Thoughts/learning points after first campaign.

[Horseman]

Well I've finally done it first campaign completed with a resounding triumph on the west coast of America!

WARNING: This is a bit of a long post - sorry!

Here are some of my thoughts on the game as well as things I learned......

I normally play "normal" level on my first play through of a new game just to get an idea about mechanics. I was going to start at General but then couldn't decide on traits so in the end opted to have 7 free trait points and picked generalissimo to balance it out.

Trait choices:
Panzer General - More unit slots, yes please!
Infantry General - See above (in all honestly this one is a bit of a wash. Ultimately I had 6 infantry through the bulk of the campaign saving me a whooping 6 slots, not exactly game breaking but would be more useful to those who like more infantry)
Killer team - More hero's? Yes please!
Master of blitzkrieg - Faster tanks, always nice to be able to zip around (and definitely useful when you get into Tiger II territory). The ability to "ford" rivers was mostly overlooked when I picked this trait BUT in hindsight is probably actually the biggest draw to this perk choice. How many defensive lines on river crossings where outflanked by my Panzers? Oh so many!

Panzer General starts quite weak - its the difference between fielding Pz38t's rather than PzI's but later on its stronger as your tanks become better and more slot heavy.
Killer team starts very strong if you reload until you get a reasonable group of hero's. If you don't and just accept what comes its a gamble how good it is to start. Depending what 3 hero's you get last as well really determines how good it was as a choice. Out of all the perks I'd say this one is a gamble (but a fun one)

There are lots of fun and interesting perks to choose from and some interesting negative ones too. On my next run I'll definitely drop the number of free traits to the default and take a negative or two. I really like the trait system as it stands, some look a lot stronger now I've had a play through (the Super4 as named by Edmon for example).

Units
Infantry: Infantry feel a lot more balanced than from PC1. They are fearsome in close terrain and terribly vulnerable in open terrain. However as I've already discussed in a different post the gulf between Pioneers and other infantry is to large when its comes to close terrain fighting. I'm not sure what the solution is to this.

For most of my campaign I stuck to 2xPioneers, 2xGrenadiers and 2xWehr infantry. I had Pioneers in half tracks pretty much as soon as they were available. The grenadiers had them mostly but sometimes lost them if I wanted cores slots and the Wehr eventually got them later on. I found my Pioneers were doing the majority of the work with this set up with the others either just acting as screening forces or taking heavy loses when I used them to attack. Moscow was really the wake up call - with only 2 Pioneers my Grenadiers and Wehr infantry had to shoulder some of the burden and they took heavy loses and needed reinforcement several times. For Stalingrad and London I bit the bullet and upgraded all my infantry to Pioneers which still feels a little gamey.

Infantry gets an upgrade is 1943 - Most notably an increase to CD and to HA. The latter is more important than it first looks as many late game tanks come with some CD so you'll be thankful for the increase to help you kill a few!

Late war (the last scenario on the alt historical path) you gain access to Volksgrenadiers and Volksstrum. I think they'd both be more useful on defensive scenarios in the historical path but I did upgrade my Grenadiers to the former and my Wehr to the later (this gained me 4 unit slots!)

Brucken pioniere's I only used a couple of times (Master of Blitzkrieg saved me needing them more) and were also the only unit I got killed (they got ballsy acting as a screen!) I do think that they would have been useful in crossing the Mississippi river!

Tanks: The opposite of the infantry - fearsome in open terrain and vulnerable in close! Early war I made the (IMO) mistake of upgrading all my tanks to the Pz38t as it had the best stats and thanks to Panzer General has the same slot cost as even the PzI. This is a bit of a trap as The PzI and PzII have rapid fire and this can make them way more effective at killing soft targets. And the Polish do not have a great number of tanks. Important learning point here, its worth checking unit traits and not just looking at raw numbers!

As the war progressed I couldn't just upgrade everything to the most powerful due to slot cost and I liked that. Some "trap" units here and there - PzIIIJ1 costs an extra slot for not that much of an improvement on the PzIIIJ . But also a hidden gem for Stalingrad - the IIIN has a CD of 6 making it useful to help form a battle line as you push through (just don't expect too much if you try to attack entrenched infantry with it!)

I ended up with a pair of Tiger IIs (both became e75 for last scenario) and 4 Panthers. I skipped the Mause as just too slow for offensive action IMO. I did end up with a pair of Vigilance hero's fairly early on which greatly aided my push - they were better than my infantry for leading attacks on fortified hexes!

Artillery: My Dad once told me (way back when I started wargaming) that the first thing you always need to buy in any game is at least one more artillery. With that in mind I think you have some good options. Ultimately I think the 15cm towed guns (upgraded to Hummels later on) provide the "best" core here. Its the heaviest calibre to offer defence against soft targets and also defends against hard (although as the war progresses you don't want to be relying on that too much!) I did have one 21cm until quite late for some counter battery fire which is useful but I also kept forgetting it wouldn't protect against soft targets which led to a few casualties. Ultimately it became a Hummel but I had something a little better for counter battery fire......

I never purchased Karl Gerat (I feel it moves a little slow for offensive actions) but I suspect it would have been useful for the city clearing fights. I did purchase Gustav (because I didn't realise I had an aux unit) to do some bunker busting! I actually upgraded one of my Artillery (some nebelwurfers) so it had it some XP and had fully intended to "upgrade" it back for the next mission but alas I didn't realise until after that you can't "upgrade" it. Loathe to give away XP I kept on using it gaining a counter battery hero (my oh my) It never landed in America or participated in the mid west but did come back for the last scenario. Its great and its OP. Not sure I'd buy it again just because its a little gamey.

I did use one unit of Nebelwurfers (until they morphed into Gustav) and did use one unit of Wurfrahmen40 for a time. Ultimately their lack of ammo caused me problems with how I like to play so I switched to more conventional artillery. They can be great and do way better than 15cm guns in softening up the target before you attack but yeah they just didn't suit me.

Anti-Tank: One of the weakest classes in PC1. I literally never used a towed gun and forced myself to buy some SPATs to have some unit diversity in that game. Oh how thats changed. I still never bought a towed gun BUT as I became more used to the "deploy after a move" feature I realised the towed guns will work just fine early war (and probably late war too) And actually a towed AT gun back by some good SA artillery is quite an obstacle to be moved especially if in the unholy defensive trio (AT, AA & Art) I used a pair of Spats throughout and they both finished as Jagdpanthers as I valued the speed over the raw armour on the Jagdtiger (plus they're not necessarily front line units..) Biggest learning here - THEY DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE FRONT LINE! Especially when infantry is lurking nearby. Until they get upgraded some they are also vulnerable to the better enemy tanks. Whilst they can work in a pinch to form a battle line they really do better in the 2nd line with your artillery to protect against armoured thrusts. Also they will not benefit from defensive fire against hard targets, plan carefully.

Recon: OK so IMO these were the real dog units of PC1 (I know others disagree) but once you have the inevitable slew of several spotting hero's amongst your front line troops these guys seemed obsolete. I hated them. I never used them. Ever.

I started with one, I soon bought a second. The sight range is good, the ability to move forward a bit to scout then move back is better, the ability to slip through enemy lines and back out again to get at that annoying unit is awesome. The bonus to accuracy is the cherry on top (even if I did constantly forget to move my recons 1st to get it!)

Use these guys...move them in. Splat with artillery then move them back out again if in a vulnerable spot. Oh how I cam to love my little scouts. I stuck with armoured cars as the PzII is a little slow and the Kradschutzen seem a little squishy.

Anti-Air: OK now these guys had uses in PC1, in the GC later years you'd be glad to have a few around. But they weren't exactly flashy. In PC2 they become more useful. There are three reasons for this.
1) They now protect up to their range (+1 if you can find a nice juicy hill)
2) The towed versions can now dismount after moving
3) All types can switch to an AT version to help out even when the skies are clear (or the weather is bad)

I had a 37mm towed one for a while but it was a little meh. I upgraded it to an 88 and then eventually bought a second. They were awesome. They helped immensely in the air war and also in dealing with those heavy Soviet tanks. They both got upgraded to 128mm for the American east coast but to be honest I felt it was a waste of unit slots, they did not seem to perform any better than the 88s. They were downgraded for the next scenario and then became the super mobile 88s for the last (oh man, I wish I had those all campaign!)
In the last scenario the protection they provided was invaluable (especially when I lost all my forward airbases in 1 turn which left me with no air cover for two turns!) and they certainly did their job in winning the air war. Because of the way AA now works i do believe denied air is perfectly viable (something I'll be testing soon) But you'd almost certainly want Veteran AA trait in that case.

Fighters: Nothing much to say here. Much like in PC1 (and historically) your fighters are more than a match for their opponents through most of the war. 4 Bf109s did the job with two upgraded to Fw190's when they became available. Once I hit Sealion I upgraded the last 2 as well and purchased a 5th. They all became the D9 version for the US invasion and a 6th unit was purchased. For midwest 2 became Jet fighters! and one a Dornier? (I forget its name, still a prop fighter but better!) Then finally for the last mission 4 state of the art jets and 2 Fw190d9's. This was one of the times where the slot system really shows its worth. I just couldn't justify all 6 fighters being top of the line and even though the d9's really struggled they were what I had and they did their job (one almost to destruction)

Tac bombers: No longer the assassins of PC1! I like the rebalance and whilst Ju87's are strong you can no longer rely on them to delete full strength heavy armour units like you could in the first game.

I used 2 Ju87 (eventually D's) and 1 fighter bomber pretty much all campaign. I like the fighter bomber (Bf110 > Me410) as its versatile, it struggled a bit in its fighter role once it was engaging the RAF and USAAF but still managed to help finish off damaged air units. By America it could no longer fly unescorted and expect to survive though.

Strategic bombers: Still the best anti-ship unit at your disposal and great at causing suppression. I had 2 throughout, nothing really to comment on them. They did their job.

Air in general: Quite a lot has changed in the air war from PC1 to PC2 and I like the new system. Quite often I found I was bombing sub optimal targets in order to keep my bombers next to a fighter for support (the fighter having gone out on an intercept mission) and unlike in PC1 core campaign you need to keep your bombers escorted a good chunk of the time as there may be previously unseen enemy fighters based on an airfield previously out of range. (This was somewhat corrected in the latter campaigns as aircraft were set to spawn throughout the battle)

All in all I really like the balance to the unit types and find everything can be useful but no one unit type is essential. I found myself fielding two "historically accurate" Panzer divisions throughout much of the campaign and not because I was roleplaying or forcing myself to do so but because that seemed to work to get the right balance that worked for me. Thats a really well designed game IMO. I don't need to build a core force sub optimally to roleplay.

Well this is already a very long post, sorry! I'll probably start a separate topic for my thoughts on the campaign scenarios. Thanks for reading this far!

[RandomAttack]

Great post! Pretty much agree with everything and I'm having similar experiences, although haven't quite finished the campaign yet. IMO, the two big takeaways are:
- ALL unit classes are/can be very useful
- Trait selection options can really drive how you play (so lots of replayability)

I think the game "system" will be limited only by the scenarios designed to use them. I too like to play it as a wargame-- there are plenty of math games/puzzles out there if I were interested in the level of min/max-ing some people are into (nothing wrong with it, just not for me).

Q: What level of randomness did you use and why?

[Horseman]

Great post! Pretty much agree with everything and I'm having similar experiences, although haven't quite finished the campaign yet. IMO, the two big takeaways are:
- ALL unit classes are/can be very useful
- Trait selection options can really drive how you play (so lots of replayability)

I think the game "system" will be limited only by the scenarios designed to use them. I too like to play it as a wargame-- there are plenty of math games/puzzles out there if I were interested in the level of min/max-ing some people are into (nothing wrong with it, just not for me).

Q: What level of randomness did you use and why?

I used 100% random. I like the level of uncertainty. Whilst you can expect certain results you cant guarantee it. Like in real life, the unexpected can and will happen (stubborn defenders refusing to budge no matter what I throw at them)

I think It's also more advantageous to the AI. So it helps a little with the difficulty aspect.

I'd probably never play at 0% because at that point to me it is a puzzle game and not a wargame.

[Tassadar]

I'm no almost done with the fictional path (now on London) and things go much faster this time around.

Tratis:

All are useful in changing how the game plays and when now selecting different ones than previously I can see how significantly they affect the game. Converting AA supression into kills is amazing, but the ability to cross minor rivers with tanks was as well and both made the approach to battles unique. I've yet to try any of the denial negative tratis, but might go with airforce in a defensive Western path - would seem fun.

Units:

- Having one flame tank handy is great for city battles. With a hero that prevents the use of Close Defense by the enemy they become monsters.
- Artillery - a StuG/Brummbär/Sturmtiger also does wonder in city combat and has insane armor. In PzC 1 it did not work as well as it was very easy to loose one due to enemy tanks, but now these are really useful.
- AT - love to have 3 in the core almost all the time after StuG becomes available. They make positioning of units in the opn so much easier, be it AA guns, infantry or anything else that's squishy. Plus for some bizzare reason the AI tends to go for them with infantry (probably due to the low soft attack), but high armor makes these efforts poinless. Therefore a single AT gun can hold a bridge crossing almost forever as long as it's guarded from the air and from the flanks. The AI will just waste their attack actions with infantry and all the other units will just move around pointlessly on the other side. A single Jagdpanther, a Grenadier unit and a AA gun held the entire northwest approuch in the Berlin scenario with just a recon car behind them to mop up 1-2 power land units that retreated in a inconvenient direction. This leaft the rest of the core free to use in other directions.

[Hexaboo]

I agree with you on how well they have rebalanced the classes, PzC1 was more traditional, which meant that by the end of the war, you were stuck with a small number of unit classes, because everything else was garbage, even infantry. I know many people liked to play around with the classes, but it always ended up to be Tanks + Fighters + Artillery for me, and nothing else. And Tactical Bombers (largely because of passive air defence in a lot of units), AAA and AT units seemed like a complete waste of time.

They aren't anymore (especially the Tactical Bombers), but I'd argue that Strategic Bombers are the only class that has been effectively and significantly nerfed, because unlike PzC1, everyone can inflict suppression on the enemy now, plus the encirclement mechanic does what a strat bomber would have been doing otherwise (+2 suppression, deny ammo and fuel — it's all you expect from a Strategic Bomber).

Unless you're deep into the super-four encirclement strategy, and spamming hordes of cheapo Do-17's, their usefulness is now limited to naval battles, and even there, not always (Conquest of America springs to mind: you have enough capital ships and submarines there not to need any bomber support), and with the 2–3 core slot cost of most of these planes, I'd rather take a fighter-bomber, a dive bomber or 2–3 recon planes, because their utility would almost universally be higher.

[Horseman]

Actually I never really gave much thought to strategic bombers.

In pc1 they were my ship killers and helpful giving persistent suppression.

And like you said, that second part is no longer unique! And anti shipping was only really useful in Sealion.

[Hexaboo]

Actually I never really gave much thought to strategic bombers.

In pc1 they were my ship killers and helpful giving persistent suppression.

And like you said, that second part is no longer unique! And anti shipping was only really useful in Sealion.

Strat bombers were one of my top favourite classes for early-mid war in PzC1 (Grand Campaign), because of the craploads of suppression they could deal, especially if combined with overstrength (and they seemed to collect experience like there's no tomorrow). I would typically deploy like 4–5 in a mission, and the only reason they fell behind late-war was that the enemy airforce/AA artillery would become too powerful, and strat bombers would suddenly turn into a very expensive prestige sink. In Panzer Corps 2, they feel a bit like an afterthought, with little to nothing to show for it. Which is especially sad, given that all the other classes got nice boosts or tweaks

I'm finding they are regularly useful (in small numbers) in the Mediterranean branch of the campaign, though.

[ErissN6]

To tell short, the units are very well balanced, but it is destroyed by many heroes, and by some traits too.

[Blade0]

Brucken pioniere's I only used a couple of times (Master of Blitzkrieg saved me needing them more) and were also the only unit I got killed (they got ballsy acting as a screen!) I do think that they would have been useful in crossing the Mississippi river!

They only cost 1 slot up till 17 strength, so they can take a couple of hits before killed off completely. With Panzer General you need them less often, though they were useful on a couple of maps.

As the war progressed I couldn't just upgrade everything to the most powerful due to slot cost and I liked that. Some "trap" units here and there - PzIIIJ1 costs an extra slot for not that much of an improvement on the PzIIIJ . But also a hidden gem for Stalingrad - the IIIN has a CD of 6 making it useful to help form a battle line as you push through (just don't expect too much if you try to attack entrenched infantry with it!)

PzIIIN is the single best tank in the game with the current slot settings. Well, true, the mainstream of Wermacht tanks were PzIIIs and PzIVs, still, I don't really endorse the slot cost of anything after PzIVF from this series. The change from PzIVF to PzIVF-2 was the most stunning - 3 to 6 slots (of 2 to 4 with Panzer General).

Artillery: My Dad once told me (way back when I started wargaming) that the first thing you always need to buy in any game is at least one more artillery. With that in mind I think you have some good options. Ultimately I think the 15cm towed guns (upgraded to Hummels later on) provide the "best" core here. Its the heaviest calibre to offer defence against soft targets and also defends against hard (although as the war progresses you don't want to be relying on that too much!) I did have one 21cm until quite late for some counter battery fire which is useful but I also kept forgetting it wouldn't protect against soft targets which led to a few casualties. Ultimately it became a Hummel but I had something a little better for counter battery fire......

I start to hate artillery. They cost tons of slots, generally vulnerable against any attack, and you should watch if they give support fire against hard, or soft targets, or both. I have learned it the hard way that 190mm heavy artillery doesn't give support fire against infantry attacks. Heavy bombers are a good alternative to suppress the enemy - when it isn't raining.

Recon: OK so IMO these were the real dog units of PC1 (I know others disagree) but once you have the inevitable slew of several spotting hero's amongst your front line troops these guys seemed obsolete. I hated them. I never used them. Ever.

Aerial recon made them obsolete again. Too bad, I really liked the little buggers. I had one, but it always ended up in reserve, as it costs more than a tank, and performs worse for several reasons. Maybe they should be considered light tanks instead, so you get the Panzer General and Master of Blitzkrieg bonuses for them, hell, even the overrun trait, why not. Some of them are actually light tanks!
Recon planes cost a measly 1 slot for 11 strength, a few buttons for prestige - and they're faster, have greater sight range, and not limited by terrain or enemy ZoC. The enemy fighters tend to ignore them as they cost very little prestige - just don't park them on a cluster of ADs.

Anti-Air: OK now these guys had uses in PC1, in the GC later years you'd be glad to have a few around. But they weren't exactly flashy. In PC2 they become more useful. There are three reasons for this.

They are a must for every attack group you have. The reason is that fighters take just too many slots - you get half-decent mobile ADs for 2 slots (1 for towed!), some have 6 half-tracked movement and all have at least 2 defense range. The AI will mercilessly bomb your unprotected artillery and tanks, as they cost a lot of prestige, and you just can't kill them fast enough. Plus, in your turn the enemy planes are still over your units, so you suppress them with ADs, and kill them with fighters without losses. They're priceless... when no longer needed for AD, you can switch them to ATG, even kill some straggler infantry with them. Not... really useful against tanks, though, probably because of low initiative.

Strategic bombers: Still the best anti-ship unit at your disposal and great at causing suppression. I had 2 throughout, nothing really to comment on them. They did their job.

They're cheap in slots. 2 or 3 most of them.

Sorry for being a "grammar Nazi": the plural for "hero" is "heroes" (GB) or maybe "heros" (US). "hero's" is correct, but means something different (as in "A hero's welcome!").

[Horseman]

No need to apologise about being a grammar Nazi. I have dyslexia so welcome it when people point out obvious errors. And I know/knew the plural of hero is heroes so no real excuse on that one. I will say I have a massive blind spot on plurals in general.

Some interesting points.

I got around the "what supports against what" with artillery by mainly using 15cm towed and Hummels.

The thing to remember about the later PzIV series (and panthers/tigers) is that they are kind of two for one. As in, prior to the IVF2 you really need/want PzIV for anti soft work and PzIII for anti armour. Now one tank will do it all!

Edit: I had my tanks mixed up

[Demetrios_of_Messene]

That was a very nice read!

A few points from my point of view:

Bridge units (Brucken-pioniere) are invaluable without the panzer general trait. You cannot risk to get caught on a river crossing! These units can also act as encirclement units or cheap meat shields if you found a weak spot in your lines and do not want to abuse the undo button.

Junkers can be lethal tank killing machines on shiny days if you opt to over-strengthen them (which is relatively cheap) and they accumulate some experience. In my eastern-front historical campaign, they were vital against the endless soviet armoured divisions and soon became able to one-shot kill non-heavy units.

Karl Great is also very useful on the eastern front! On some scenarios you are defending or moving slowly anyway, so Karl fits nicely in the picture. My Karl died valiantly while defending Berlin after having proven himself battle after battle.

As much as I like the 88, it is quite expensive to replace casualties. And the AI will often attack it even with bombers. With the exception of a few maps, I find the 1 slot towed AAs much more cost effective (and you can cheaply over-strengthen them).

I fully agree on your remarks about artillery. I am also using the 15cm variant almost exclusively.

PS: PzIII for anti tank work and early PzIV for anti soft .

[adiekmann]

I always find it interesting to see the composition of others' core forces and their explanations for why they chose those units.

I am deep in a historical (loser) path of my second playthrough now.

I originally would have agreed with you with regards to Panzer General trait. However I realized during my first campaign that you usually get at least a couple zero slot heroes and the most expensive units to apply them to are the Tigers and panther tanks. That being said, I felt that I wasn't getting good value out of that trait when applied to only the few remaining other tanks in my core. (I seem to only have no more than 5-6.) One unit that I really like that may surprise some of you, is the Flame halftrack. It is listed under tanks and doesn't take that many core slots, but it murders infantry both entrenched and in open terrain. Check it out, especially with a no retaliation hero.

The favorite traits that I really like are blitzkrieg, ZOC, Killer Team, and AA veteran for the same reason you and others have already stated.

The negative one that I usually take is slow modernization because it reflects reality and is therefore historically true. Once a new model of PzIV came out it's not like every German tank got replaced. And it's actually not that bad for most of the campaign except when the clock turns to '43 and you can't do all of your infantry, tanks, aircraft, and... well, you get the point.

I currently have 6 infantry: 3 pioniere, 2 Grenadiers, and 1 wehr. Oh, I also have 1 bridge engineer but he usually is in reserve unless the map really calls for one.

Like you, there are other units that I wish I could add to my core but run out of core space. The combination of preferring to OS my units and other needs forces you to have a diverse core. Once you include strat bombers, tac bombers, fighters, AA, AT, etc you don't have the huge core force that you accumulated in PC1. So, it kind of dictates your core in the end automatically.

And finally, "heroes" is correct in American English too, according to Webster's. I am a teacher with 22 years experience and I usually don't comment on the loads of mistakes that I see on forums, but "Heros" is just wrong and I even double-checked to make sure. (Hey, we all make mistakes and I am not infallible either!) However, since you claim you don't mind people correcting you, I have to say you need to learn to use "too" instead of "to" some of the time. It means "also" or a level of extreme like, "The Daimler Dingo in PC1 was inexplicably too strong against German armor and seriously needed to be nerfed." Okay, lesson over. Sorry. I applaud you for you saying that you want to be better so I hope I haven't offended you.

[Horseman]

Haha when i use too or to wrong that's just lazy/hasty typing. Sadly it's not one that spell check will ever pick up! I fully deserve to be called out on things like that (same with there/their or were/where etc.).

In response the 88s being expensive to replace. Yes they do seem to have a target painted on then. The AI loves to smash them up

[gokkel]

I do not actually use 15cm artillery that much. It is very good at the start of the war, as it is about the best you can get against enemy infantry at that time (which both your tanks and infantry like to be covered at that time) for just one slot more than the 10.5cm while also being very useful against tanks still; you don't have access to good AT units at that time as well. So in Poland and also in France I like to deploy about two pieces of them. In Norway I use 10.5cm instead, and in France I also like to have one StuG III B just to have one more unit that can fill a gap in the formation, as core slots are very limited and the newly improved AI exploits gaps in your lines aggressively.

Once I deploy to Russia (or Africa) I use them a lot less though. In most situations I prefer a mix of rocket artillery (Wurfrahmen, later Panzerwerfer) and maybe some 17 or 21cm artillery for long range support, anti tank support and anti artillery counterbattery. The rocket artillery suppresses enemy infantry in those towns and other close terrain much better than the 15cm artillery, and for anti tank support I use AT units instead because they are now more powerful in that role with the 15cm dropping off more and more as the war progresses, and rarely my large artillery (though I prefer to keep them further back so they don't get shot at by enemy artillery). In the scenarios with large city fights (Moscow, Stalingrad) I reverted the Wurfrahmen to overstrengthened 15cm again, just because the rocket artillery doesn't have enough ammunition to shoot and then also cover your infantry against enemy attacks all the time. But you could probably just do with 10.5cm instead.

As I got a counterbattery hero I also decided to keep now one Hummel at all times instead of a Wurfrahmen to make use of it (2 range wouldn't really help with that hero).

As I said, the 15cm becomes less effective over time in the AT support role anyway, but your units also rarely need cover from both infantry and tanks at the same time at that point anymore. Infantry in the open is the only unit that would like to have it, and you should not have many of them in the open and exposed to both threats at the same time. Your tanks do not need anti infantry support anymore and your infantry in close terrain does not need AT support.

[Hexaboo]

As I said, the 15cm becomes less effective over time in the AT support role anyway, but your units also rarely need cover from both infantry and tanks at the same time at that point anymore. Infantry in the open is the only unit that would like to have it, and you should not have many of them in the open and exposed to both threats at the same time. Your tanks do not need anti infantry support anymore and your infantry in close terrain does not need AT support.

I'd say, 15 cm guns work fine throughout the war; however, this is an interesting take, and looks like a more efficient approach — really itching to try your approach now!

[Horseman]

As I said, the 15cm becomes less effective over time in the AT support role anyway, but your units also rarely need cover from both infantry and tanks at the same time at that point anymore. Infantry in the open is the only unit that would like to have it, and you should not have many of them in the open and exposed to both threats at the same time. Your tanks do not need anti infantry support anymore and your infantry in close terrain does not need AT support.

I'd say, 15 cm guns work fine throughout the war; however, this is an interesting take, and looks like a more efficient approach — really itching to try your approach now!

I just couldn't get on with the rocket types - I found the ammo was too limited to provide consistent support fire. that is why I liked the 15cm. The largest calibre to offer soft support. the AT support I see as more a bonus and it does come in handy. Even though they don't do much damage to later war tanks, they do give your lighter units a fighting chance (recon and Inf)

I did have a single 21cm for counter battery fire through most of the war - also handy having that extra range. But boy did I end up with egg on my face so many times when I forgot it wouldn't fire in support against soft targets!

I did prefer my AT units for hard support wherever possible.

[Hexaboo]

I just couldn't get on with the rocket types - I found the ammo was too limited to provide consistent support fire. that is why I liked the 15cm. The largest calibre to offer soft support. the AT support I see as more a bonus and it does come in handy. Even though they don't do much damage to later war tanks, they do give your lighter units a fighting chance (recon and Inf)

I did have a single 21cm for counter battery fire through most of the war - also handy having that extra range. But boy did I end up with egg on my face so many times when I forgot it wouldn't fire in support against soft targets!

I did prefer my AT units for hard support wherever possible.

Short range is another problem that rocket arty has, and you have to be extra careful to cover it against air attacks, and it can't normally be used to lure enemy planes into your fighters.

What I find compelling is the absolutely true argument that late-war tanks don't need protection against infantry (in open terrain, obviously), so there's no reason for you to bring a multi-purpose weapon to cover your tanks. Say, even StuGIIIF is a better AT weapon, costs almost exactly as much, and is much less vulnerable to attacks. I have actually successfully used it as a first-line unit, covering the tanks on its flanks. And with this kind of thinking, preferring a support weapon that's best for infantry to kill infantry (i.e. rockets) is an obvious choice.

A 1 or 2 long-range arty guns (17 or 21 cm) are absolutely required, because, IMO, enemy arty units with the counterbattery fire trait are THE worst (I still have nightmares about a defended position the British had in Iraq, with 2x AT gun, AA gun, and counterbattery fire arty all covering one another, all behind mine fields, and surrounded by flat terrain (no sneaking up to them with infantry)).

[Dmurphy238]

Love this discussion! The bruckenpioniere units are almost a must if you go the non historical route in the Afrika Korps campaign. From Egypt onwards it seems like they throw in tough nuts to crack unless you can get behind them while still staying in supply. They also serve in mop up duty, when not using their bridge function.
As to other units, I’ve never been a fan of strategic bombers, whether in PC1 or OOB. Always seems like something else can do the job more effectively and be more versatile. What I’ve found is almost a necessity once you get to France is AT but I much prefer the self propelled versions, again for their versatility. Lastly, unless I have the anti-air trait, a fighter is more useful to me than anti-air units. (Although I am learning to make better use of their AT abilities once air superiority is achieved...a work in progress!).

[Horseman]

Love this discussion! The bruckenpioniere units are almost a must if you go the non historical route in the Afrika Korps campaign. From Egypt onwards it seems like they throw in tough nuts to crack unless you can get behind them while still staying in supply. They also serve in mop up duty, when not using their bridge function.
As to other units, I’ve never been a fan of strategic bombers, whether in PC1 or OOB. Always seems like something else can do the job more effectively and be more versatile. What I’ve found is almost a necessity once you get to France is AT but I much prefer the self propelled versions, again for their versatility. Lastly, unless I have the anti-air trait, a fighter is more useful to me than anti-air units. (Although I am learning to make better use of their AT abilities once air superiority is achieved...a work in progress!).

I think the trick with fighters V AA is balance. One well placed 88 can protect a large area. One fighter can protect 6 hexes (plus it's own).

A few AA in your core allows your fighters to escort bombers and go hunting. No AA means you'll take some pretty heavy damage from air attacks whilst your fighters achieve air superiority. Quite a few missions have a large enemy air force!

The other benefit of course is that AA can still have uses even when the weather gods curse you.