SU OOB - I'm confused

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Thu May 31, 2001 4:40 pm

Murx, yes that's the word

Thanks! Couldn't find it at 3 am last night :rolleyes:

Tortfeasor.. my favourite army in SPWAW is the Finnish, followed closely by the Japs, Soviets and Germans. I do not play completely without armour, but i always base my force on infantry, no matter which nation I use.

Like the sneaky behaviour of infantry and AT guns, truly enjoy when I manage to surprise my enemy with a well-planned infantry attack from unexpected directions or manage to set up a few AT guns in good positions ruling the field.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu May 31, 2001 8:09 pm

The artillery numbers should be illuminating to those who want a single battalion to wipe out companies wholesale with a single barrage. The problem requiring such large numbers of tubes was lack of information the player has in spades on what and where the enemy is and the time delays in that info geting to the required echelon - in m ost cases the info was OBE by the timeit was actionable. Most of those tubes were massed and used as huge preperatory barrages followed up by infantry assault supported by tanks! Even as teh game is now I don't think one would want to face an enemy with humdreds of tubes of artillery!

As to the point difference between Tiger and T-34 - you have to look at it in terms of quantifying the effect of the unit in game terms. And looing at combuined arms effects and situations. If one makes a tiger say 200 points and a T-34 50 points, based on "it takes 4 T-34s to kill a Tiger then What is a PZIIIh compared to a T-34? 25 points, since it takes 2 Mk IIIh to kill a T-34? No for 1000 points one gets 5 Tigers or 40 PZIIIh to face 20 T-34. Now in a city a company of Soviet RPG armed Guards can easily take on 5 Tigers, so they should be 2000 points? But in open ground the Tigers will generally hold there own with even a few supporting recon Teams. SO say 5 Recon Teams should be worth 1000 since they even the odds?

You see you quickly spiral into nonsensical and spiral arguments whn you try to base point cost on "how many it takes to kill ..." So the points are based on a set of formula that score each unit characteristic, including quantity of ammo (why JS-IIs are so cheap with only like 16 AP rounds) on a consistant scale with global multipliers for some unit classes.

The goal is to make a combined arms team bought with similar points have similar capabilities in teh game, high "bang for your buck" units will always fall out, as will tactical mismatches like the Company of Tigers vs a similar value of infantry in woods or city. But overall the points result in farly even combined arms battles in the 1000-5000 point range. Battels larger or smaller than that should be "at your own risk" becasue at higher than a regiments worth of troops the game engine starts to break down

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

achappelle · Post by **achappelle** » Thu May 31, 2001 8:53 pm

I've found the exact opposite, Tanks rule the battlefield. When fighting the AI especially, taking out the tanks of the force then just makes the battle a matter of infantry suppression, and mop up. Don't get me wrong, along with my hordes of experienced and deadly T34s I've got Tank Desant troops hitching a ride, but my force is definitely Armour-oriented. Combined arms is definitely the way to go, run them over with tanks, then occupy with your second wave of foot sloggers.

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Thu May 31, 2001 10:32 pm

Paul, yes.. you are right as usual..

Arty in those numbers would be a real massacre in SPWAW terms. I'm not sure if they count in 50 mm mortars here as well, but i doubt it.. saw a similar one for the Finnish front with even greater number of tubes (including the 50 mm mortars).

About the tubes number listed here.. not all of these were used to support the first line attack, counter-artillery fire, disturbing fire, area firing to prevent reserves from coming through etc.

Your note about the arty takes me to my old wish of making OB/heavy artillery mission based (some never give up

.. you buy a number of missions from the OB battery instead of having it along all the time.. these missions should be more powerful and more expensive used for preparatory bombardments, especially tough spots etc-
Working more like air strikes than arty as it is now.

Gallo Rojo · Post by **Gallo Rojo** » Thu May 31, 2001 10:41 pm

I have been following this post very interested.

I don't have 5.1 version yet (I'm waiting for the CD), but I have noticed that purchase advantage that soviets had on 4.* version was removed on 5.0 version.
It's a pity because I think that this advantage was useful to solve this problem that we're discussing here.

I have not time to right a long post right now (I'm working) but I'll do it later.

If thinks are like Tortfeasor said (if you have 1000 points Soviets can buy 8 T-34m43 vs 6 Tigers… well, Soviets are dead…) I like to play with soviets and my personal experience says me that I need at least 3 T-34m43 to each Tiger to get a chance to win)

Only hope for Russians should be that the new "rarity factor" feature restricts Germans to buy a lot of Tigers. As I don't have 5.1 version I don't know if this is the case, but if it is not, as I said, it would be almost impossible for USSR to win against Germans on 1943.

john g · Post by **john g** » Thu May 31, 2001 11:42 pm

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov:
I've found the exact opposite, Tanks rule the battlefield. When fighting the AI especially, taking out the tanks of the force then just makes the battle a matter of infantry suppression, and mop up. Don't get me wrong, along with my hordes of experienced and deadly T34s I've got Tank Desant troops hitching a ride, but my force is definitely Armour-oriented. Combined arms is definitely the way to go, run them over with tanks, then occupy with your second wave of foot sloggers.

Early in the war perhaps, but when infantry at weapons are commonplace, tanks die in droves to experianced well positioned infantry. I too play primarily infantry oriented forces. My German WWII campaign core started as a company of infantry, a company of engineer and just 3 platoons of tanks. More in line of the percentages of the late pg div not the early pz div.

Infantry can go where tanks can't and can ambush tanks a lot easier than tanks can ambush infantry.
thanks, John.

achappelle · Post by **achappelle** » Thu May 31, 2001 11:53 pm

Whatever works for that general's style of play, obviously go for it. For me, suppressing an area with artillery, then charging Tanks, with infantry mounted on it works for me and my style of play. I think John we could draw the historical parallel that I'm Patton to your Montgomery, both effective, just different paths to the solution.