasion of England and overbought, I would have 1 less fighter. Since I got all decisive victories, I did not face the allies after England until the USA. If I had fought a series of battles against the Allies, I would have upgraded to FW190's.

I never bought a stuka. Since they are so weak, why bother? Better to get my TAC air in the form of 110's that can also shoot down Russian fighters. In fact, I think I will abandon TAC air all together next to see what happens. Another fighter, 2 more artillery and a JU88 will more than make up for the loss.
Once the USA comes along, the 110's upgrade to FW190 tac air.

The JU88 exists to bomb naval units. Very useful in Norway and the USA. If I went no tac air, I would get another JU88.

Anyway, I guess my point is that rather than the old PG where stukas and tanks ruled, it's all about artillery now. Maybe it should be called Artillery General?

I do like the game, just think some tweaking is still in order.

[Pupec]

Disable multi-fired artillery .. other ground troops battle is very easy.
Another shot artillery should just kills without further suppression.

[Razz1]

I think artillery should be increased in cost for all units by 20%.

[pstamatis]

I can understand and agree on these thoughts.

Anyway, I guess my point is that rather than the old PG where stukas and tanks ruled, it's all about artillery now.
...I do like the game, just think some tweaking is still in order

It is a fact that artillery is overrated. Still it is a fact that in war, artillery support or bomber squads are always needed.
Every commander, from a squad leader to a field general would need as many of these units as he could get for support.
The problem is, these are never enough.. In warfare as we know it, their role is supportive. In my opinion, the game should be more historically correct on that, and I also think it is impossible to do that simply by changing stats (ofcourse it is needed too).
I hope the game to include some module for "historical"/"correct" unit type analogies.

[Pupec]

In reality, artillery caused worse maneuverability defense (still defend), but failed to disarmed as PZC..