Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they?

[Templer_12]

Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) are not in the game?

[elmo3]

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.

[Templer_12]

The armored troops in the game are very important and should therefore already be represented more accurate.

A very poor design decision! [:(]

[gunnergoz]

I just bought the predecessor games in the series and gave them a look-see. They clearly are much more detailed with regards to AFV types, etc. But I can see where this game is oriented more in a different direction - more on process than on content is one way to look at it. It is a bold step and one with real promise. It is hard to balance out all the demands different players have and still come up with a viable product that you want to have your name on, that does what you want it to and still brings in the income necessary to keep in business. So I don't see this as a very poor design decision given what seems to be the thrust of this game.

[Templer_12]

I could accept your words when Panzertruppen would play only a minor role in the game.
But that is not the case.

And I love the compare feature in the DC series.
But for this you need existing units to compare!

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Templer

The armored troops in the game are very important and should therefore already be represented more accurate.

A very poor design decision! [:(]

I find this kind of "gotcha" criticism tiring. [>:]

I can't find any foundation laid that supports the judgement of "poor design decision". Has a counter-argument been provided for the reasons for this kind of a design decision that are liberally provided in the manual (was the manual even consulted?). Has the game been played through sufficient to logically developing a game play argument for their inclusion?

Problem is, the original premise could be correct. However, the rush to judgement makes it very difficult to assesses dispassionately.

I find it difficult to understand how a judgement of this complex and innovative a product can be made in less than a weeks time (play testers excluded).

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I rather suspect that to OKH, it mattered not a rat's ass whether a division had PzKw III or 38t or moon buggies really. Hey, I love tank stuff too, but if you dig into it at the operational and above levels, tanks is tanks pretty much. Do they run? Do they have fuel? If so, who cares what kind they are? Except in the most extreme cases, in WWII it simply didn't matter. Everything else--the other types of troops, numbers, logistics, air power, weather, training, terrain, that sort of thing--had far, far more impact on who won or lost a battle than the specific type of tanks employed.

Otherwise, all those sexy Panthers and Tigers would have resulted in a Third Reich lasting a lot longer than twelve years....

[ChuckBerger]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

I rather suspect that to OKH, it mattered not a rat's ass whether a division had PzKw III or 38t or moon buggies really. Hey, I love tank stuff too, but if you dig into it at the operational and above levels, tanks is tanks pretty much. Do they run? Do they have fuel? If so, who cares what kind they are? Except in the most extreme cases, in WWII it simply didn't matter. Everything else--the other types of troops, numbers, logistics, air power, weather, training, terrain, that sort of thing--had far, far more impact on who won or lost a battle than the specific type of tanks employed.

Otherwise, all those sexy Panthers and Tigers would have resulted in a Third Reich lasting a lot longer than twelve years....

Hmmm, yes and no. Ask the Italians whether tank type mattered. Or even more to the point, whether every AT gun was pretty much the same. The fact that the Italians and Romanians lacked AT guns that could actually penetrate a T-34s armour did make a real operational difference... and similarly, it made a real difference whether a Russian tank brigade had T-34s or BT-7s. The former could and sometimes did stop a panzer division in its tracks, the latter was operationally nearly useless.

That said, in general in these sorts of games the combat characteristics of equipment is often given greater importance than other operational traits - how much fuel does it use? How often does it break down, and how easy is it to repair? Is it so heavy it will bog down in the rain?

Perhaps some of the criticism of the OOB and other detail aspects of DC:Barbarossa relates to the fact that it purports to represent something that is in reality fairly abstracted. In other words, it lists specific armoured vehicle types and numbers for each division, rather than just giving a single number of tanks, or a number of light/medium/heavy tanks, for instance.

Having made the design decision to list specific vehicle types, the designers shouldn't be surprised when they get criticized for inaccuracy in those lists. Even taking into account the need to consolidate the number of types down to a manageable level, it feels a bit strange that KVs and T-34s get lumped in together, and that the Pz-35/38s - the second-most common type in the Wehrmacht at the opening of Barbarossa (after PzIII) are not represented.

I feel the biggest weakness in the DC series is graphic presentation (especially the map and confusing counters) and to some degree attention to detail. Again, having made the decision to list specific types of tanks, would it have been all that hard to add another half-dozen or dozen types, to ensure all major types are shown?

OK, over to purchase the game now!

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.

Did you notice in the stats that the KV-1 has its own entry though?

[Aurelian]

From the manual.

The Germans fielded two types of light tanks, the
Panzer II and the Panzer 38(t). While these were
different beasts manufactured in different countries
they have been combined into a single light tank, the
Panzer Mk.II with appropriate tweaks to it’s combat
stats to reflect a hybrid of the two.

There are a couple of reasons for doing this, the main
one being the limit of the number of subformation
types that can be displayed for an individual unit.
This being eight individual types which you can see
in the unit display window, bottom right. The engine
can accommodate more but it involves an additional
mouse click to access them. Rather than do this I’ve
standardised on the one light tank and made sure
that the stats reflect a combination of them both.
Having dual light tank types present wouldn’t add
much other than historical window dressing.

Hardly a poor design decision considering what the game is designed to cover.

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger
...the Pz-35/38s - the second-most common type in the Wehrmacht at the opening of Barbarossa (after PzIII) are not represented.
...

Yes, it's what I thought.

Another could be argued, if we want to demonstrate the operational aspect of the campaign, then why at all represent different tank models?
Just name them 'German Panzer', represented by a gray cube, and Russian tanks, represented by a red cube.
Panzer and Tanks, that's all.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.

Did you notice in the stats that the KV-1 has its own entry though?

No, I was just using it as an example to point out that not every vehicle is, or needs to be, represented specifically in the game. No doubt there are other, probably better, examples of one type of vehicle being used to represent another.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Templer

Yes, it's what I thought.

Another could be argued, if we want to demonstrate the operational aspect of the campaign, then why at all represent different tank models?
Just name them 'German Panzer', represented by a gray cube, and Russian tanks, represented by a red cube.
Panzer and Tanks, that's all.

Now that is an excellent example of a poor design decision. [;)]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.

Did you notice in the stats that the KV-1 has its own entry though?

No, I was just using it as an example to point out that not every vehicle is, or needs to be, represented specifically in the game. No doubt there are other, probably better, examples of one type of vehicle being used to represent another.

True. You did make a good point.

[budd]

Seems like a lot of people want the game to be something its not. Would it play better if every tank was modeled, there are other games for that. I haven't played enough yet to have an opinion on what should or should not be added.

[Queeg]

While I absolutely understand and generally applaud the design focus of the game, another poster pointed out in another thread that the decision to standardize the units does render them a bit "cookie cutter." Perhaps a future refinement to give units a bit more "personality" would be a nice addition.

[budd]

for sure there cookie cutter, by design. From the perspective you play the game from not sure it matters, they put the chrome in other places. It's different for sure, a lot of moving parts with the relationships and the decisions and the fact that some of them don't catch up to you until later on during the game. It's a novel approach and i find i have to approach the game differently. I like the spread sheet games also, its probably just a matter of personal perspective and taste.

[battlevonwar]

I remember reading in an ole history manual with Eastern Front I believe it was from SSI, half of Germany's medium tanks came from Czech factories(and I'm not sure how much of this is accurate and at what stage in the war). 38(t) and I remember a game I played with them, it was as ideal as the Panzer III to me. WW2online, did a wonderful job a tank warfare for a shooter. I really miss my 38(t)

The 38 and the Panzer III look a lot alike to me. At least the poor graphics of that particular game. I am not sure I would even bother distinguishing the two over a more pressing matter or adjustment. I would really love Stukas XP but it's neat abstracted. More important than a 38(T) to me though XP

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: **budd**
for sure there cookie cutter, by design. From the perspective you play the game from not sure it matters, they put the chrome in other places...I like the spread sheet games also, its probably just a matter of personal perspective and taste.

I don't see how:
--this game's design requires cookie-cutter divisions? It seems perfectly consistent with having historically accurate OOBs;
--having accurate OOBs (for a game which claims to have them)! can be considered "chrome";
--a game can be called a "spreadsheet game" simply for having accurate OOBs; I'm sure there are plenty of board games which take into account the varying strength of Sov tank divisions--are those spreadsheet games too??

As to the absence of specific models of tanks: since the model doesn't seem to finely distinguish between similar tank models, so including them wouldn't add much other than a bit of chrome. At this level its not a big deal to me, much less so than getting the basic OOBs right.

[governato]

At this point I am very curious/excited to know more about the editor. 1942+ tanks were very different from the early models in terms of armor, gunnery (both better) and speed (slower). I respect and understand the designer choice to simplify tank types for Barbarossa. It does not have large consequences at the operational level and streamlining the TOE allowed them to focus on what the game does best: C&C and logistics (and uniquely! And better!).

However, the disticntion in light/medium/heavy tanks had important differences for their use at the operational level (recon/exploitation/defense). So if the editor is flexible enough a modder willing to keep the original approach my want to create a few simple tank classes (early/late and then light/medium/heavy/AT), call each class the most representative type of that period and side (Panther, Tiger, Elephant, T34-85 etc etc) for added chrome and be happy!