Weekly Unit Discussion Thread

[Schlack]

Usually run with 2 X 15s and 1 X 17 in Russia. The arty support is vital in securing moscow and stalingrad. In such scenarios I mostly use them in defensive offence. That is advancing into the city, taking a defensive position with the arty supporting the infantry and letting the counterattacking infantry smash themselves to bits. The 17 (lethal attack) in the background neutralising the russian support arty. 15s have some support heroes to bolster the infantry line (leadership, aiming assistance). Plus they rank up in support medals by such use.

Currently debating with myself whether to bring the Gustav with me after sevastapol. Its a bit cheesy, especially if you get the double attack hero. Full disclosure: I have cheesed my way to san francisco with it!

[FunPolice749]

Regarding always using the best equipment I don't think that's strictly true anymore..

In multiplayer I bet that philosophy is music to your opponents ears..

Unfortunately (or should I say lucky for me!) I have no experience of multiplayer.

Best equipment (highest stats) are conductive to the campaign environment, because it lasts so long progressing from scenario after scenario.
Most efficient (lowest cost with still decent stats) are conductive to multiplayer environment, because it doesn't matter if 99% of your forces die, as long as the remaining 1% controls the objective at the end of the scenario.

This is quite interesting and does sound logical in theory. However I find it impossible to reconcile with my own experience in PC2. I find that certain compromises (within a certain limit, of course) in equipment quality have to be made if I want to field all the units I want to.

As another example, I don't think the III J/1 is worth the slots at time of introduction and continue using the III J for a bit longer.

Come to think of it, I have also never played without Slow Modernisation (and I picked Retrograde in my current run) so this may have coloured my views a bit.

Goes without saying that balance is key in all things. Unlike in PC1 where you fielded the best equipment across your whole army, in PC2 you are actually forced to upgrade selectively and find the sweet spot between capability & cost for the best 'value'.

Slow moderization does really affect what you can run if you want to have an veteran army. I personally relied on 15cm in my runs since I have fallen in love with slow modernization and what it does to the game. You have to future proof your army as much as possible because there will be important scenarios that offer big upgrades that will absorb all of your upgrades for the following couple scenarios (a good example is when you unlock the Panzer IV F2 after Moscow which you really need to get a hold of). Even though it may be less effective overall, a couple 15cm can essentially go through most of the war without needing actual equipment upgrades which is a massive relief so you can upgarde your tanks, fighters, or whatever without getting . Otherwise you gotta really start splitting your army into different groups and that can lead to some of your army forces being under experienced. Personally for the campaign my core army force consists of
x2 15cm
x1 17cm
x1 Rocket Artillery (used for assaulting and not for defense)
x2 Assault Guns
I find this is a very general artillery force that can be split nicely into various groups. Like for example on a small front a single assault gun can help a lone pioneer take that far off objective without risk of being attacked by infantry.

Otherwise I do agree with pretty much everything you said about artillery and I love how so many of them have uses
What would people think of giving the 7.5 cm 2 movement points? I know it would be a big buff so maybe we could nerf it in stats even farther but having a semi mobile light artillery piece could be an interesting place to put those otherwise weak units.

[Kerensky]

I have a proposal for next week's topic:

Units we could potentially add to Panzer Corps 2.

The unit roster of Panzer Corps 2 is absolutely staggering... but there's always room for MOAR!

Other threads have mentioned garrison infantry. In my mind I see something like conscripts, but instead of base 20 strength, probably base 10. Also 1 movement, and 1 vision radius. Prestige cheap, but slot heavy.

What would we name such units. Just 'Garrison'? German Garrison, British Garrison, French Garrison, et cetera?

What other unique equipment could we maybe see in the future? Especially vehicles that may show up in... the Balkans during 1940 and 1941.
I'm looking at bizarre equipment like the Char 2C, or the German Neubaufahrzeug.

[Tassadar]

I have a proposal for next week's topic:

Units we could potentially add to Panzer Corps 2.

The unit roster of Panzer Corps 2 is absolutely staggering... but there's always room for MOAR!

The unit variety maniac in me is already pondering. The's almost a week left to think carefully about propositions, so seems like a great plan.

Other threads have mentioned garrison infantry. In my mind I see something like conscripts, but instead of base 20 strength, probably base 10. Also 1 movement, and 1 vision radius. Prestige cheap, but slot heavy.

What would we name such units. Just 'Garrison'? German Garrison, British Garrison, French Garrison, et cetera?

The Wiki suggests maybe something like this, and I assmue they would have equivalents for other nations organizational structure:

German infantry divisions had a variety of designations and specializations, though numbered in a single series. The major variations are as follows:

Fortress (Festung)
Divisions of non-standard organization used to garrison critical sites. The smaller ones might consist of only two or three battalions.

I much prefer the Soviet line (SU-122 /152) and usually forego any German ones until the StuH.

Soviet SU-122 and 152 are absolute monsters. I'd actually have to see them in a campagin environment to make up my mind if the power justifies the slots, but in PzC 1, where there was no real downside to getting all the best units things got out of control quickly in Soviet Corps.

[Retributarr]

Security Garrison Title Designation?:

Sentinel Gard Garda Garde Guard... "Lidless-Eyeball"???..."Ever-Watch"???
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeKure Sekurit Guardian

[SineMora]

Soviet SU-122 and 152 are absolute monsters. I'd actually have to see them in a campagin environment to make up my mind if the power justifies the slots, but in PzC 1, where there was no real downside to getting all the best units things got out of control quickly in Soviet Corps.

The only downside is that the SU-152 is rare (and the ISU-152 rarer still) as it has the same slot cost as the 15 cm, which seems perfectly balanced.

Seeing as we already have a bunch of fantasy units, how about the Landkreuzer As for the garrison units, you could just call them MP and leave it at that.

[Kerensky]

Seeing as we already have a bunch of fantasy units, how about the Landkreuzer

Be careful what you wish for. I just might come back and link this quote if the Axis Operations ever roll around to 1945 or post 1945......

But let's not derail the current artillery discussion. Keep the discussion there for now, and units for next week's topic.

[voxr]

In multiplayer I bet that philosophy is music to your opponents ears..

Unfortunately (or should I say lucky for me!) I have no experience of multiplayer.

Best equipment (highest stats) are conductive to the campaign environment, because it lasts so long progressing from scenario after scenario.
Most efficient (lowest cost with still decent stats) are conductive to multiplayer environment, because it doesn't matter if 99% of your forces die, as long as the remaining 1% controls the objective at the end of the scenario.

This is quite interesting and does sound logical in theory. However I find it impossible to reconcile with my own experience in PC2. I find that certain compromises (within a certain limit, of course) in equipment quality have to be made if I want to field all the units I want to.

As another example, I don't think the III J/1 is worth the slots at time of introduction and continue using the III J for a bit longer.

Come to think of it, I have also never played without Slow Modernisation (and I picked Retrograde in my current run) so this may have coloured my views a bit.

Goes without saying that balance is key in all things. Unlike in PC1 where you fielded the best equipment across your whole army, in PC2 you are actually forced to upgrade selectively and find the sweet spot between capability & cost for the best 'value'.

Slow moderization does really affect what you can run if you want to have an veteran army. I personally relied on 15cm in my runs since I have fallen in love with slow modernization and what it does to the game. You have to future proof your army as much as possible because there will be important scenarios that offer big upgrades that will absorb all of your upgrades for the following couple scenarios (a good example is when you unlock the Panzer IV F2 after Moscow which you really need to get a hold of). Even though it may be less effective overall, a couple 15cm can essentially go through most of the war without needing actual equipment upgrades which is a massive relief so you can upgarde your tanks, fighters, or whatever without getting . Otherwise you gotta really start splitting your army into different groups and that can lead to some of your army forces being under experienced. Personally for the campaign my core army force consists of
x2 15cm
x1 17cm
x1 Rocket Artillery (used for assaulting and not for defense)
x2 Assault Guns
I find this is a very general artillery force that can be split nicely into various groups. Like for example on a small front a single assault gun can help a lone pioneer take that far off objective without risk of being attacked by infantry.

Otherwise I do agree with pretty much everything you said about artillery and I love how so many of them have uses
What would people think of giving the 7.5 cm 2 movement points? I know it would be a big buff so maybe we could nerf it in stats even farther but having a semi mobile light artillery piece could be an interesting place to put those otherwise weak units.

I love playing with Slow Modernisation as well but it was pretty rough my first time through the campaign. Now that I have a better idea of when certain critical upgrades get unlocked I plan better and even have an Excel spreadsheet that's 2 scenarios ahead of where I currently am.

I think giving the 7.5 cm 2 movement would be pretty great, though another alternative I've mulled over is also giving it Alpine movement as well. It was issued pretty extensively to Gebirgs divisions and if I recall correctly even had a specialist mountain version developed. I've also seen suggestions dating back to PC1 allowing it to be air-dropped as well though giving it both traits might be a bit overkill.

[voxr]

I have a proposal for next week's topic:

Units we could potentially add to Panzer Corps 2.

The unit roster of Panzer Corps 2 is absolutely staggering... but there's always room for MOAR!

Other threads have mentioned garrison infantry. In my mind I see something like conscripts, but instead of base 20 strength, probably base 10. Also 1 movement, and 1 vision radius. Prestige cheap, but slot heavy.

What would we name such units. Just 'Garrison'? German Garrison, British Garrison, French Garrison, et cetera?

What other unique equipment could we maybe see in the future? Especially vehicles that may show up in... the Balkans during 1940 and 1941.
I'm looking at bizarre equipment like the Char 2C, or the German Neubaufahrzeug.

Sure we can do that. I might even set up a poll where people can vote on what they want to talk about in advance.

A suggestion I have would be the inclusion of the Lowe. At the moment we have the Tiger, the Tiger II, and the Maus, so it seems a little odd that the full development of the series was not included.

Something else to look at would be expansion of the Recon class for other factions. I'm currently doing a beautepanzer run and it seems only German recons are worth using. Early-war even the Panhard (considered the best scout car in the world at the time) is strictly inferior to the 222, much less 232 you already have available (unless running Retrograde like I am).

[KesaAnna]

I never use self - propelled artillery . ( except for the assault guns , like stug , which I suppose most agree is a different sub - category ? )

A month or so ago I read a how - to pamphlet written by some German officer on the subject of running an armored or motorized infantry unit. Boring stuff mostly , but one rule of thumb really jumped out at me and stuck in my mind ; " Your column is only as fast as the slowest vehicle in your column. "

That certainly fits my own eccentric experience. Invariably I get into trouble if my tanks range too far ahead of my infantry , and artillery that can keep up with the tanks in no way seems to change that equation for me.

I'm not sure why I would want artillery support for tanks anyway ?
With tanks on the defensive , isn't that what AT and assault guns are for ? With tanks on the offensive , I never attack with tanks in close terrain except in desperation , or for fun and a little experience to mow down a gaggle of nurses who are broken and running away anyway.

In any other circumstance , when I attack with tanks in close terrain , even with generous artillery support , my tanks still get murdered.

And certainly artillery towed by half - tracks can keep up with the infantry.

I simply cannot justify the core slots , except if it were for love.

As for love , I actually absolutely adore the SturmPanzer and the Wespe. --- Unfortunately , neither unit has the trait that gives defensive artillery support to a unit being attacked by hard targets. So these two units that could keep up with the tanks , are useless to the tanks anyway.

And , like I said , artillery towed by half - tracks can certainly keep up with the infantry.

So , unless something changes , I guess I will have to content myself with plastic models and fan art , because I won't be buying any SturmPanzers or Wespe's in PC 2 .

---

I'm bonkers about the Nebelwerfer , so , of course , I always have to buy one.

Admittedly , one of the only two heroes I have ever really taken particular notice of is the Fast Deployment hero.

The Fast Deployment hero ( IF you can get him ) goes a long way toward rendering the 2 hex range of the Nebelwerfer a mute point.

With the Fast Deployment hero the Nebelwerfer becomes as plain murderous on the ground against soft targets , as the Stuka is in the air against hard targets.

( the two units sound alike too ; the Stuka's with their Jericho Trumpets , The shrieking whoosh of the Nebelwerfer. )

How I use both units is also basically identical. The Stuka and the Nebelwerfer are purely offensive weapons. You wouldn't use Stuka's in a dog fight to defend air space , and you don't use the Nebelwerfer to defend ground positions.

The Nebelwerfer is perhaps more useful if you go to Afrika , since you get neither the Gustav , nor the Karl Gerat , if you go to Afrika. And the Nebelwerfer sure seems to be murder against pillboxes , entrenchments , and against dug - in infantry in cities.

Here again , I only use the half - track towed Nebelwerfer , since it is only infantry that the Nebelwerfer has to keep up with.

Where the Fast Deployment hero factors into this is in navigating the back field. In my case , back - field traffic control is always an issue. You always seem to have just one road , or one avenue of approach , and infantry , artillery , and AA all need to use it , and at the same time / in the same turn. The Fast Deployment hero goes a long way toward insuring that the Nebelwerfer winds up sitting directly behind the attacking infantry .

[Retributarr]

I never use self - propelled artillery . ( except for the assault guns , like stug , which I suppose most agree is a different sub - category ? )

[Ret: "Stugs" [STUG IIIB] are useless against 'Tanks'.. but they [STUG IIIB provide Fire-Support against Soft-Target Assault... as well as used for Assaulting Soft Targets] are very-good for 'Direct-Assaulting'... Other soft targets such as Units in Cities, hills, trees, Soft-Anti-Tank-Guns and such as well as providing support fire for your Units against Enemy soft unit assault [Especially from units in 'Close-Terrain'... such as Hills_ This is where some "Protection" for Tanks can be given that are nestled in the Hills]... even though "STUGS" don't do much damage overall.

Notice that when an 'Enemy Unit' is occupying a "City-Hex", your Bombers seem to be unable to strike a direct-blow of any-kind on the occupying unit in that City... "especially if that Enemy Unit is at full strength, This is where the "STUG" is very useful, one or so damage blows inflicted upon the occupying City-Unit... now allows your Bombers as well as your Infantry to do their work... where otherwise... they wouldn't be able to!. This can also be applicable to other similar situations... where your Units are UNABLE to inflict-damage.
STUGS only take major Damage from Enemy Tanks... as well as some Damage from Enemy Bombers... other sources cause little damage.

I'm not sure why I would want artillery support for tanks anyway ?
[Ret: See above paragraph] [STUG IIIF Hard Target Fire-Support against Hard Targets as well as used for Hard Target Assault]
With tanks on the defensive , isn't that what AT and assault guns are for ? [Ret:Yes!...mostly 'Useful'...on 'Flat-Clear-Terrain'] With tanks on the offensive , I never attack with tanks in close terrain except in desperation.

In any other circumstance , when I attack with tanks in close terrain , even with generous artillery support , my tanks still get murdered. [Ret: That's why you 'Need' Infantry Support... such as Gebergjagers? [used in Hills and Mountains] or Pioneers!... or in desperation... use "STUGS" with Soft or Hard Defensive Fire capability for the terrain at hand]

[voxr]

I never use self - propelled artillery . ( except for the assault guns , like stug , which I suppose most agree is a different sub - category ? )

A month or so ago I read a how - to pamphlet written by some German officer on the subject of running an armored or motorized infantry unit. Boring stuff mostly , but one rule of thumb really jumped out at me and stuck in my mind ; " Your column is only as fast as the slowest vehicle in your column. "

That certainly fits my own eccentric experience. Invariably I get into trouble if my tanks range too far ahead of my infantry , and artillery that can keep up with the tanks in no way seems to change that equation for me.

I'm not sure why I would want artillery support for tanks anyway ?
With tanks on the defensive , isn't that what AT and assault guns are for ? With tanks on the offensive , I never attack with tanks in close terrain except in desperation , or for fun and a little experience to mow down a gaggle of nurses who are broken and running away anyway.

In any other circumstance , when I attack with tanks in close terrain , even with generous artillery support , my tanks still get murdered.

And certainly artillery towed by half - tracks can keep up with the infantry.

I simply cannot justify the core slots , except if it were for love.

As for love , I actually absolutely adore the SturmPanzer and the Wespe. --- Unfortunately , neither unit has the trait that gives defensive artillery support to a unit being attacked by hard targets. So these two units that could keep up with the tanks , are useless to the tanks anyway.

And , like I said , artillery towed by half - tracks can certainly keep up with the infantry.

So , unless something changes , I guess I will have to content myself with plastic models and fan art , because I won't be buying any SturmPanzers or Wespe's in PC 2 .

---

I'm bonkers about the Nebelwerfer , so , of course , I always have to buy one.

Admittedly , one of the only two heroes I have ever really taken particular notice of is the Fast Deployment hero.

The Fast Deployment hero ( IF you can get him ) goes a long way toward rendering the 2 hex range of the Nebelwerfer a mute point.

With the Fast Deployment hero the Nebelwerfer becomes as plain murderous on the ground against soft targets , as the Stuka is in the air against hard targets.

( the two units sound alike too ; the Stuka's with their Jericho Trumpets , The shrieking whoosh of the Nebelwerfer. )

How I use both units is also basically identical. The Stuka and the Nebelwerfer are purely offensive weapons. You wouldn't use Stuka's in a dog fight to defend air space , and you don't use the Nebelwerfer to defend ground positions.

The Nebelwerfer is perhaps more useful if you go to Afrika , since you get neither the Gustav , nor the Karl Gerat , if you go to Afrika. And the Nebelwerfer sure seems to be murder against pillboxes , entrenchments , and against dug - in infantry in cities.

Here again , I only use the half - track towed Nebelwerfer , since it is only infantry that the Nebelwerfer has to keep up with.

Where the Fast Deployment hero factors into this is in navigating the back field. In my case , back - field traffic control is always an issue. You always seem to have just one road , or one avenue of approach , and infantry , artillery , and AA all need to use it , and at the same time / in the same turn. The Fast Deployment hero goes a long way toward insuring that the Nebelwerfer winds up sitting directly behind the attacking infantry .

This is how I feel about SPG's as well, though I do buy 1 Hummel for flavour purposes. At least it still offers AT support. Otherwise I stick with towed guns or assault guns later in the war.

The other issue I have with Nebelwerfers (or other 2 range artillery) is vision control. With range 3 you can sit your pionieres or whatever assault troops you have earmarked 3 hexes away from the target, which is out of spotting range. With range 2 you are forced to site the guns 3 hexes from the target, which means your infantry can be seen and thus open to a pre-emptive strike.

[BaronVonWalrus]

I'm going to go against the grain a bit and do some cheerleading for the 17cm kanone. With slow modernization in play, I don't have the luxury of chopping and changing my arty as there's always too much other stuff to improve with those 3 choices!

Being able to stand-off from 4 hexes (5 from a hillside) is a dominant trait as is their counter-battery fire. At the start of Barbarossa I had 1 x 15cm and 2 x 17cm (and I bought a third one as the "Corps level" arty to be wheeled out as and when needed). Granted, I have perhaps lost some soft-target support fire capability with this setup but that's what the assault guns are for in my book; if my arty is within touching distance of the enemy something has broken down somewhere or I've taken my eye off the ball.

As the experience points start adding up, the 17cm guns become even more formidable.

As for Gustav, yes he's unbalanced. However, so are rapid fire and no retaliation heroes - let alone both on the same unit. I don't use heroes so I don't have a problem leaning on Gustav although I might try and go without (apart from Sevastapol and Stalingrad, which feel like the right types of assault mission) on a future playthrough to see how I get on.

[SineMora]

Be careful what you wish for. I just might come back and link this quote if the Axis Operations ever roll around to 1945 or post 1945......

What have I done

I feel that the StuG IIIB deserves more love, seeing as it can offer fire support against soft targets, bring any amount of entrenchment down to base level by splitting (hint: Trench Slog and Flexible Command), has comparable or better Ground Defense to contemporary German Panzers, and at 2 core slots and 200 prestige it's dirt cheap. Admittedly this is partly because I value control and battlefield manipulation over brute force, allowing me to farm enemies, but these characteristics make the StuG IIIB a fantastic unit, and if it were affected by Master of Blitzkrieg I'd probably field even more than the 3 or 4 I usually use; every time an enemy unit is shooting at a StuG IIIB, it is not shooting at something more vulnerable and/or expensive. The Sturmtiger is the only assault gun I dislike, because it offers very little other than a slight increase in firepower at the cost of an additional core slot; I'd rather keep the Brummbär.

For those who don't regularly capture enemy units, here are a few Soviet artillery pieces you might want to consider:

122mm M1938 -- the Soviet equivalent to the German 10.5 cm, trading one ammo for better firepower. Clearly superior.
SU-122 -- has the firepower of the Wespe, but has much better stats across the board and an AT mode to boot.
SU-152 -- a.k.a. the Super Hummel, has the firepower of the Hummel, but has much better stats across the board and an AT mode to boot, and bafflingly it only requires 4 core slots.
ISU-152 -- a.k.a. the God Hummel, possibly the strongest self-propelled artillery in the game along with the Sturmtiger, not counting the unique ones like Gustav, Karl-Gerät etc; with a Hard Attack of 25 it's almost as strong as the 17 cm (26 HA) while having better Ground Defense than the Sturmtiger and a range of 3, and of course it comes with an AT mode as well.
BM-8-24 -- fully tracked rocket artillery with the firepower of the Wurfrahmen (much better performance in snow), and it only requires 4 core slots.

Unfortunately, only the first two are easy to obtain, but then again the others are so strong as to be unbalanced; Soviet artillery is damn good.

P.S. The British QF 25 PDR is better than the German 7.5 cm if you really want to use a 2-range non-rocket battery.

[Kerensky]

I definitely use captured 122mm arty in... certain upcoming content.

I'm not too worried on late war Soviet SP Arty being too good, but I think I would like to see some of the early ones get a slot adjustment. It is odd for the basic Katyusha to be on 5 slots while others are on 4.

I wouldn't mind BM13 going to 4 or even 3 slots.

[SineMora]

I'm not too worried on late war Soviet SP Arty being too good, but I think I would like to see some of the early ones get a slot adjustment. It is odd for the basic Katyusha to be on 5 slots while others are on 4.

I wouldn't mind BM13 going to 4 or even 3 slots.

It's even stranger when you consider that the BM-13 (and BM-8-8) only have Rapid Fire 1.5X, so the Wurfrahmen hits harder, fires more rockets, has better defense, is half-tracked rather than wheeled, and yet they all require 5 core slots.

As far as the Wehrmacht campaign is concerned it doesn't really matter that much that the top Soviet artillery/ATs are broken as they are so rare that it's not possible to spam them even with Trophies of War, but at some point there will no doubt be a Soviet campaign, and with the current stats there'd be little reason not to fill up the roster with SU-152s as soon as possible.

[Kerensky]

Well units aren't just the sum of their stats.

When something is produced, and the quality it was produced with, has an effect that's harder to determine.

Good balance says weaker and flawed units that came out early in the war should cost less prestige and less slots.
Historical accuracy says mid and late war units that were well refined and had all the problems and kinks worked out from their predecessors could conceivably come at lower slot costs than inferior and unreliable early war equipment.

For example, what if a Panther D actually rolls out with 8 slots, and Panther G actually has 7 slots. Balance wise, that's absurd, because the G also has better stats.
But historically, you could say this is because Panther D came out with a lot of teething problems, and only had these issues ironed out in later models.

I consider core slot cost to be a unit's 'logistical footprint' much more than it's prestige cost.
And the Panther D has the advantage of showing up in the player's arsenal much sooner than the G. It doesn't mean that much in the mainline campaign, but in the original Grand Campaign, you can easily go for dozens of scenarios between equipment updates.

I don't know enough about Soviet artillery to say if this is why their core slot costs seem a little funky though.

[voxr]

Think everyone has had their say regarding artillery. As suggested by Kerensky, we'll be doing prospective units that can be included in the game.

Personally I would like to see the Lowe in the line-up. Yes, I know it never left the drawing board, but seeing as we're allowed to field fantasy units like the Maus & E-75, I don't see it as a leap too far and would bridge the development gap between the Tiger II and the Maus.

Fire away, everyone.

[KesaAnna]

Think everyone has had their say regarding artillery. As suggested by Kerensky, we'll be doing prospective units that can be included in the game.

I have already mentioned it , lobbied for it elsewhere ; The Junkers Ju 87 A.

We haven't seen Spain yet , so maybe it is already included ? If not , I suppose they could always add it in later. I don't know how hard , or how easy , it is to work with the PC 2 3 D models , but I recon it would be a " simple " matter of adding oversized wheel spats to a Stuka B model.

It's hardly a wonder weapon , or a fantasy weapon , just a Stuka with slightly less impressive stats.

Why include it then ? Stuka - lovers might appreciate the chance to use / start with the first in the series.

Another reason I would like to see it is because , as far as I know , you never see it anywhere else. The Stuka A hasn't gotten much love over the years.

As far as I know it's use was limited to Spain , but conceivably economy - minded generals , or generals with an eccentric love for the plane , could likewise use it in Poland , or as late as the battle for France.

---

Some guy has lobbied for a dirt - cheap , poor stat security unit. And likewise I would like to lobby for a German security unit in police green uniforms , or Hiwi blue uniforms.

I would like to lobby for the Bob Semple tank , except the game has not , at least so far , expanded to the Pacific theatre , and as I understand it the Bob Semple tank was so lousy you have to wonder why anyone would buy it ?

I have an idea ; make the 3 D model of the British security unit a guy in British MP uniform standing next to a Bob Semple tank.

[voxr]

Think everyone has had their say regarding artillery. As suggested by Kerensky, we'll be doing prospective units that can be included in the game.

Some guy has lobbied for a dirt - cheap , poor stat security unit. And likewise I would like to lobby for a German security unit in police green uniforms , or Hiwi blue uniforms.

I would like to lobby for the Bob Semple tank , except the game has not , at least so far , expanded to the Pacific theatre , and as I understand it the Bob Semple tank was so lousy you have to wonder why anyone would buy it ?

I have an idea ; make the 3 D model of the British security unit a guy in British MP uniform standing next to a Bob Semple tank.

As far as campaign play is concerned (not including MP in this discussion as that is obviously a whole different ball game), I feel the inclusion of such a unit would be detrimental to gameplay.

Currently players are presented with a dilemma; do I bring all available firepower to bear on the next operational objective, leave a unit behind to garrison victory hexes, or clear out & secure that particular flank before moving on?

Being able to spam such units removes this decision from the player.

With how powerful entrenchment is (especially with the AI's inability to execute combined arms warfare/employ artillery correctly) you would never conceivably be in danger of getting your victory hexes stolen from you.

There's no need for a dedicated garrison unit. Your infantry are invariably going to take casualties and even a Bruckenpioniere at half strength will serve as a sufficient roadblock should you choose to leave it on a hex.

Yes, the Soviets have conscripts while the Wehr don't get Volkssturm until late, but this reflects the difference in doctrine & also the reversal war fortunes.