Monday, 8 June 2015

Are There Too Many Auto Attacking Lists In Late War?

I'm sitting here having come back from our very enjoyable one day event in Portsmouth, but there is one thing which is really bugging me from it. I was playing a tank list and defended in a three games. The reason for this - they were all auto attack lists.

Actually if you look at another Late Late War Event (LLW) - the breakthrough assault one day event back in April, I ended up playing another two Auto Attack list, but as was also an auto attack list I attacked (say that quickly!)
For those of you who are interested, I was playing a nachtjager Panther list, and my opponents were Peiper, 7th armoured, 3rd armoured, Brit infantry and motorstrelkovy.

Why would you want to auto attack? Well you get to dictate the game, you normally have more units, often spearheads, and you can apply the pressure to the enemy where you want to. Often defending against an AA spearheading force, you can be overwhelmed before your reserves arrive! More importantly I think, some missions with mobile reserves can be hugely more difficult for tank lists when defending again an auto attack list.

I've noticed that as more and players have started using AA lists, it's led to an AA arms race - where entire lists are now being dismissed as they don't have this option so can't be competitive. I'm thinking that in many ways the axis forces do suffer here, with only three 'decent' AA lists - whilst as an allies player I think you have plenty to utilise.

Of course the alternative to this is to take auto defend lists - if you think there's going to be a lot of auto attack take the opposite. I've been thinking more and more that as the axis forces have a lot of auto defend lists why not make the most of it? Lots of Faust equipped infantry and pak40's? Now you still will struggle with mobility - but if you're going to defend lots why not go all in?

The other option I think is to set up your traditional 'tank' list to defend - now I always take the 'worst case scenario' you're defending in a mobile battle - so only two mobile or one mobile and lots of static. I prefer with tank lists to be fully mobile (nothing better than your opponents HMG's etc being pointless) so I normally only get a couple of units - I like therefore to have something with high AT - so you can really punish enemy tanks, panthers and jagdpanthers for the Germans, TD's for the U.S. and Fireflies for the Brits (I guess some form of SU/ISU for the Russians - who knows!). However I think you really need that high armour to take the hits.

I've deliberately late war, because it's just not so prevalent in Early war, bar Japanese, Soviet Tank list (and if your Fez gliders) AA lists are less common, and the same in MW. I do wonder if AA didn't exist how different the meta would be in late war?

Anyway would love to hear your thoughts. Till next time.


  1. My thoughts are very similar. When everybody is either AD or AA, the least we would need is missions when the AA goes vs. AA and so.

  2. I think there are too many AA lists. One of the nice things about Mid War is basically everyone, apart from the Shtraf-weilding Strelkovy horde, has to be ready for any situation. It's a great leveller, and keeps more lists viable.

  3. Yes, I think AA has become too common and is devaluing lists without it. Tank companies without AA are becoming glorified mechanized companies.