Quickie Questions

[Shazman]

What you have are 19 Staghounds with 37mm guns, 107 machine gun equipped scout vehicles and 8 75mm guns if indeed those AEC MkIII were in France instead of Italy. So basically 27 guns that might cause some problems. Is it the jeeps vs the Tigers again? [:D]

Shouldn't the recce unit fall back and draw the tanks to the AT weapons? They were never meant to stand toe to toe with tank battalions. And where is the German combined arms? Just wondering.

Oops. Those Daimlers were MKII I think. Maybe more than MG. Probably 2pdr/40mm.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sparkle

So.... going back to one of my original questions - about the Recce units. I said before that the AI was losing a number of Tigers and heavy kit to my Brit Recce unit.
I am now playing Axis - and guess what - my SS Batts. are attacking a formation of Brit. Recce. Daimlers, a couple of AEC's and that kinda thing, no heavy armour. And my units are being stuffed time after time. There's no air support on the Allied side for these attacks - I double checked. I just lost 12 pz IV's and before that I had difficulty overrunning them with 3x fresh Batts.

I know that these Recce units have a high defence rating, presumably from their mobility - and therefore would be difficult to actually defeat/pin down? But how are they able to return such heavy fire and put so many heavy (ish) tanks out of action? (There is no air support or additional Art.)

Didn't we already answer this question? And we can hardly expand it given such a vague description of the action. Post some screenshots of the combat report pages and maybe we can figure some more things out. You can also turn on the TOAW Log and get more detail.

[Alpha77]

7 x AEC
74 x Humber scout cars
57 x Daimler scout cars...

Well those are quite good ACs, the Brits maybe didnt built the best tanks but they were better in ACs.... with this numerical superiority I would be surprised in another outcome as you described.
Remember those "cars" have guns and not only machine guns and are faster than Tigers. I freely admit that the Tiger 1 values in TOAW are a bit too low however...

eg. Steel Panthers WAW would model this combat quite good tactical, I am certain in this one the Brits would win this fight, too. Even if Tiger1 is more relastic in this one (armor+better pen of the 88mm than in TOAW)

Heres a youtube vid from the Humber AC btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lusdc-ezRLY


"Mark IV
Equipped with the US M5 or M6 37 mm high velocity gun in place of the 15 mm BESA. The larger gun required the removal of the third crewman in the turret (the wireless operator). Turret hatches were rearranged with the new gun and crew layout. About 2,000 units built."


I guess the Humbers in your game were the Mk IV version ??

Daimlers have a 2pdr gun, which is good enough to damage tracks and all outer equipment of Tigers from side and rear....not take it out totally of course...maybe a lucky shot from the rear close up to a weak armor part may kill it... I´ll try that in SP


Edit: Checked the values in game, depends what Daimlers this were ?
"Daimler scout" or "Daimler II" ? If the latter then I think outcome ok.

[Alpha77]

Well, I run the 1st test in SP..... but I halved the numbers of Brits as I was playing them (I assumed that I may be better than the AI so gave myself 50% penality). It was an quite open map with hills, some woods, 2 or 3 roads etc. In this test my Brits ACs were decimated by the Tiger (in this case 3 platoons a´4 Tiger1e). I of course tried to swarm single or portion of Germans but this didnt work as a) the map was too open - Tiger could pick up my ACs at longer range and b) The AI kept their tanks together and even it seems divided them and left some in the distance to cover the advance of the other tigers (this may have been no intentional move by the SP AI however, but pure coincidence of deployment at start). I managed to lighty damage 3 or 4 tiger but not harm a single one dangerously.... I lost ca. 70% of my force with no loss for the Germans.

I used all the latest model Brits ACs all with guns (2pdr late, 37mm and 75mm for the AEC - btw. these should have an AP not HEAT value in TOAW - they dont have any HEAT in SP, but every car has 17 AT + more HE shells, so another error in the TOAW data [8|]) Date was June 44 in France.

Next test I will try to find a bocage map with worse visibility and also try set up a defense for the brits (as OP wrote they were defending, this test was meeting engagement).

Also OP can you provide more data, like exact date, weather and type of vehicles?

[Alpha77]

2nd and 3rd test: 2nd test was more like test 1 means Tiger ate my ACs

3rd test was with lower visibility and some more wooded terrain. August 44, France. I was able to knock out 5 Tigers and damage another 2 slightly. Most of these were very close range hits by 2pdr late (37mm had no effect except some outer damage like radio antenna or coax mg) into the REAR HULL. It was quite frustrating to see 86% or so of my shells had no effect at all, I lost 36 British ACs means almost the complete force. Guess quite realistic outcome, more realistic than the TOAW one imo.

[Sparkle]

Ha ha ... well thanks for all the interesting answers! I'm not going to string this out anymore, enough has been said - except that I just attacked the aforementioned recce unit with my 2nd SS Tiger formation plus 4 x batteries of Art. at (ironically) Villiers Bocage.

Outcome:

Axis:
1 x smg squad = = lost none.
2 x 251 ht = = lost 1.
11 x VI Tigers = lost 6.

Allied:
20mm AA ht x 4 = lost none.
AEC AC (75mm) x 8 = lost none.
Humber Scout x 61 = lost 1.
DAC AC (2pndr) x 41 = lost none.

From my fairly extensive research on armoured warfare, particularly in Normandy, plus having run tests, this is still a highly unlikely outcome even in bocage country.
I used Combat Mission - which I believe have very accurately modeled physics and good AI.

Yes, the AEC's are able to penetrate a Tiger but it has to be less than medium range, and rarely from the front - and yes the 2pdrs can track a Tiger or knock out ancillary kit but only from the side (rarely) or rear and only close up. I know there are a lot of the buggers on the Allied side swarming about, and fine though the DAC is (I've been in one, I love 'em) - losing only one scout car in this entire attack is pushing the limits of believability.

We are talking about the 2nd SS Panzer!
In my tests - the Tigers lost half a dozen or so each time, but not before the fields and lanes were littered with armoured cars every time.

Anyway - I think we've all said enough, and I am still loving the game!
Thx.

[Sparkle]

LOL - last one, I promise!

3 x massed Axis Batts. 1000+ men including 110 AT rifle squads, 79xPanthers (Mk V's), 79 Pz IV's etc, etc against only 42xDAC's and 8xAEC's.......... losses:

5x Panthers and 6x Pz IV's knocked out - to the Allied 3x DAC's and 2x AEC's .... (5 Panthers!)

Amazing, these Recces. . .

[sPzAbt653]

I don't know much about the combat resolution in TOAW, and I don't know anything about SP or Combat Mission, so I probably don't have anything intelligent to add. But I found the question interesting so I put together a test using the pictured units.

The AEC's with 11(HEAT) wiped out the Tigers with 10 Armor, with a little help from the 130 MG's and 2 pounders I imagine.

I swapped the AEC's with the same number of 75mm mounted 234/4's and had 4 times more trouble eliminating the Tigers. So the HEAT rounds made a big difference.

I then composed the Recce unit of only 14 Dainlers, and they got wiped out to the loss of 1 Tiger.

Overall I might guess that you guys are using a tactical resolution engine that is pitting one system against another, while I believe that TOAW lumps it all together, operationally. So in TOAW those Tigers are getting flailed by 130 small rounds and 7 HEAT rounds each combat round. While I am sympathetic to your opinion of the tactical results, I can also understand TOAW's results.

The issue I see is in the units themselves in this scenario. If you want to attack with a unit of 14 Tigers, you better throw in another unit that gives accurate historical support, otherwise Tigers alone are vulnerable.

[sPzAbt653]

Amazing, these Recces. . .

Yes they are. Note that there is some kind of combat bonus regarding Recon Value. Something like 'Combat Value is increased by Recon Value' for the 1st round of combat. You do the math. [;)]

[Alpha77]

Dont forget that Panther + Tiger are rated too low in TOAW !! We discussed this issue not far back (2 weeks or so) in another thread. Also like I mentioned above the AEC should have not a HEAT pen, but normal AP pen... as I also mentioned in this other thread I am sure these issues were discovered before by many other people (i mean this game exists already some years) but no one bothered or was capable to try remedy the database (which is also ok, as it would be a lot of work and apparently most players are ok with the values or they just wanna make some custom equipment scenario specific - if they also design scenarios).

Why are the ratings so obviously wrong in the 1st place??

- 3 answers come to mind:

a) It was seen as secondary to make more a realistic database - but refine the game itself was seen as more important. This one I probably support as one can edit the database himself !

b) The maker(s) of the database thought that German stuff was way overrated and therefore felt to rate them down in their own game system. Also of note Russian and US stuff seems (in some cases) slightly overated. Not in fantasy realm of course still reasonable.

c) Makers didnt care for reality, but only "game balance", which I find wrong. The balance should be an issue of scenario makers not of the game itself. Ex: If the designer wants to "balance" eg the Normandy campaign, he still can cut short Allied air support and/or lower their profiency and/or give the Germans some more Tigers then were present there in reality (and the number of Tigers were quite low actually). He only needs to designate his scen then as "non historical" or "alternative" - case solved. [8D][;)]

Also another note on the last test with SP: 2 of the "destroyed" Tigers werent actually destroyed. But their cres abandomend them. It seems they had taken enough punishment, even if only from small guns. One of these also took hits in the engine and so was immobile anyway. Crews popped out and tried to escape on foot, however they were gunned down by the preying ACs (poor buggers [:(])

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Sparkle

Ha ha ... well thanks for all the interesting answers! I'm not going to string this out anymore, enough has been said - except that I just attacked the aforementioned recce unit with my 2nd SS Tiger formation plus 4 x batteries of Art. at (ironically) Villiers Bocage.

Outcome:

Axis:
1 x smg squad = = lost none.
2 x 251 ht = = lost 1.
11 x VI Tigers = lost 6.

Allied:
20mm AA ht x 4 = lost none.
AEC AC (75mm) x 8 = lost none.
Humber Scout x 61 = lost 1.
DAC AC (2pndr) x 41 = lost none.

From my fairly extensive research on armoured warfare, particularly in Normandy, plus having run tests, this is still a highly unlikely outcome even in bocage country.
I used Combat Mission - which I believe have very accurately modeled physics and good AI.

Yes, the AEC's are able to penetrate a Tiger but it has to be less than medium range, and rarely from the front - and yes the 2pdrs can track a Tiger or knock out ancillary kit but only from the side (rarely) or rear and only close up. I know there are a lot of the buggers on the Allied side swarming about, and fine though the DAC is (I've been in one, I love 'em) - losing only one scout car in this entire attack is pushing the limits of believability.

We are talking about the 2nd SS Panzer!
In my tests - the Tigers lost half a dozen or so each time, but not before the fields and lanes were littered with armoured cars every time.

Anyway - I think we've all said enough, and I am still loving the game!
Thx.

You still don't give us enough info to determine what's happening. What were the supply and readiness levels? What was the recon unit's deployment? What was the terrain? Was there any shock for either side? What were the proficiencies? What was the hex scale? What was the visibility? Are you sure there was no support? We would need to see the combat report pages, among other things, to even be sure you've described it accurately - please don't take offense: you are a new player, and they often don't fully understand the reports.

Furthermore, the descriptions given of the tactical simulations made so far don't give me confidence that they even treated the recon unit as a defender, much less that they may have been dug-in in bocage or dense urban. In the real world, the power of a gun is irrelevant if it can't detect its target and drives past it, exposing its side armor. Or if the target is dug-in it may be protected by a berm or such; then it may be close to invulnerable. Also, if the frontage modeled is several kilometers, those few tigers may be spread so thin they will be automatically flanked.

[Shazman]

If this is Overlord 44 by James Burns in 2002 it is 2.5km per hex half day turns. A Tiger company attacking unsupported on a front that large does not make sense. It's no wonder 100+ armored cars shoot them up. If the person responsible for this survived they would find themselves on the Eastern Front. [:D]

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Also another note on the last test with SP: 2 of the "destroyed" Tigers werent actually destroyed. But their cres abandomend them. It seems they had taken enough punishment, even if only from small guns. One of these also took hits in the engine and so was immobile anyway. Crews popped out and tried to escape on foot, however they were gunned down by the preying ACs (poor buggers [:(])

Good point. Has anyone of you looked how many of the lost Tigers went to the replacement pool and how many were actually destroyed in the TOAW battles?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Sparkle

Hi, I am new to the game, and so far I like it very much. That said, I am an old hand at wargaming, both virtual and tabletop.
I am therefore a little fussy about reality within the games I play and thus have a couple of questions...

1. How is combat engine modeled to such an extent that (playing the Overlord campaign)a combined attack of several of my Batts with support from 25+ of each late model Spitfires, Typhoons and Lightnings, can lose 11 Spitfires, 8 Lightnings and 5 Typhoons to a German defensive formation of 2 small calibre AA guns, a quad flak plus only a handful of Stukas and 3 x me110s (these should not touch Spits as fighters).
To my mind this is ludicrous, unless there is a game mechanic I am unaware of? ie - are there off board long range AA in play? Night-fighters? Fuel loss and ditched planes? Even then, 11 IV Spits...?!

2. My US Batts are attacking the fixed coastal defences. Upon returning fire, I noticed that all the coastal 'nests' in the area defended and then fired back - totaling over 520 rifle squads plus their individual guns. How can the nests fire upon my Batt that is up to 10km away. Is it just the 105mm guns? Because they do a lot of damage for barely a handful of guns...

3. I am losing a strangely large number of Art to what I am assuming is counter-battery fire. But this is a large number considering the enemy has no sighted targets (air spotters or units nearby)- ie my guns are firing from several km and they happily return fire over 10km and consistently take out 3-6 of my 25pdrs - blind. How does this work? That didn't really happen irl. .

4. The 100% entrenchment upon the third stage of 'dig-in' - - does this mean, mines, new-built pillboxes, tank ditches etc? Because that is a lot to expect from the lads after just 36 hours days of digging in? And how much does the 100% give as a bonus?

5. The large single supply discs, coloured red/white at seemingly random places on the map - what do these signify? Are they the enemy supply dumps?

6. To increase supply per turn, it is best to remain still. Does digging-in count as moving in terms of increasing supply?

Thanks for answers!

I got a scenario called Tutorial '41; perfect to test various aspects of the game. Feel free to d/l it from here:

Slides (need to be revised though) : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/562 ... torial.zip
The actual scenario with modified .eqp file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/562 ... 0%2741.zip

Klink, Oberst

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Also another note on the last test with SP: 2 of the "destroyed" Tigers werent actually destroyed. But their cres abandomend them. It seems they had taken enough punishment, even if only from small guns. One of these also took hits in the engine and so was immobile anyway. Crews popped out and tried to escape on foot, however they were gunned down by the preying ACs (poor buggers [:(])

Good point. Has anyone of you looked how many of the lost Tigers went to the replacement pool and how many were actually destroyed in the TOAW battles?

I made a test in TOAW too, I got circa the same result like OP, and yes 2 or 3 tigers were damaged and send back to pool. As others already explained I guess this result is ok within the scope of this game.

And also it would be really stupid to send either unit in the battle witout support, but in my case it was only testing, so I WONT go to the Russian front [:-][:(] I mean you need at least some infantry and at least a few 81mm mortars to fire smoke support in the case of the ACs (they need a short range/visibility for their small guns, while Tigers need exactly the opposite: as great visibility as possible to bring 88m to bear - which in TOAW is too weak anyway btw). Only in case of allied air suppority Tigers wont like good weather/visibilty. The terrain in Normandy wasnt the best for Tigers anyway, Russian steppes better (or desert or plains)