infantry units

[PaulJohann]

Hi,
may be I missed something but where can I find a detailed description of the characteristics of the varios infantry units?
Dont mean the pure numbers as given in the respective data sheets but their specifics (movement, combat, entrenchment, etc).
Has anybody put this together somewhere? Cant find it in the FAQ or the general forum.
Thanks
Paul

[brettz123]

Not much to tell. Below is what is off the top of my head so I could be wrong or have missed something.

Pioniere are bunker busters and ignore entrenchment.

I believe paratroopers also are bunker busters. Other then that not sure anyone else has any special rules (well bridging guys can put bridges across large rivers so that can be useful)

[huertgenwald]

If i'm not mistaken, bridge units don't get penalized fighting on river hexes, right ?

[brettz123]

If i'm not mistaken, bridge units don't get penalized fighting on river hexes, right ?

To be honest they suck so bad at fighting I never even looked into it.

[Kamerer]

I believe their defense is not penalized when they are on a river hex; their attack value is so low - two I think - the lack of the penalty applying doesn't matter much (like brettz123 implied). And it would only apply when attacking a river hex, so that would be pretty rare, perhaps a nearby opponent forced to retreat into an adjacent river hex by another axis unit (I have had that happen, then destroyed the unit with the pionieres).

[huertgenwald]

To be honest they suck so bad at fighting I never even looked into it.

In the early war years they seem acceptable to me. Since they can't be upgraded to a '43 version later on they are only useful for taking shortcuts.

Any comment from the "Powers that Be" on the german bridging units ?

[Mooseman]

If i'm not mistaken, bridge units don't get penalized fighting on river hexes, right ?

Those Soviet bridge engineers are tough little cookies. It's gotten to the point that I treat them like a porcupine, they are best avoided unless you're really worried about the bridge crossing liability....

[Rudankort]

If i'm not mistaken, bridge units don't get penalized fighting on river hexes, right ?

Right.

[huertgenwald]

Right.

Thx Rudankort, but what i meant with my question:

a) Why aren't german bridging units upgradeable ?

b) What's your stance to change this in the future ?

@Public: Am i the only one having that wish

[Rudankort]

Thx Rudankort, but what i meant with my question:

a) Why aren't german bridging units upgradeable ?

b) What's your stance to change this in the future ?

Well, unlike other units, bridge engineers are not really supposed to fight the enemies, and their primary duty of bridging they perform equally well in 1939 and 1945. So why would you want to spend money and upgrade them? What stats are we supposed to give to the 43 version, anyway?

[brettz123]

Thx Rudankort, but what i meant with my question:

a) Why aren't german bridging units upgradeable ?

b) What's your stance to change this in the future ?

Well, unlike other units, bridge engineers are not really supposed to fight the enemies, and their primary duty of bridging they perform equally well in 1939 and 1945. So why would you want to spend money and upgrade them? What stats are we supposed to give to the 43 version, anyway?

A better question might be why they have such bad stats compared to allied versions?

[Rudankort]

A better question might be why they have such bad stats compared to allied versions?

Do they? I've just quickly checked british and US engineers, and they seem almost identical to me. OK, US guys have 1 more soft attack (3 vs. 2), compared to germans, and brits have 1 more air defense (18 vs. 17), but that's it. It's a huge difference?

[brettz123]

A better question might be why they have such bad stats compared to allied versions?

Do they? I've just quickly checked british and US engineers, and they seem almost identical to me. OK, US guys have 1 more soft attack (3 vs. 2), compared to germans, and brits have 1 more air defense (18 vs. 17), but that's it. It's a huge difference?

Certainly seems to be in the game . But yes I would say a 150% increase in a stat is somewhat significant. And what about the Russians?

[Rudankort]

Certainly seems to be in the game . But yes I would say a 150% increase in a stat is somewhat significant. And what about the Russians?

Russians are even worse. And no, 150% increase is not significant, because combat formulas are linear. It is the minimal difference possible, and it won't have any dramatic effects.

[Chris10]

I think its the general perception and idea of the Bridge Unit which is the issue here.
In PG I always understood the BridgeEngeneers was a regular HW Infantry with a bridge unit attached,which resembles pretty much historical conditions. Same holded true for the Pioniere in PG...they were HW Infantry with Pio unit attached ignoring entrenchment.
What differed Bridge/Pionier from HW in PG was only the HardAttack which was higher with the HW Infantry.
I always perceived this approach as natural and players had always a healthy mix of HW,Pio and Bridge in PG cause they all worthed their money,served a purpose and deserved their core slot
In PzC however they have been reduced to a mere bridge unit which obviously has limited fighting ability.
To be honest..I have skipped this unit entirely in all games cause it seems worthless, does not stand his ground, can not successful attack anything and only occupys a core slot...I go look for bridges instead

[brettz123]

I think its the general perception and idea of the Bridge Unit which is the issue here.
In PG I always understood the BridgeEngeneers was a regular HW Infantry with a bridge unit attached,which resembles pretty much historical conditions. Same holded true for the Pioniere in PG...they were HW Infantry with Pio unit attached ignoring entrenchment.
What differed Bridge/Pionier from HW in PG was only the HardAttack which was higher with the HW Infantry.
I always perceived this approach as natural and players had always a healthy mix of HW,Pio and Bridge in PG cause they all worthed their money,served a purpose and deserved their core slot
In PzC however they have been reduced to a mere bridge unit which obviously has limited fighting ability.
To be honest..I have skipped this unit entirely in all games cause it seems worthless, does not stand his ground, can not successful attack anything and only occupys a core slot...I go look for bridges instead

Yeah what he said......

[Rudankort]

In PG I did not buy any other infantry but bridge engineers. Had something like 8 of them by the end of the campaign, and no other infantry. If anything is not normal, it should be that. Bridge engineer in PzC has its place, not all people use it, but many surely do. PzC game rules allow you to deploy one when it is needed, not carry it around in every scenario, so I don't see a problem really.

[Chris10]

In PG I did not buy any other infantry but bridge engineers. Had something like 8 of them by the end of the campaign, and no other infantry. If anything is not normal, it should be that. Bridge engineer in PzC has its place, not all people use it, but many surely do. PzC game rules allow you to deploy one when it is needed, not carry it around in every scenario, so I don't see a problem really.

hey,look what we have here...a little game mechanic exploiter
nobody forced you to buy only bridge in PG ...btw they had upgrade to 43 too AFAIR
I always had 2 bridge and 2 Pio in PG in the later game..rest HW Inf due to higher HA

[dragos]

In PG I always understood the BridgeEngeneers was a regular HW Infantry with a bridge unit attached

In PG bridge engineers ignored enemy entrenchment as well as Pioniere. Thus they were more like Pioniere with bridge unit attached. Thus instead of 2 Eng and 2 Pio you were beter off with 4 Eng if prestige allowed.

[huertgenwald]

What stats are we supposed to give to the 43 version, anyway?

I'd expect something similiar to the other '43 infantries.

Since they aren't exactly into tank busting, i suggest 5 SA and 2 HA ?

Guess, i have to do it myself.