Tanks / Stuka to weak?

[jomni]

In WITE, one of the basic blitzkrieg strategies is for infantry to punch a hole and for the tanks to capture territory.  Tanks were seldom used in direct combat.

[Zerstorer]

I agree in general, that the tank units in PC appear a little "weak", but I believe they are statistically correct and the real problem is manueverablility. The scale of the map, in conjunction with the large number of close defense terrain types, limits the value of the tanks in the game. The ability to engage/disengage from combat with other ground units is one of the tanks main advantages, and that is not represented in the game. I believe that tank movement should be very similar to the current recon movement ability. Tank units should suffer a movement penalty for exiting a zone of control of non-armored unit, but not be automatically "locked into place" in the first ZOC as any non-mechanized unit would be. Adding this mobility to tank units would greatly improve their value... and would promote a more historical "blitzkrieg" approach (with minimal impact on other aspects of the game).

I also agree that mobile AA units are of dubious value and need something along the lines of a limited offensive supression ablity... allowing them to be more useful as well as earn the experience needed to keep them valuable in later battles.

One last note: If possible an option to select a diffent graphic set/overlay would be nice. The large white dots and arrows for movement etc are a little overbearing (I current use small dark yellow dots for all mounted movement and no dots at all for "normal" movement. It keeps the display clearer.

Overall, this new interpetation of PG is outstanding and I apprieciate the dedication and research done on the equipment file as well. Great job to all.

Edit - I did not mean to imply that the Armor units in PC are themselves "weak" strenght wise. Only that the constaints of the "hard locking" ridged zones of control restrict their use as mobile assets ie; limiting the ablility to "blitz". Remember that throughout the war (more so earlier) the problem the German command had was reigning in the panzers to slow them down... as they could easily out run the rest of the army (and supplies).

[phatkarp]

I've found that the tanks work pretty well if you use them as exploiters and flankers.  Get them around to hit the artillery, and let your infantry and artillery do the hard work.  In nearly every scenario I've played there has been a point when my recon and tanks burst into the open, and seize one or two uncovered objectives as a result of sheer speed and surprise.  

[zoul310]

ORIGINAL: phatkarp

I've found that the tanks work pretty well if you use them as exploiters and flankers.  Get them around to hit the artillery, and let your infantry and artillery do the hard work.  In nearly every scenario I've played there has been a point when my recon and tanks burst into the open, and seize one or two uncovered objectives as a result of sheer speed and surprise.  

Agreed !
[:)]

[ezzler]

Also agree.
trying to cross the river at Kiev was impossible. Once the tanks broke through elsewhere and blitzed the enemy artillery, it was a breeze.

Also not sure why players don't think much of the AA? If it keeps up with the main attack an aircraft soon flies within range. Then your fighters shoot down the damaged plane.
Or is it that there isn't much difference between the cost of an AA and a fighter?

I expect once some decent enemy fighters/tac show up the advantage of decent ground AA might become more apparent.

[Razz1]

Keep playing....
You will find that are not weak, even though they appear so..

[GrumpyMel]

There is a reason why "Combined Arms" is such a critical concept in modern warfare. Historicaly armor does very poorly taking and holding territory on it's own...especialy in rugged terrain. Armor did get anhilated by infantry if it went up against them in good cover without sufficient infantry support.

The reason why armor and tactical air may seem less usefull in PC then it was historicaly is because PC doesn't model the mechanics that those type of units most strongly effected. There are no "lines of supply", "lines of communication" or "command/control systems". It was attacking those systems that made the Blitzkrieg so devastating and why the exploitative nature of armor & the interdictive nature of tactical air became so important.

The Poles (including thier Cavalry units) actualy did reasonably well in direct combat against German armor when they were engaged in good order. This was because they were reasonably equiped with AT weapons that were effective against the German Armor of the day (The majority of which were still PZ I's). The thing that really killed the Poles was that thier Command/Control system was in a shambles with individual units often not having any awareness of the situation they were in or how to coordinate thier actions with other units. On top of that, supplies, ammo, fuel, spare parts, replacements, medical equipment were often completely cutoff or badly interdicted by air attack.... thus units only had access to what they were carrying themselves.... as we know that doesn't last very long in combat.....and without access to those things a units combat effectiveness is vastly reduced.

PC is simple game with more of a beer & pretzels style feel. It's alot of fun that way....but there is really no way it could accurately model the effects of the Blitzkrieg without making changes to it's mechanics that made it a much more complex game. It would become a completely different game with a different feel if it did that. I like both the simple beer & pretzel style games and the more complex Grognard style games....but I don't think you can really achieve both play styles in a single game.

[Obsolete]

The one thing that's amusing is both my father and step-father always insisted the problem with the Poles was they were so stupid as to charge against tanks using Napoleon lancers. And of course there is no argueing this, because EVERY Englishman knows it as a FACT.

Oh yeah, and I'm sure it's on a few internet webpages somewhere as well, so IT MUST BE TRUE!

[Longasc]

I think the Panzer III and IV are much better balanced and closer to how it should be than in Panzer General.

What makes me wonder a bit is that the Ju88 seems so superior to the Ju87B and R, I can't believe how much more effective my level bombers have been against anything so far. They are very fragile and the high suppression of level bombers and artillery does in general more harm than the Stuka's direct attack damage.