Units You Never Buy

[TheFilthyCasual]

I find many units are simply too specialized to be generally useful and thus not worth the resource investment. For example, I personally avoid using

1. Engineers; this one might be controversial. Yes, I know they have a multitude of uses, but the problem is that they suck at actual combat against other enemy infantry, which means that unless you keep them out of combat except when attacking fortifications or weak units, they end up constantly taking a lot of casualties from pretty much any enemy unit they come across, especially since, being weaker than your infantry, they're the first target the AI will go after if they're within attack range. They take disproportionate losses - most of my infantry usually ends a campaign with about a 3:1 loss ratio, but my engineers are always like 1.5:1 or lower. I simply find them to take up too many of my resources that could be used for other, more effective units.

2. Ground recon units. They have only one use I can really see: finding hidden enemy units that would otherwise ambush your troops. Since they retreat on a dime, armored cars getting ambushed costs fewer resources in losses than losses to a frontline unit. However, because they can't really fight anything, taking losses is pretty much all they do, so I'd much rather use recon planes which, though they can't spot hidden units, are very good spotters for artillery fire and basically never take damage unless you park over an AA unit for some reason or your fighter defences fail.

3. Dedicated anti-tank units. Tanks can take out tanks too, but they can also take out infantry, so I'd prefer to simply buy another tank unit instead of some AT guns or tank destroyers. I prefer using heavy AA guns that can also take out tanks when there's no planes about, since I usually buy a couple AA units anyway.

4. Commandos. The big problem with them is their low defence - if an enemy infantry unit, or god forbid an armored one, attacks them, they get ripped to pieces, and replacing their losses uses up a lot of RPs. They're really only good for taking out non-frontline units like artillery or AA guns, but frankly, since you really need more than one to get anything much done with them, I'd rather just buy another artillery unit for the same price. I find Paratroopers, which are statistically supped-up infantry, infinitely more useful.

5. Submarines. I think there are interesting scenarios you can design where the player can be challenged to only use subs, but given how slow they are both to move and damage enemy ships, if you have the option to deploy an aircraft carrier I don't really see what a sub can do that a carrier can't do better and faster.

Of course if you think I'm wrong about these I'd certainly like to hear how you make them effective.

[Edgewalker]

From a purely multiplayer perspective

1. Engineers - mighty useful, only 2cp cost, cheap to replenish, shock attack ability (morale and entrenchment reduction), building and blowing bridges - always using multiple units 10/10

2. Ground recon units - yeah, never using them. From competitive point of view infinitly worse then air recon. If air recon is not available I prefer to go without them and do combat recon with multiple cheap infantry 0/10

3. Dedicated anti-tank units - usually cheap AT guns are a must-have-and-never-leave-home-without-many-of-them. Mobile AT are mighty useful in some scenarios for supporting armor groups vs enemy armor 9/10

4. Commandos - it's really hard to use them and I hated them a lot at first. After 500 hours of pbem I can say I now absolutely love them. Stealth, blocking enemy retreat routes, flanking, taking out airfields and arty and crucial AA and general badassery 9/10

5. Submarines - well, for sniping enemy transport, repair ships and battleships they are very decent, for anything else not so much. They are cheap though and well balanced for the price 5/10

I can personally add to the list:

6. Artillery - too expensive and takes a lot of babysitting. 4 regular infantry units that come at the same price will be more useful in 95 % of the cases. I know some good players that use Arty with great results though, so maybe that's just my personal bias 3/10

[bru888]

You guys mentioned my top bugaboo: submarines. My other one is strategic bombers. I do want to use these for a well-rounded attack but usually resources are tight and these fall by the wayside.

[Mojko]

General note:

Usefulness of units may differ based on game difficulty.

1 - Engineers

I completely disagree with you on this one. I don't think you understand how this unit is supposed to be used if you're complaining about not dealing enough damage with this unit. Engineers are not supposed to deal damage most of the time. Their strong points are:

- high shock and assault values to soften up an enemy unit
- draw the fire of enemy units
- both points above saves you a lot of RPs because your other more expensive units will take much less damage
- useful support abilities such as mines and digger

Also, Engineers have pretty high close attack values. In fact, their close infantry attack is higher than regular infantry. This can be further improved by a specialization.

2 - Ground recon units

I agree with you on this one. I addressed this issue by suggesting to lower the CP cost of recon units to 1 from 2. This was implemented only for air recon units. I suspect that ground recon units with 1 CP cost are way too overpowered. Maybe adding some interesting abilities would help.

3 - Dedicated anti-tank units

Agree with this one too. I do use AT guns, but only those which have AA mode. Tank destroyers are usually overpriced in terms of CPs, so I don't use them. Lowering the CP cost of these would help, I think.

4 - Commandos

I think this one depends on the scenario design a lot. I definitely don't like that you have to pay RPs for their special attack. Maybe adding hit & run trait would help (the ability to attack and move after).

5 - Submarines

I agree with this one. I think submarines are overpriced in terms of both CPs and RPs. Their damage potential is very low and they can't really do damage consistently because of large torpedo cooldown times. They are also detected way too easily because a random ship can just move to their tile and they get revealed which makes no gameplay sense.

6 - Artillery

Dude, are you serious? I would say artillery is the most powerful unit type in the game. The ability to severely lower unit efficiency without taking any damage via a ranged attack is the most OP stuff you can get in the game. Especially, those 17 K18 pieces with whooping 8 range.

I would agree that there are some artillery units that I would not buy:

- mobile artillery (too much CPs)
- light artillery (same amount of CPs as heavy artillery), I don't care that they have rapid deployment trait since they range is still pretty small

[TheFilthyCasual]

1 - Engineers

I completely disagree with you on this one. I don't think you understand how this unit is supposed to be used if you're complaining about not dealing enough damage with this unit. Engineers are not supposed to deal damage most of the time. Their strong points are:

- high shock and assault values to soften up an enemy unit
- draw the fire of enemy units
- both points above saves you a lot of RPs because your other more expensive units will take much less damage
- useful support abilities such as mines and digger

Also, Engineers have pretty high close attack values. In fact, their close infantry attack is higher than regular infantry. This can be further improved by a specialization.

Well only the Germans have that specialization.

I take your point, but as I don't typically treat my units like cannon fodder I substitute engineers for more artillery myself.

[Edgewalker]

6 - Artillery

Dude, are you serious? I would say artillery is the most powerful unit type in the game. The ability to severely lower unit efficiency without taking any damage via a ranged attack is the most OP stuff you can get in the game. Especially, those 17 K18 pieces with whooping 8 range.

As I said, I'm talking multiplayer solely. Arty will be more often than not focused very fast. Considering it usually needs transport the cost of the unit and the cost of replenishment are very high. Necessity to cool it down each few rounds and reposition pretty often and the usual added cost of aa-guard units makes it troublesome.
I like arty when the scenario gives it to me at the start for free (Mass soviet arty in Road to Moscow or Road to Leningrad? Can't complain). I would just never buy it myself. 150 for one decent arty +30 for transport? I have two engineers, two aa and two anti tank for that price easily. Or just 4 infantry units.

Just to consider, Conscripts are amazing unit for multiplayer, I don't think you guys would use it or like it for single player though.

I beated SP main US campaign once (admiteddly on highest diff) like a week after game launched and I don't remember jack shit from it.

[Mojko]

Well only the Germans have that specialization.

I take your point, but as I don't typically treat my units like cannon fodder I substitute engineers for more artillery myself.

I see. I think it's fine to have different play preferences . I personally play based on the score. The score is the remaining RPs at the end of the campaign. I don't mind treating certain units as meat shields if the situation requires it, however, I do care about the survival of the units, even auxiliaries. With the OOB retreat system, it's usually possible to prevent any unit losses.

As I said, I'm talking multiplayer solely. Arty will be more often than not focused very fast. Considering it usually needs transport the cost of the unit and the cost of replenishment are very high. Necessity to cool it down each few rounds and reposition pretty often and the usual added cost of aa-guard units makes it troublesome.
I like arty when the scenario gives it to me at the start for free (Mass soviet arty in Road to Moscow or Road to Leningrad? Can't complain). I would just never buy it myself. 150 for one decent arty +30 for transport? I have two engineers, two aa and two anti tank for that price easily. Or just 4 infantry units.

Just to consider, Conscripts are amazing unit for multiplayer, I don't think you guys would use it or like it for single player though.

I beated SP main US campaign once (admiteddly on highest diff) like a week after game launched and I don't remember jack shit from it.

Fair enough . I never play MP and I give you that the game must be completely different there.

[kondi754]

If I can join in the discussion, I think that any type of equipment or units is needed.
It all depends on the chosen tactics, style of play, terrain, war zone (I'm thinking about ToWs), losses suffered before, etc.
I use both engineers, as well as towed AT and switchable to AA, self propelled AT and AT/AA, sometimes also commandos, self propelled and light artillery and many other units...
Honestly, I love tank destroyers...
Most effective is combined weapon tactic, nobody invented anything better so far in my opinion

[TheFilthyCasual]

I see. I think it's fine to have different play preferences . I personally play based on the score. The score is the remaining RPs at the end of the campaign. I don't mind treating certain units as meat shields if the situation requires it, however, I do care about the survival of the units, even auxiliaries. With the OOB retreat system, it's usually possible to prevent any unit losses.

You save auxiliaries? I've never bothered spending RPs on anything but core units, since core units transfer but auxiliaries don't, so I've always seen points spent on them as wasted.

[Admiral_Horthy]

I join to Kondi in this... I am biased for combined arms and I stick to historical force composition mostly, so I do have towed arty, AT and AA/AT. Now that I made AT/ART for the soviets they are most useful like AA/AT.
Personally I love recon units, in JAP campaigns I always had at least one, two usually. By the end they all get 4-5stars. One I use also to accumulate XP to be upgraded to Seaplane later.
Artillery is always my favourite so no comments on that. Especially AT. Cheap, and goes together with INF, as in real.

All in all I completely agree upon CP cost reductions and possible more treats... particularly like the Hit&Run. Light and short range arty/at could get close support, quick retreat etc etc.

Rare heavy arty should be also Slow repair (if not all of them). They were hard to replace and always under supplied in all armies not just the germans or minors. Of course ART is OP because everyone uses the biggest ones. That's why light art should be made more attractive.

I had no prob with engineers, vulnerable, but if I don't have one I always regret not having them. They are aux.. not combat force. Engineers are for making road, helping movement, construct-demolish, repair, combat mines and obstacles, bridges, river crossing boats, etc. There should be Assault troops separately. Combat engineers... whatever.

Subs are.... subs. In their current form.. but cheap. Torpedo attack.. I know. But if they were "All or nothing" highly random value everyone would say OP and complain. Would you like personally such results: successful torp hit of 7-10 damage OR big nothing. 0-1. Any ship but a well protected cruiser or battleship would be crippled by a torp hit - even if survives - forget that for the rest of the battle. Includes destroyers, they are one-shot just like freighters. Would you like random 10 damage or 0? Small chance but if hit - unit kill? Or an automatic hit upon ambush?
My suggestion:
- No automatic spotting by movement (unless on the surface)
- Detectable by air, within 1 range
- Chance of submerge upon attacked by air IF has battery power left
- Anti sub treat of certain aircraft with the ability to attack hex (bombardment) with DCs
- Destroyers could anti-sub (bombard) any neighboring hex of suspicion any time. Sonar would be an extra spec later to detect up to 2 hex and adds extra damage to DC bombard. (range still remains 1 hex)
- Undetected (and of course submerged) sub should get ambush (close combat) damage on all ships even destroyers. So torp attack would be a dual value like Veh and Inf attack. 9-18 etc etc.

- On the sub damage I have no idea, the above ideas are invented for the current sys.

[Admiral_Horthy]

I see. I think it's fine to have different play preferences . I personally play based on the score. The score is the remaining RPs at the end of the campaign. I don't mind treating certain units as meat shields if the situation requires it, however, I do care about the survival of the units, even auxiliaries. With the OOB retreat system, it's usually possible to prevent any unit losses.

You save auxiliaries? I've never bothered spending RPs on anything but core units, since core units transfer but auxiliaries don't, so I've always seen points spent on them as wasted.

I do save them because I am a sugar-heart and I play "historically" )) But I am an amateur weapon-smith not a power gamer

[Mojko]

You save auxiliaries? I've never bothered spending RPs on anything but core units, since core units transfer but auxiliaries don't, so I've always seen points spent on them as wasted.

I play for the score and I view unit losses as negative points. Standard replacements are quite cheap and you don't necessarily need to fully replenish auxiliary units to have them survive. Also, 50% of RPs spent on an auxiliary unit will get refunded after the battle. I created this score system to make the game harder because I find the game too easy. I also dislike the approach of increasing the difficulty by just increasing HP of enemy units because this increases the difficulty, but not in a fun way, I think.

[Admiral_Horthy]

Also, 50% of RPs spent on an auxiliary unit will get refunded after the battle.

I also dislike the approach of increasing the difficulty by just increasing HP of enemy units because this increases the difficulty, but not in a fun way, I think.

Points I spend on aux is refunded? Never knew that...!!

Very good point on difficulty.... Certainly it is more easy to do than adding more units and difficulty related triggers. I never played any other than normal - but that would inspire me to try. Unlike handicapped - non-handicapped or steroid buffed units

[TheFilthyCasual]

I play for the score and I view unit losses as negative points. Standard replacements are quite cheap and you don't necessarily need to fully replenish auxiliary units to have them survive. Also, 50% of RPs spent on an auxiliary unit will get refunded after the battle. I created this score system to make the game harder because I find the game too easy. I also dislike the approach of increasing the difficulty by just increasing HP of enemy units because this increases the difficulty, but not in a fun way, I think.

I think level 4 should give all enemy units 1 veterancy rank and level 5 should give them all 2 veterancy ranks rather than directly buffing their hitpoints.

[kondi754]

I join to Kondi in this... I am biased for combined arms and I stick to historical force composition mostly, so I do have towed arty, AT and AA/AT. Now that I made AT/ART for the soviets they are most useful like AA/AT.
Personally I love recon units, in JAP campaigns I always had at least one, two usually. By the end they all get 4-5stars. One I use also to accumulate XP to be upgraded to Seaplane later.
Artillery is always my favourite so no comments on that. Especially AT. Cheap, and goes together with INF, as in real.

All in all I completely agree upon CP cost reductions and possible more treats... particularly like the Hit&Run. Light and short range arty/at could get close support, quick retreat etc etc.

Rare heavy arty should be also Slow repair (if not all of them). They were hard to replace and always under supplied in all armies not just the germans or minors. Of course ART is OP because everyone uses the biggest ones. That's why light art should be made more attractive.

I had no prob with engineers, vulnerable, but if I don't have one I always regret not having them. They are aux.. not combat force. Engineers are for making road, helping movement, construct-demolish, repair, combat mines and obstacles, bridges, river crossing boats, etc. There should be Assault troops separately. Combat engineers... whatever.

Subs are.... subs. In their current form.. but cheap. Torpedo attack.. I know. But if they were "All or nothing" highly random value everyone would say OP and complain. Would you like personally such results: successful torp hit of 7-10 damage OR big nothing. 0-1. Any ship but a well protected cruiser or battleship would be crippled by a torp hit - even if survives - forget that for the rest of the battle. Includes destroyers, they are one-shot just like freighters. Would you like random 10 damage or 0? Small chance but if hit - unit kill? Or an automatic hit upon ambush?
My suggestion:
- No automatic spotting by movement (unless on the surface)
- Detectable by air, within 1 range
- Chance of submerge upon attacked by air IF has battery power left
- Anti sub treat of certain aircraft with the ability to attack hex (bombardment) with DCs
- Destroyers could anti-sub (bombard) any neighboring hex of suspicion any time. Sonar would be an extra spec later to detect up to 2 hex and adds extra damage to DC bombard. (range still remains 1 hex)
- Undetected (and of course submerged) sub should get ambush (close combat) damage on all ships even destroyers. So torp attack would be a dual value like Veh and Inf attack. 9-18 etc etc.

- On the sub damage I have no idea, the above ideas are invented for the current sys.

I'm glad that you decided to join this forum.
Most of the people here are focused only on new unit's models, searching for the most powerful core etc. ... I miss the voices emphasizing the creation of an operational simulator but not an arcade turn-based strategy ...

[TheFilthyCasual]

I'm glad that you decided to join this forum.
Most of the people here are focused only on new unit's models, searching for the most powerful core etc. ... I miss the voices emphasizing the creation of an operational simulator but not an arcade turn-based strategy ...

I think a historically accurate core is fine, just not in a campaign. Because units carry over between missions you end up having to drastically change your force composition between missions and waste RPs on units you may never use again.

However, playing the scenario on its own, where you create a core just for that mission, is very fun. I tried doing a historical Force Z today where, besides the Australians, I used only 1 squadron of Buffalos and 3 squadrons of Blenhiems, thus being severely outnumbered in fighters. Very fun - but Buffalos are basically useless in later missions and it's a waste of RPs to switch to Spitfires later, so I would never use them in the campaign.

[Mojko]

I think a historically accurate core is fine, just not in a campaign. Because units carry over between missions you end up having to drastically change your force composition between missions and waste RPs on units you may never use again.

However, playing the scenario on its own, where you create a core just for that mission, is very fun. I tried doing a historical Force Z today where, besides the Australians, I used only 1 squadron of Buffalos and 3 squadrons of Blenhiems, thus being severely outnumbered in fighters. Very fun - but Buffalos are basically useless in later missions and it's a waste of RPs to switch to Spitfires later, so I would never use them in the campaign.

This is a very good point. I like the idea of how this was addressed in Panzer General 3.

- unit stock was limited, for example you couldn't buy 10 artillery unit 17 K18 at a whim
- unit was basically an empty shell with no experience gain
- the experience gain was on the leader and you would purchase leaders
- this way you had realistic limited stock but also you could easily swap units in and out of battle because swapping leader between units had no cost
- you could field units without leaders, but they would underperform and would act as auxiliary units
- RPs would be used only on leaders and unit repairs

Example:

- I have Panzer IV in stock
- I move it to my force
- I buy a tank leader (costs RPs)
- I attach the leader to my tank
- I deploy this on the battlefield
- as I use the unit, the leader gains experience
- after the battle I can detach the leader at no cost
- suppose I gained some captured equipment like T-34 and want to use it on the next battle
- I attach my leader to T-34 and deploy it
- there are no downsides of swapping equipment around

[kondi754]

@Mojko
I've always liked PG3 and I've always considered critics of this game to be unfair

@TheFilthyCasual
Therefore, I think that it's necessary to redesign the game.
You change the plane to one which has better statistics because devs impose such a kind of "arms race" through persistent and premature AI reinforcement in new powerful equipment which was unavailable in reality or even prototypes

A great example is Burma - Hurricanes were used there until the autumn of 1944, because the best Japanese plane there was the Ki-43 Oscar (plus 1 Squadron Ki-44 Tojo from 1944), so Hurricanes were sufficient, while more modern machines were needed in Europe

This is the simulation of the operational theatre

[TheFilthyCasual]

@Mojko
I've always liked PG3 and I've always considered critics of this game to be unfair

@TheFilthyCasual
Therefore, I think that it's necessary to redesign the game.
You change the plane to one which has better statistics because devs impose such a kind of "arms race" through persistent and premature AI reinforcement in new powerful equipment which was unavailable in reality or even prototypes

A great example is Burma - Hurricanes were used there until the autumn of 1944, because the best Japanese plane there was the Ki-43 Oscar (plus 1 Squadron Ki-44 Tojo from 1944), so Hurricanes were sufficient, while more modern machines were needed in Europe

This is the simulation of the operational theatre

Er, not really. The Ki-43 was arguably the best dogfighter of its time, so the agile Spitfire would have been a better choice to face it. The units in Burma had to make do with Hurricanes because they were low-priority units, not because the Ki-43 was crappy enough that Hurricanes were a match for it.

Burma Road treats the Burma campaign as if it were just another front, thus the preponderance of funnies, SPGs, Spitfires and Churchills available.

[Andy2012]

I find many units are simply too specialized to be generally useful and thus not worth the resource investment. For example, I personally avoid using

1. Engineers; this one might be controversial. Yes, I know they have a multitude of uses, but the problem is that they suck at actual combat against other enemy infantry, which means that unless you keep them out of combat except when attacking fortifications or weak units, they end up constantly taking a lot of casualties from pretty much any enemy unit they come across, especially since, being weaker than your infantry, they're the first target the AI will go after if they're within attack range. They take disproportionate losses - most of my infantry usually ends a campaign with about a 3:1 loss ratio, but my engineers are always like 1.5:1 or lower. I simply find them to take up too many of my resources that could be used for other, more effective units.

2. Ground recon units. They have only one use I can really see: finding hidden enemy units that would otherwise ambush your troops. Since they retreat on a dime, armored cars getting ambushed costs fewer resources in losses than losses to a frontline unit. However, because they can't really fight anything, taking losses is pretty much all they do, so I'd much rather use recon planes which, though they can't spot hidden units, are very good spotters for artillery fire and basically never take damage unless you park over an AA unit for some reason or your fighter defences fail.

3. Dedicated anti-tank units. Tanks can take out tanks too, but they can also take out infantry, so I'd prefer to simply buy another tank unit instead of some AT guns or tank destroyers. I prefer using heavy AA guns that can also take out tanks when there's no planes about, since I usually buy a couple AA units anyway.

4. Commandos. The big problem with them is their low defence - if an enemy infantry unit, or god forbid an armored one, attacks them, they get ripped to pieces, and replacing their losses uses up a lot of RPs. They're really only good for taking out non-frontline units like artillery or AA guns, but frankly, since you really need more than one to get anything much done with them, I'd rather just buy another artillery unit for the same price. I find Paratroopers, which are statistically supped-up infantry, infinitely more useful.

5. Submarines. I think there are interesting scenarios you can design where the player can be challenged to only use subs, but given how slow they are both to move and damage enemy ships, if you have the option to deploy an aircraft carrier I don't really see what a sub can do that a carrier can't do better and faster.

Of course if you think I'm wrong about these I'd certainly like to hear how you make them effective.

I have to say that the next DLC may make a lot of these statements (and others in this thread) invalid.
Recon units are great for hunting partisans in your rear supply areas.
AT units are absolutely necessary to hold the line against dedicated soviet tank pushes and later on supporting an armored counterattack. Two to three tanks in the front, two AT behind them is very powerful.
Without Stugs or later Jagdpanthers and -tigers, your Wehrmacht will get crushed.
Artillery - as already demonstrated in Panzerkrieg, the Nebelwerfers (stationary, not the mobile Wurfrahmen) are a very powerful defensive unit for their shock value.

But go check it out next week for yourselves. Worth every penny, I promise.