What kind of units are useless in game ?

[hurly]

... the Enemy Air Force comes in Waves (Turn 5 or 6 , Turn 9 or 10, Turn 13) In my early attempts with lower patched Versions I also had the impression Enemy Air is down and out early, but also possible I missed the Wave pattern completely

Not "waves" in this scenario. Only 3 local air-group:
- first (Nord-East) : 3 SF IX+VB
- second (South): 4 SF IX + Mosq
- third (far Center) : 2 SF IX+VB and Typhoon.

And yet, 2 useless Lancasters. In Desert. Very historical.

whatever you use for your infos, I assume the editor


I recommend you to watch the replay of the Scenario and then tell me again there are no waves

also if you find any Lancaster in the replay that would be some mayor achievement

and Axis troops entering Baghdad can't be historic in any way so what ?

[Yrfin]

whatever you use for your infos, I assume the editor


I recommend you to watch the replay of the Scenario and then tell me again there are no waves
I dont care about yours replays. I have Panzer Corps Scenario Editor (Its legal). It good enouth for me.

also if you find any Lancaster in the replay that would be some mayor achievement

and Axis troops entering Baghdad can't be historic in any way so what ?

So, what kind of units are useless in game ?
Yep,
5. Noobs (like you).

[hurly]

whatever you use for your infos, I assume the editor


I recommend you to watch the replay of the Scenario and then tell me again there are no waves
I dont care about yours replays. I have Panzer Corps Scenario Editor (Its legal). It good enouth for me.

also if you find any Lancaster in the replay that would be some mayor achievement

and Axis troops entering Baghdad can't be historic in any way so what ?

So, what kind of units are useless in game ?
Yep,
5. Noobs (like you).

Just what I assumed in the First Place

You are a troll


Good that anybody here knows it now as well

[goose_2]

I have not read all through this thread as it seemed to start giving some spoilers I am trying to avoid, but here is my overall assessment as to the idea of this thread.

I am like most players in that I have certain units that I favor over others and certain classes of units that I favor over others, but it is my assessment that...

There are no useless units in the game.

Every unit has a place and a value that an asset that either has not been discovered and utilized or is being overlooked in favor of other units.

In my play of multiplayer and watching of different players on line as well as discussions on this excellent forum I have come to the conclusion every unit has it's plusses and minuses and if you do not know how to utilize a units strengths and overcome a units weaknesses that is your fault, not the games.

For example: (And there are a ton in this great game.)
I used to not like recons at all in the game. (Still have not found much use for them much past 1940 in the grand campaign, but am open to instruction in this area.)
But my lessons in multiplayer versus Mkoki have showcased to me that they are an integral and very versatile unit to utilize in your probing and attacking force, especially the way we play.

So, if I am still learning things about units even know after over 2300 hours of gameplay than this emphasizes to me that this game has no useless units only useless players.

[Yrfin]

this game has no useless units only useless players.

Bingo ! You're win 3.7 Pak36.

[proline]

There are no useless units in the game.

over 2300 hours of gameplay than this emphasizes to me that this game has no useless units only useless players.

Over generalization is the easiest way to be dead wrong. Tell me again what purpose the Marder 3 / Hetzer series serves? They are vastly inferior to the Stug 3, come out later, and the price difference is minimal. When you are done, tell me what role a Ta 152 serves considering they cost 635 to upgrade from a Fw190 which is nearly as good, and come out well after the vastly superior Me 262. As a non-useless player, I look forward to your answer.

[nikivdd]

1. Recon units.
2. AA units.
3. S.Bombers
4. Developers team.
5. Noobs.

Anything else ?

1. Unlike Fantasy General, this game does not check if you have a balanced army or not, but i consider recons pretty useful. They can do their thing rather easy in the first DLCs, later they are among the AI's favorite snacks. Still, scouting is important to avoid unpleasant situations.
2. AA units are important to protect the weaker units (esp. artillery) as fighters are not aways able to screen your entire army against enemy bombers.
3. Strategic bombers can surpress enemy units, drain them of ammo and as a result it is easier to get the enemy to surrender. Especially in the later DLCs i consider them extremely helpful against the heavy Soviet armor.
4. Perhaps i am useless in the game, although i haven't found any unit with my name on it.
5. Noobs are an enrichment to this community. I think for 6 years of Panzer Corps we have been helping the newcomers pretty well.

[robman]

The only subtype that I never use is (you guessed it) towed AT. AT would be more useful (and IMHO more accurately modeled) if it provided defensive fire to other units attacked by tanks. That would make it easier to draw armor into an AT ambush, which after all was a very popular tactic in real life. Another Ask for PzC II!

[Cerberus51]

There are no useless units in the game.

over 2300 hours of gameplay than this emphasizes to me that this game has no useless units only useless players.

Over generalization is the easiest way to be dead wrong. Tell me again what purpose the Marder 3 / Hetzer series serves? They are vastly inferior to the Stug 3, come out later, and the price difference is minimal. When you are done, tell me what role a Ta 152 serves considering they cost 635 to upgrade from a Fw190 which is nearly as good, and come out well after the vastly superior Me 262. As a non-useless player, I look forward to your answer.

You are (deliberately?) mixing two different issues. The thread started on the question of categories of unit, ie recon, strat bomber, etc. On that question the quoted statement is perfectly reasonable.

The issue you are introducing, that particular units are useless because a better alternative exists, is pretty self-evident. Many individual units are in the game because they existed historically and players have the choice of using them. But the reasons they were used historically are not modelled in the game so there is no practical reason for using them, only an opportunity to do so.

[proline]

There are no useless units in the game.

over 2300 hours of gameplay than this emphasizes to me that this game has no useless units only useless players.

Over generalization is the easiest way to be dead wrong. Tell me again what purpose the Marder 3 / Hetzer series serves? They are vastly inferior to the Stug 3, come out later, and the price difference is minimal. When you are done, tell me what role a Ta 152 serves considering they cost 635 to upgrade from a Fw190 which is nearly as good, and come out well after the vastly superior Me 262. As a non-useless player, I look forward to your answer.

You are (deliberately?) mixing two different issues. The thread started on the question of categories of unit, ie recon, strat bomber, etc. On that question the quoted statement is perfectly reasonable.

The issue you are introducing, that particular units are useless because a better alternative exists, is pretty self-evident. Many individual units are in the game because they existed historically and players have the choice of using them. But the reasons they were used historically are not modelled in the game so there is no practical reason for using them, only an opportunity to do so.

So you are unable to defend your statement? That's fine. You should have said there are no useless classes in the game, but you didn't. You said units, and you said it multiple times.

[Cerberus51]

So you are unable to defend your statement? That's fine. You should have said there are no useless classes in the game, but you didn't. You said units, and you said it multiple times.

You are the second person to go on my ignore list for your comments in this thread. I could say what I really think but you aren't worth getting banned over.

[Yrfin]

The thread started on the question of categories of unit, ie recon, strat bomber, etc.

Im agreed with Cerberus51. It was question about Category of units, not about stats of individual Unit.

[hurly]

You are (deliberately?) mixing two different issues. The thread started on the question of categories of unit, ie recon, strat bomber, etc. On that question the quoted statement is perfectly reasonable.

The issue you are introducing, that particular units are useless because a better alternative exists, is pretty self-evident. Many individual units are in the game because they existed historically and players have the choice of using them. But the reasons they were used historically are not modelled in the game so there is no practical reason for using them, only an opportunity to do so.

So you are unable to defend your statement? That's fine. You should have said there are no useless classes in the game, but you didn't. You said units, and you said it multiple times.

hm it was not his statement in the first Place so why should he defend it ?
he offers his opinion and I don't understand that aggressive undertone in your argument.
Shall we all fall back to the level of the original poster ?
This community is way way above that

Well now back to your original answer to goose's statement

I think you really mix up a two categories
Is a certain unit absolutely useless or does it make no sense fiscally to acquire one cause a better one is available for the same price or with an upgrade path.

Let me elaborate on the TA 152 example (as I never bought one of the Marder AT)


I'll give you the point that I probably won't buy a Ta 152 for several reasons. It has no family that you can upgrade to it for cheap, its prize is probably ok when you just compare green to green unit, but it comes too late so the Me262 is certainly the better option. So much for the economical part of the Unit

Now the Combat Value
Even you said its just slightly better than a FW190. Well how can you say such a unit is useless. A FW 190 is some pretty strong and good Unit for me and while not top notch anymore late in the war you can still use it.
And that's true for the Ta 152 as well
You get one in the GC West in 43 in the Messina Scenario albeit with pretty good hero right away, but that's true for other fighters as well.
I just looked my latest (still available) savegame of the GC West 45 --- Sealion 45 Turn 2 and of my 9 Fighters available it's the only fighter unit not upgraded into a Me 262 or even an a Go 229 (I couldn't resist to upgrade a few of them but not really convinced it was wort the Prestige, but that's just me) and it's 3rd in my Fighter Kill Count just behind Bar and Kittel sitting in a Me 262 (and around much much longer awarded even before the GC West even starts)
It has 763 kills going into this final scenario with a kill / loss ratio of 12/1 which is not really outstanding but considering my playing style not sheltering Fighters and a loz of head to head Air Attacks with Enemy Fighters this is pretty good.

So how can you say this unit is useless ?
Are there better alternatives ? Absolutely
Would I buy One when it appears in the Timeline ? Probably Not
Is it a bargain or economically responsible to get one ? Certainly Not
Is it a a decent Unit still ? Of course it is

So back to the goose Thesis

There are no useless units in the game

I have seen guys here making a good point in acquiring Volkssturm Units as cannonfodder to draw enemy fire away from more valuable units. I think that's a great idea to employ especially in the Berlin and Berlin Redux Scenarios.
Nobody would argue this makes great fighters out of these Volkssturm Units, but drawing away enemy fire from targets like a wurfrahmen or other Arty maybe saving an upgraded Tiger 2 1 or 2 Overstrength points is a great bargain if you ask me. So investing these 70 PP on a unit that only serves as a "Take one for the Team"" Target makes it useful after all

So I'm completely with goose
All Units may serve a purpose but it probably takes some off the chart thinking to make it work.
Speaking for myself I'm always open for new ideas and learn stuff from other players and these must not necessarily be the brilliant ones of the braccada and goose category. Even moderate players that have deficiencies in certain aspects of their skillset come up with great ideas regularly that even the really good players can learn from. Maybe that's an ability that separates the great ones from the good ones.

One thing I can say from my Panzer Corps experience and I have played all Campaigns and DLC available.
There is always something you can do better, your style of play as well as your set of tactics never will be perfect and even as it as close as possible to perfection NO ONE will do the right move every turn with every unit on the field.
Not even mentioning the random bad rolls or the change of weather which can make the life of a PC Player really miserable

[Yrfin]

The only subtype that I never use is (you guessed it) towed AT. AT would be more useful (and IMHO more accurately modeled) if it provided defensive fire to other units attacked by tanks. That would make it easier to draw armor into an AT ambush, which after all was a very popular tactic in real life. Another Ask for PzC II!

First- we'll never see PzC II (Im sure).
And i think about - what if made small AT towed more flexibility, with "camo" in dual-mode ?

[captainjack]

I've played a few mods which give camo to AT but for me it doesn't seem to fix the main problem, which is that they never get into action. Increasing base move to 2 makes towed AT a lot more useful as they can actually get into combat and keep up with infantry. I'm using a move-hero AT gun in AK and it's doing a good job as it can actually get into action, which camo trait doesn't help with on its own.

Things I would like to see that would need underlying rules changes would include: same entrenchment rate and limits as infantry, +3 defensive initiative against tanks whether attacking or defending and possibly providing some defensive benefit to adjacent units (this could be something a bit like radar bonus - eg +2 defence against tank class to all units next to unit, or +1 ini against tanks rather than defensive fire).

Meanwhile the combination of base 2 move, maybe +1 ini, and possibly a slight increase in GD and AD (for the smaller ones which are relatively easy to conceal) and improving the upgrade paths can all be done through the equipment files.

As to Marders and Hetzers. At least marders are quite effective, they just cost a lot because of poor upgrade paths and only remain a good choice for a very short time - fine if you have a lot of prestige to spare, otherwise it's better to wait for Stugs. And on hetzers and other units that are outclassed by the time they become available, playing with units that look rubbish can be a very good way to learn how to use what you have to its best. But I'm not volunteering to write the Hetzer DLC!

[Yrfin]

I've played a few mods which give camo to AT but for me it doesn't seem to fix the main problem, which is that they never get into action. Increasing base move to 2 makes towed AT a lot more useful as they can actually get into combat and keep up with infantry. I'm using a move-hero AT gun in AK and it's doing a good job as it can actually get into action, which camo trait doesn't help with on its own.
Things I would like to see that would need underlying rules changes would include: same entrenchment rate and limits as infantry, +3 defensive initiative against tanks whether attacking or defending and possibly providing some defensive benefit to adjacent units (this could be something a bit like radar bonus - eg +2 defence against tank class to all units next to unit, or +1 ini against tanks rather than defensive fire).

Meanwhile the combination of base 2 move, maybe +1 ini, and possibly a slight increase in GD and AD (for the smaller ones which are relatively easy to conceal) and improving the upgrade paths can all be done through the equipment files.

I think so, move 2 for small AT will be usefull. And i think about switchable "ambush" mode for small AT must be usefull in defense action, not in attack action.
In my vision, small AT must be dual-purpose (I mean switchable). I call it "ambush mode" - +2 GD, +2 ini, camo, move =0 in defense.
And maybe its need change Series Trait for small AT (for future Marders upgrade line, not for StuG). Also i think about change RoF.

As to Marders and Hetzers. At least marders are quite effective, they just cost a lot because of poor upgrade paths and only remain a good choice for a very short time - fine if you have a lot of prestige to spare, otherwise it's better to wait for Stugs. And on hetzers and other units that are outclassed by the time they become available, playing with units that look rubbish can be a very good way to learn how to use what you have to its best. But I'm not volunteering to write the Hetzer DLC!

As for small AT (SF) like Marders/Hetzer series, i think about add reconmove for it. But not sure, it must be tested. Id make small scenario for this and now testing it.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Towed AT, if you are playing those defensive scenarios where there are rivers and lots of enemy tanks, can be extremely useful, especially the 88 one you get in '43. Park two, a flak and an arty behind a river, the enemy doesn't ever get through. That setup saved my flanks a bunch of times in '44 East.

Also, flak is very useful as an alternative to an airforce (especially late in the war, when the AI gets absurd numbers of fighters and flaks of its own). I had about 10 for most of '44 East, and combined with a single hero fighter (5*, so it never died), the enemy wasn't able to use its bombers pretty much at all.

When you're attacking, these strategies obviously don't work very well, but I think these examples show that no unit is really 'useless' - just that they aren't very effective in certain situations. I haven't yet found a way to make recon work that can't be done by aircraft, but I'm sure there is a way for that too.

- BNC

[Yrfin]

I haven't yet found a way to make recon work that can't be done by aircraft, but I'm sure there is a way for that too.

- BNC

I think about make Recon Class more usefull, this is my vision.
Recon must have 'Unique' abilities - its not be light tank with reconmove.
So, what we can do for this ?
Flexibility. I made for testing, recon unit with triple-switch (standart action, extend vision (S=4, M=0) and AA mode).
And long range (opportunity for aircraft with short range). And i remove reconmove from my recon-aircrafts.

-

[proline]

hm it was not his statement in the first Place so why should he defend it ?

The statement below is his:

There are no useless units in the game.

Every unit has a place and a value that an asset that either has not been discovered and utilized or is being overlooked in favor of other units.

So, if I am still learning things about units even know after over 2300 hours of gameplay than this emphasizes to me that this game has no useless units only useless players.

This is an indefensible statement, and his defense, that despite having 2300 hours of experience he still repeatedly uses the word unit when he means class, is laughable. It's pretty clear he actually was talking about individual units, such as in the middle statement. He could have simply accepted that he his statement was indefensible and apologized for calling other players useless. He didn't have the maturity to do that.

[hurly]

hm it was not his statement in the first Place so why should he defend it ?

The statement below is his:

There are no useless units in the game.

Every unit has a place and a value that an asset that either has not been discovered and utilized or is being overlooked in favor of other units.

So, if I am still learning things about units even know after over 2300 hours of gameplay than this emphasizes to me that this game has no useless units only useless players.

This is an indefensible statement, and his defense, that despite having 2300 hours of experience he still repeatedly uses the word unit when he means class, is laughable. It's pretty clear he actually was talking about individual units, such as in the middle statement. He could have simply accepted that he his statement was indefensible and apologized for calling other players useless. He didn't have the maturity to do that.

and why did you attack the user cerberus for a comment under the statement of goose ?
he did nothing but offer his opinion, if you have a beef with what goose said tell him not cerberus
although I might add I still don't get why you are so angry about this (Maybe try to read it again and read between the lines bit, especially the second part of the statement is most likely not about classes or units at all but I'm sure goose can really tell you more). Especially in this thread there are posts which inherit way more reasons to get angry about.

added the link to the relevant post cause just quoting it, is not really helpful anymore with so many quotes involved
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 48#p641748