Any tips for using StuG/Marder type units?

[Tomcat84]

Maybe it's cause I'm still in a mostly offensive part of the German campaign, but I'm not having much luck using self propelled AT guns (like the Marders or StuG F etc) very well compared to my regular Panzers.
This applies even in the more defensive scenarios encountered so far (Kharkov 42 and Escape from Stalingrad).

I try to position them effectively but the enemy usually just attacks somewhere else with their tanks. And then if I want to go over there on my turn to tackle them, the results just seem lackluster (maybe due to initiative penalty after moving) when compared to my Panzer IV F.2 / G type units. Those seem more mobile, can overrun units and do well against infantry. I know that the regular tanks are more expensive but I am at a point where I would rather have one Panzer IV G than two Marders/StuGs.

I'm sure that there are better ways to use them though so I would love to hear any tips/best practices you guys have. Or do they really just come into their own more once I go squarely on the defensive (taking the historical path).

Thanks!

[SineMora]

A heavy tank supported by AT is nigh impossible to push through w/o substantial artillery and/or air power for suppression. The AI doesn't really do combined arms so you can shut down entire avenues of advance with limited means this way, and it's a more cost-efficient solution than trying to use heavy artillery for support. In more open environments AT is less of a tool to score kills and more of an area denier in that the AI is more restrictive about pushing into frontlines supported by it -- you'll need tanks to hold your line but you don't want to trade blows as that's wasteful, so if that IS2 opts not to attack your Tiger because the AI doesn't like the AT sitting behind it you won't need to repair it and can just bomb the IS2 instead.

Unless the weather is favourable ATs shouldn't be attacking unless they enjoy a massive advantage in stats because of the initiative penalty, but that's not really what you get them for. Note that getting overrun on ATs is easy if you want it, just like with recons.

[dalfrede]

AT is defensive. Your Tiger I doesn't need it.
They protect Infantry and Recon out on the front line.
They act like AA except against tanks.

If you have a massive tank army rolling over everything they may not be necessary.
If you have an infantry army to clear out a city, AT will protect your flanks.

Flame tanks tend to be vulnerable to heavier tanks and can use the protection.

AT is also cheaper than equivalent tank, so you can get more of them for the same price.

The StuG3G [GD=22] ignores infantry attacks when on clear terrain, so works well as part of encirclement.

[PoorOldSpike]

Regarding open-topped SPAT's like the Marder, Wolverine, Archer etc, they're realistically very fragile when under arty bombardment.

[econ21]

I am not sure how PC2 is in the endgame scenarios, but in the PC GC from 1943 onwards, Soviet armour could wreck PzIVs. The AT support ability might allow them to be used for longer. Kursk would be where I would imagine SPAT might shine.

So far - up to Stalingrad - I haven't been too threatened by Soviet armour in PC2. The exception was Kiev - crossing that Northern river was a very risky proposition and I don't think I could have done it without AT support.

I am not sure about the relative power of 150mm AT support vs SPAT support. If it is anything like PC, the SPAT will be much more effective but I think that's true in PC2 but am not sure (maybe 150mm artillery suppresses, SPAT kills?). StuGs are much more manoeuvrable and very robust against infantry, and even it seems air.

In Stalingrad, I basically used my StugIIIFs as roadblocks - my advance was very narrow, so parked the StugIIIFs on exposed airfields or bridges. (I had a nightmare about the AI taking a forward airfield in bad weather and wiping out the Luftwaffe, but I don't think it is that smart.)

[panzeh]

I am not sure how PC2 is in the endgame scenarios, but in the PC GC from 1943 onwards, Soviet armour could wreck PzIVs. The AT support ability might allow them to be used for longer. Kursk would be where I would imagine SPAT might shine.

So far - up to Stalingrad - I haven't been too threatened by Soviet armour in PC2. The exception was Kiev - crossing that Northern river was a very risky proposition and I don't think I could have done it without AT support.

I am not sure about the relative power of 150mm AT support vs SPAT support. If it is anything like PC, the SPAT will be much more effective but I think that's true in PC2 but am not sure (maybe 150mm artillery suppresses, SPAT kills?). StuGs are much more manoeuvrable and very robust against infantry, and even it seems air.

In Stalingrad, I basically used my StugIIIFs as roadblocks - my advance was very narrow, so parked the StugIIIFs on exposed airfields or bridges. (I had a nightmare about the AI taking a forward airfield in bad weather and wiping out the Luftwaffe, but I don't think it is that smart.)

155mm AT support is not very effective against tanks outside the 39-40 scenarios, i've found.

[SineMora]

I should add that if you're using the Panzer General trait this calculation largely goes out the window, because it screws up the balance not only between tanks and ATs but between different types of tanks. The Panzer IVH and IVJ (basically the backbone of the Wehrmacht tanks) require 5 core slots, Tigers and Panthers require 7, and Elefants (high-end ATs) require 6. However, with Panzer General the Panzer IVs drop to 4 slots, but crucially Tiger and Panther tanks drop to 5, making them extremely attractive. They benefit from having their cost rounded down (from 5.25 to 5) whereas the cost of the Panzer IVs are rounded up (3.75 to 4).

[PoorOldSpike]

..if I want to go over there on my turn to tackle them, the results just seem lackluster (maybe due to initiative penalty after moving) when compared to my Panzer IV F.2 / G type units.

SPAT's were historically mainly defensive weapons because they could be statically sited with a good field of fire to meet an incoming threat, but they're not so hot when used on the offensive because their lack of a turret meant they were usually clumsy in a fluid tank fight because they had to keep being pivoted to try to bring their guns to bear, that's why in most wargames they're much better in the defence than on the attack.

[Kerensky]

SPAT's were historically mainly defensive weapons because they could be statically sited with a good field of fire to meet an incoming threat, but they're not so hot when used on the offensive because their lack of a turret meant they were usually clumsy in a fluid tank fight because they had to keep being pivoted to try to bring their guns to bear, that's why in most wargames they're much better in the defence than on the attack.

This is simulated in Panzer Corps 2, albeit subtly.

AT units get big initiative penalties if they attack after moving.

[Hemi]

If you play the campaign with the denied air force trait, it's a great teacher to using AT because without Stukas those Somuas, Char Bs, and Matilda IIs are hard nuts to crack. Deploy them where you can adjacent to infantry and armor that may invite an armored attack.

The hero skill where the unit always attacks first is great on AT. Playing a tank until it gets steamroller then converting it to AT is also useful though you take an experience penalty.

I would not have made it through North Africa without a strong AT corps. Seriously play through France without an air force. It changed how I approach things. Mostly in how I use the support units - AA, AT, and artillery.

[Kerensky]

If you play the campaign with the denied air force trait, it's a great teacher to using AT because without Stukas those Somuas, Char Bs, and Matilda IIs are hard nuts to crack. Deploy them where you can adjacent to infantry and armor that may invite an armored attack.

The hero skill where the unit always attacks first is great on AT. Playing a tank until it gets steamroller then converting it to AT is also useful though you take an experience penalty.

I would not have made it through North Africa without a strong AT corps. Seriously play through France without an air force. It changed how I approach things. Mostly in how I use the support units - AA, AT, and artillery.

I recall a similar experience.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=95487

[kverdon]

I tend to use AT units in a diamond formation with the AT being the base of the diamond. This works well on the attack as it limits enemy counter attacks. A Diamond of 3 panzer or 2 panzer one inf backed by an mobile AT is a tough nut to crack.

[Vanha]

I tend to use AT units in a diamond formation with the AT being the base of the diamond. This works well on the attack as it limits enemy counter attacks. A Diamond of 3 panzer or 2 panzer one inf backed by an mobile AT is a tough nut to crack.

Same here... love my AT-traps!