Bonus cities, not always a bonus

[grouser]

I'm trying to maximize prestige by minimizing casualties, and capturing as many cities as possible. What I've noticed is that some of the villages that are off the beaten path have usually entrenched themselves to max values. It takes a couple of turns to either push them out or kill them. Those two turns will cost me anywhere from 4-8 dead units (not whole units, just pieces)

When I go to build the damaged units back to full strength, it's costing me anywhere from 60-120 prestige. Since the village only pays 50, I have a net loss of 10-70 prestige. I do replace damaged core units with elite replacements. I can always replace them with free (no prestige costs) normal troops, but it takes much longer to overstrength the units.

So far I'm coming out ahead (prestige) by just ignoring the "bonus" cities.

[Fimconte]

I'm trying to maximize prestige by minimizing casualties, and capturing as many cities as possible. What I've noticed is that some of the villages that are off the beaten path have usually entrenched themselves to max values. It takes a couple of turns to either push them out or kill them. Those two turns will cost me anywhere from 4-8 dead units (not whole units, just pieces)

When I go to build the damaged units back to full strength, it's costing me anywhere from 60-120 prestige. Since the village only pays 50, I have a net loss of 10-70 prestige. I do replace damaged core units with elite replacements. I can always replace them with free (no prestige costs) normal troops, but it takes much longer to overstrength the units.

So far I'm coming out ahead (prestige) by just ignoring the "bonus" cities.

To attack entrenched positions you should ideally:
Strategic Bombardment.
Artillery Strike.
Pioniere attack (ignores any remaining entrenchment).
Mop up with tanks/recon.
You should not attack any units that aren't suppressed down to at least 2-4 strength.

[TheGrayMouser]

Depending on how much recon you have (or if you feel lucky) many of those "bonus" cities are undefended for a quick entry

[grouser]

Generally, the bonus cities are off the beaten path. There's not enough time to get a Strategic Bombardment, Artillery Strike (or two), and a Pioniere attack established while going for Decisive Wins on the edges of the map.

I've only been playing about a week, but so far it feels like the bonus cities cost me more presige then they give.

[Razz1]

You should use green replacements.

However I agree... They increased the cost of all units some have double, but they have never increased the reward for flags or VH's.

As far as I am concerned the game is out of balance due to that.

Just look at the cost for any units in PG, you will see PC has a much higher cost.

I think they need to bump flags to 60 and VH's to 120 prestige.

[flakfernrohr]

[quote="Fimconte
To attack entrenched positions you should ideally:
Strategic Bombardment.
Artillery Strike.
Pioniere attack (ignores any remaining entrenchment).
Mop up with tanks/recon.
You should not attack any units that aren't suppressed down to at least 2-4 strength.[/quote]

I agree with this technique. I have used it and also with some modification and have usually met with success. If you cannot bombard the city with bombers, at least strafe it and keep an aircraft above to harass the defenders.

I also dislodge the defenders with either Tigers, Panthers, Ferdinand in addition to artillery, but if I have artillery handy, it is always used. The city typically will have two or three units on different sides of it if possible.

Depending on the situation surrounding the city with other enemy armour units , antitank or artillery, I almost always drive up to a city with armor and attack to put the defenders off base when I can move up other units to attack afterwards. The only time I don't precede with an armor attack is when I have artillery or an airstrike I can use before the first armor attack.

If you have been putting pressure on the enemy in other parts of the battlefield, you may very well find the city undefended.

Pioniere Infantry are better than Grenadiers in my book. They are tough and efficient usually because of their weapons. They are not as good against armor, but on entrenched units they seem to work better. When those flamethrowers burst out, the casualties mount in the entrenchments quite effectively.

In PzG, I remember there were Heavy Weapons Infantry that were very effective troops. I guess in PzC these are the Panzer Grenadiers. But they do not seem as effective as the ones in PzG.

One of the units I plan on upgrading in some way I usually put near the city to take possession so that on the next turn it can be upgraded (like mounted Grenadiers, Pioniere, better armor, etc.). Stugs are great utility units and can be very effective also. In fact I like Stugs better than PZIV.

[Fimconte]

I agree with this technique. I have used it and also with some modification and have usually met with success. If you cannot bombard the city with bombers, at least strafe it and keep an aircraft above to harass the defenders.

I also dislodge the defenders with either Tigers, Panthers, Ferdinand in addition to artillery, but if I have artillery handy, it is always used. The city typically will have two or three units on different sides of it if possible.

Depending on the situation surrounding the city with other enemy armour units , antitank or artillery, I almost always drive up to a city with armor and attack to put the defenders off base when I can move up other units to attack afterwards. The only time I don't precede with an armor attack is when I have artillery or an airstrike I can use before the first armor attack.

If you have been putting pressure on the enemy in other parts of the battlefield, you may very well find the city undefended.

Strafing by Fighters reduces entrenchment by 1, so unless the defenders can fire back then it's a great way to retask your unused airforce when air superiority has been achieved.

Pioniere Infantry are better than Grenadiers in my book. They are tough and efficient usually because of their weapons. They are not as good against armor, but on entrenched units they seem to work better. When those flamethrowers burst out, the casualties mount in the entrenchments quite effectively.

In PzG, I remember there were Heavy Weapons Infantry that were very effective troops. I guess in PzC these are the Panzer Grenadiers. But they do not seem as effective as the ones in PzG.

One of the units I plan on upgrading in some way I usually put near the city to take possession so that on the next turn it can be upgraded (like mounted Grenadiers, Pioniere, better armor, etc.). Stugs are great utility units and can be very effective also. In fact I like Stugs better than PZIV.

Actually there's really no reason to use Grenadiers at all.
The 43' Grenadiers do have +1 hard attack compared to Pioniere 43', but they do not ignore entrenchment bonus.
Pre-43' Pioniere are superior all the other Infantry in my mind.
Panzer Grenadiers do not have any special abilities.

I'm not sure why you need to upgrade units in scenario (unless you mean auxiliary units?), but I disagree about Stugs. Their damage is a lot lower compared to towed artillery / Wurfrahmen / Nblwf.

[Kerensky]

I like Grenadiers as a cheaper, higher initiative alternative to the Pioniere. Good when you encounter only minimally entrenched enemies. When you hit the heavy entrenchment, or forts and strongpoints, it's all about the pionieres no doubt.

[Horseman]

I like Grenadiers as a cheaper, higher initiative alternative to the Pioniere. Good when you encounter only minimally entrenched enemies. When you hit the heavy entrenchment, or forts and strongpoints, it's all about the pionieres no doubt.

Agreed, I've found Grenadiers manage to get the job done more often than not

[Kaiser]

I don't even bother with bonus cities unless they are empty, then it's easy money.

Otherwise ignore them, it's not worth 50. and I agree - VH should be worth 100.

[OxfordGuy3]

Actually there's really no reason to use Grenadiers at all.
The 43' Grenadiers do have +1 hard attack compared to Pioniere 43', but they do not ignore entrenchment bonus.
Pre-43' Pioniere are superior all the other Infantry in my mind.
Panzer Grenadiers do not have any special abilities.

Yes, but there is a cheap upgrade path from Wehrmacht Infantry to Grenadiers, whereas you have to pay full cost for Pioneers - obviously not so much of an issue if buying new units, but if upgrading and on a difficulty level where prestige is scarce, this could be important.

[Fimconte]

Actually there's really no reason to use Grenadiers at all.
The 43' Grenadiers do have +1 hard attack compared to Pioniere 43', but they do not ignore entrenchment bonus.
Pre-43' Pioniere are superior all the other Infantry in my mind.
Panzer Grenadiers do not have any special abilities.

Yes, but there is a cheap upgrade path from Wehrmacht Infantry to Grenadiers, whereas you have to pay full cost for Pioneers - obviously not so much of an issue if buying new units, but if upgrading and on a difficulty level where prestige is scarce, this could be important.

In my first two campaigns I simply disbanded the starting Core Wehrmacht Infantries. You lose some of the experience gained in Poland, but in the long run it's a better choice in my mind.
Now I just play my modified campaign start and cherry pick my own troop composition.