While the objective point totals are an important part of how these battles are going I have another idea. Is it possible that the ol' 'give the defense the advantage rule' is taking place here somewhat? What I'm saying is that perhaps the old rule of giving the defense twice (or more) points for each casualty inflicted, has been done away with, and now it's being put into the final point score instead? Confused?
We all know that the defensive side is given in some cases, advantage, by virtue of being dug-in. Well, in one of the SP predecessors, there used to be casualty bonuses given to the defensive side. What I'm saying, is that perhaps, this has been done away with, and instead the margin for all the victory levels has been heightened when you're on an offensive mission. If the 'normal' rate for a meeting engagement were 8-to-1 to make it decisive, perhaps on an advance it becomes 10-to-1, and in the case of an assault, even higher (the decisive margin might be 10-to-1 for the offensive player, while only 4-to-1 for the defensive player).
I'm only guessing here, because it seems as though IF there is an alleged scoring inconsistency it could only be because the side with offensive missions are expected to achieve a higher margin than in a meeting engagement.
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited November 13, 2000).]
Vectorys and Draws
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Concerning victory hex points per turn, when a game ends before the end do you get the victory points for holding the per turn victory hexes for the unplayed turns???
In other words if I capture a victor hex worth 30 points per turn on turn 10 of 30 and the game ends on turn 20 do I get 30x10 points or do I get 30x20 points?????
In other words if I capture a victor hex worth 30 points per turn on turn 10 of 30 and the game ends on turn 20 do I get 30x10 points or do I get 30x20 points?????
Sorry Don, I can't answer that. I don't know. I postulated the possibility of upgrading the points and was told it could not be done. Since Tom is the programmer and I am only a designer with no knowledge of coding, I just accepted the verdict. Actually, it was David Heath who told me that this was Tom's reaction so it is third hand news. I guess I'm to old to start learning that now 
.
As to defensive values being increased, that would be another coding issue I could not address.
Finally, as to the victory points, I am told and it seems to be true from scores I have seen that even if the game ends prematurely and you have the victory hex, you get the points as though the game had played through.
Example, a victory hex is worth 50 points a turn. You get it on turn 6. Before that it was neutral. The game ends on turn 15 and was set for 25 turns. You should get 500 points (turns 6-15) and another 500 points for the same objective (turns 16-25) for a total of 1000 points for that objective.
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
.As to defensive values being increased, that would be another coding issue I could not address.
Finally, as to the victory points, I am told and it seems to be true from scores I have seen that even if the game ends prematurely and you have the victory hex, you get the points as though the game had played through.
Example, a victory hex is worth 50 points a turn. You get it on turn 6. Before that it was neutral. The game ends on turn 15 and was set for 25 turns. You should get 500 points (turns 6-15) and another 500 points for the same objective (turns 16-25) for a total of 1000 points for that objective.
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
_________________________________________________________________________________________
“The problem as I see it gentlemen, is not the calculation of the odds but the value of the objectives.… So the problem is not with the ratios but with the points.” WBW
You can win the battle and lose the war or vice versa. WBW really has most of the answers in his comments, but I just felt the need to add the following. Since game designers can setup and define the objectives, it is up to them to make sure that the scenarios goals are also defined. By making objective values very large (500pts), implies that a group of these objectives needs to be taken at all cost. While high point objectives that are valued per turn possessed imply not only do these objective need to be taken, but also they need to be taken quickly. Exit hex victory conditions set the stage for another type of strategy. WB is right, the victory conditions problem doesn’t exist in the ratio of the numbers. It lies in the design of the scenario; and just as importantly in defining the objectives for each side by properly stating these in the text document prior to play. It would not only be very frustrating, but historical, to kick the other guy all the way off the map claiming victory, just to find out that he was winning this campaign though strategic withdraws.
“The problem as I see it gentlemen, is not the calculation of the odds but the value of the objectives.… So the problem is not with the ratios but with the points.” WBW
You can win the battle and lose the war or vice versa. WBW really has most of the answers in his comments, but I just felt the need to add the following. Since game designers can setup and define the objectives, it is up to them to make sure that the scenarios goals are also defined. By making objective values very large (500pts), implies that a group of these objectives needs to be taken at all cost. While high point objectives that are valued per turn possessed imply not only do these objective need to be taken, but also they need to be taken quickly. Exit hex victory conditions set the stage for another type of strategy. WB is right, the victory conditions problem doesn’t exist in the ratio of the numbers. It lies in the design of the scenario; and just as importantly in defining the objectives for each side by properly stating these in the text document prior to play. It would not only be very frustrating, but historical, to kick the other guy all the way off the map claiming victory, just to find out that he was winning this campaign though strategic withdraws.
"Nuts"
I for one think we are getting too wrapped up in points and labels. To me, the enjoyment is playing the game, not what numerical outcome I can achieve.
In tournament, and head-to-head, you can always agree before hand on victory conditions, and to the moon with what the computer says. And in generated campaigns, it doesn't matter anyway.
Only in user defined linked campaigns does level of victory have any game value whatsoever (it will determine what "thread" you take). And from what I've seen the campaign designers do an excellent job of relating the victory conditions to your actual achievements.
If I out-score my opponent (AI or human) 8000 to 3000, then I'm satisfied that I won, and I don't really concern myself with what shows up on the screen.
Many of you may disagree, but I thought I'd just offer a different perspective.
RD
In tournament, and head-to-head, you can always agree before hand on victory conditions, and to the moon with what the computer says. And in generated campaigns, it doesn't matter anyway.
Only in user defined linked campaigns does level of victory have any game value whatsoever (it will determine what "thread" you take). And from what I've seen the campaign designers do an excellent job of relating the victory conditions to your actual achievements.
If I out-score my opponent (AI or human) 8000 to 3000, then I'm satisfied that I won, and I don't really concern myself with what shows up on the screen.
Many of you may disagree, but I thought I'd just offer a different perspective.
RD
Grab them by the balls. Their hearts and minds will follow.
Hi I just posted a response to simaliar thread in Matrix Games Network forum. I think the whole points system is out of whack it should be mission outcome. Lets face it Russian and Japanese commanders were not measured by lossess but did they complete their mission? Points would work if they were a reflection of how common/expendable unit were not just add up armour/speed/gun into a value. Production of the T-34 would allow soviets to lose 5 to one and still call it a victory when facing Tigers but not in game. Soviet and Japanese infantry are just as costly as german. I do not know how the germans ever lose a battle in SPWaW (I understand not winning them) but draws are the order of the day. U.S. units while having a high production (except Marines) were not subjected to conditions where lossess would exceed 4 or 5% so it should be harder for them to win a victory but at same time the means of keeping lossess low (lots of cheap/effective arty and air) should be available. A Tiger costs 170 points a T-34 130 points is this a true reflection of their relative value? based on production numbers alone if a Tiger is 170 points a T-34 should cost around 20!!!! Shermans should be the same cost (thus freeing large amounts of points for above mentioned cheap air and arty) U.S. Infantry (aside from USMC) should cost twice as much as it does not because it is so good but because US commanders were not allowed to just throw it away (I know I know what about Mark Clark) Its purchase price is ok but it should count double in VP's. cheap to buy expensive to lose. The required victory points are so hard to get in SPWaW because the unit values are out of whack. The flavour of the period and battle conditions are lost when you just use even points and conditions for different nationally/reality.
1944 Germans can not afford to lose material and still must meet mission objectives. Soviets in 1943 can lose men all day provided they meet mission objectives. US has to keep lossess down but can hit enemy with overkill numbers and support units. Mission results should replace point system
Did you capture\hold the objectives? and then based on time period/army adjusted to reflect quaility of victory. US player who captures all victory hexes but sustains loss higher then 5% of points should be down graded to marginal. Oh I could just babble on and on concerning this subject.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
1944 Germans can not afford to lose material and still must meet mission objectives. Soviets in 1943 can lose men all day provided they meet mission objectives. US has to keep lossess down but can hit enemy with overkill numbers and support units. Mission results should replace point system
Did you capture\hold the objectives? and then based on time period/army adjusted to reflect quaility of victory. US player who captures all victory hexes but sustains loss higher then 5% of points should be down graded to marginal. Oh I could just babble on and on concerning this subject.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Hi, I hate to be the one to have to point this out but Germany lost WWII. If the how and why is not part of the game something is missing. It was in fact easier for the Russians to build a T-34 then it was for the Germans to build a Kampfwagon. The Soviets built more T-34's then the Germans built halftracks so yes they should be cheaper. If you want to be a German who rampages through the opposition stay in 1939 and 1940.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
I think the thing your forgeting do Mogami is that players are not confind to the same restrant as the commmanders back then were.
If we cound module them restrants I could see doing what you want but if the units were just priced on their production rates the Germans would never win a battle Human vs Human again. If you want this just for fighting the computer, all you got to do is change your OOBs.
If we cound module them restrants I could see doing what you want but if the units were just priced on their production rates the Germans would never win a battle Human vs Human again. If you want this just for fighting the computer, all you got to do is change your OOBs.
Hi, I practice what I preach I am axis 44 and never use Tigers/Panthers/Wurfherman/air and I have not lost a battle yet. I use VG infantry small calibur arty. I like the flavour of being out numbered and having to use my limited resources wisely. If you are just interested in victory then keep it the way it is but if you want to know what it was like to be a german soldier in 1944 then forget about equality and get used to being shelled/strafed every turn and having much larger enemy forces to deal with. Anyone can win battles driving around in herds of Tigers and Panthers against a equal sized enemy but show me where it happened after 1942. Even during the Bulge in 44 after 48 hours the germans were right back to being outnumbered. There are a lot of genius's running around the halls of SPWaW thinking they are good because they never risk battle unless they are sure of having all the good toys. These 15 turn equal force meeting engagements are pure fantasy.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
I agree with you their Mogami but most people like playing with the nice toysOriginally posted by Mogami:
Hi, I practice what I preach I am axis 44 and never use Tigers/Panthers/Wurfherman/air and I have not lost a battle yet. I use VG infantry small calibur arty. I like the flavour of being out numbered and having to use my limited resources wisely. If you are just interested in victory then keep it the way it is but if you want to know what it was like to be a german soldier in 1944 then forget about equality and get used to being shelled/strafed every turn and having much larger enemy forces to deal with. Anyone can win battles driving around in herds of Tigers and Panthers against a equal sized enemy but show me where it happened after 1942. Even during the Bulge in 44 after 48 hours the germans were right back to being outnumbered. There are a lot of genius's running around the halls of SPWaW thinking they are good because they never risk battle unless they are sure of having all the good toys. These 15 turn equal force meeting engagements are pure fantasy.
Often when I play campaigns I will do the same as you and buy units and formations that are more historic.
Im sure if you want to play online like this you could set it up with someone so you would be limited in what you could buy
Hi, I have no problem with players wanting to have 20 Tigers and 3 Companies of SS and Wurfherman ect. What I find painfull is them then wanting to face a force of 20 Shermans.
There were Elite well equipped units in the German army in 1944. But they suffered the same problem the rest of the army faced. Overwhelming (else they would have won) numbers. Now no one wants to spend many hours fighting hopeless battles so there has to be a means of giving "Game victorys" to the german. This is the source of this thread since all the players of all the different armies are measured by the same yardstick. A desisive victory for the german in 1944 is not the same as one in 1939. The Germans did not win DV's in 1944 even Market Garden can only be called marginal at best since it did not turn the tide in any way. So I would give the allies more points and cheaper units but make them score more points while the german can win "Game" by just staying alive and holding the ground he is ordered to defend. In cases where german has assault or advance mission he is going to have a harder time winning but this is as it should be, it is still possible for a good player to win battles in 1944.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 14, 2000).]
There were Elite well equipped units in the German army in 1944. But they suffered the same problem the rest of the army faced. Overwhelming (else they would have won) numbers. Now no one wants to spend many hours fighting hopeless battles so there has to be a means of giving "Game victorys" to the german. This is the source of this thread since all the players of all the different armies are measured by the same yardstick. A desisive victory for the german in 1944 is not the same as one in 1939. The Germans did not win DV's in 1944 even Market Garden can only be called marginal at best since it did not turn the tide in any way. So I would give the allies more points and cheaper units but make them score more points while the german can win "Game" by just staying alive and holding the ground he is ordered to defend. In cases where german has assault or advance mission he is going to have a harder time winning but this is as it should be, it is still possible for a good player to win battles in 1944.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 14, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
If someone really would buy 20 Tigers and 3 SS rifle companies, in year '44 he would have to face at least 40 T-34 M42's and 10 Soviet rifle companies.
Would he win? Depends most on the terrain, but he'd be hard pressed to stop those red hordes. If you invest 190 points in a Tiger, you damn better make some use of it.
Unit cost has nothing to do with historical availability.
[This message has been edited by Kharan (edited November 14, 2000).]
Would he win? Depends most on the terrain, but he'd be hard pressed to stop those red hordes. If you invest 190 points in a Tiger, you damn better make some use of it.
Unit cost has nothing to do with historical availability.
[This message has been edited by Kharan (edited November 14, 2000).]
Mogami: You seriously believe the Russians built more T34s than the Germans built halftracks? I wish you could provide evidence for such claims (this is beside the fact that this game isn't attempting to echo production figures). Anyway, with your viewpoint, they would need to produce more than two times the T34s to halftracks. Also, to use your logic, since the Germans probably "produced" more trucks than the Russians (the Russians didn't produce many, they got them on loan from the US), the Russian trucks and supply sections should be very expensive therefore or German ones 1 point or so (assuming the entire point structure is based solely on the war in Russia, which it isn't).
It may interest you to know that you seem hooked on this myth that the T34s were produced at a 8-to-1 (or greater) ratio to every piece of German equipment. You see, the problem is that not only are you believing exaggerated Russian claims but you are also taking your beliefs simply from concentrated battles, not the total composition of both forces. I'm currently reading "Russia at War 1941-1945" which this evidence should make you at least wonder. Page 953 from the Soviet History these figures are for the great attack launched which the Germans weren't expecting in such force (1/14/45 after the Germans had lost so much already), while the Germans had concentrated more in Hungary, so it's not indicative of the entire front, just on a concentrated attack. If the general entire front were an 8-to-1 Soviet advantage, then certainly the great attacks given from the Soviet figures themselves (almost always grossly exaggerated), would shown concentrations of 16-to-1 or better, and yet the following doesn't show that..
I must point out that the book lists the 5.7 figure on tanks, with the point being not on the bottom of the figure, as I type it, but higher up, so that, perhaps, the point means not a point, but an estimate, so as to say "5-7 times", but I doubt that, for when this applied to the aircraft figure it would say "17-6 times" and that makes no sense, since the lower figure always goes first (In other words it would read "6.17 times" instead).
If you want to compare a tank produced to the entire war to one that wasn't produced till late 1944 (King Tiger), sure you might find an 8-to-1 advantage or larger, but even so, you aren't taking the reality a "tank class" into consideration. You're comparing a medium tank to a very heavy. Try comparing Russian production of the KV series to the Tiger and see there isn't that big of a difference. Even so, the KV was produced at least twice as long as the Tiger (if we include the regular Tigers) was produced. The only relatively fair comparison that can be made between Russian/Soviet tank classes, would have to be over the same periods of the war. For example, one could compare the T34 to the PZIV series to some extent since they were both produced throughout the war.
Also, you have to figure that a lot of the Soviet total equipment was lost without a fight in 41-42 in Russia and Finland both. So how do you emulate the early effects of a Russia which was quite different from the late Russia in tanks? You can't just take concentrated battles and paint that as a Russian production advantage throughout the war for tanks, and even more absurdly for just the T34 class in particular. Weren't there only allegedly like 35,000 T34s produced the whole war? Seems I've seen that figure. If that's so, we know the German figures to be reliable. If you just account for the Panthers and Tigers you come between 4,000-6,000 tanks don't you? The 4,000 figure would "barely" make the 8-to-1 ratio you claim for T34s, and that's not even making the somewhat fair comparison of T34 vs PZIV, even if you can believe the Russian figures.
(Through [url="http://www.achtungpanzer.com,"]www.achtungpanzer.com,[/url] they put the production of Panthers at 5,796, while the Tiger is 1,844. The show the PZIV at 8,544. If you compare T34 to Panther/Tiger for the 2+ years they were produced you have a rough 4-to-1 T34 advantage, while the T34 vs. PZIV is roughly the same.)
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited November 15, 2000).]
It may interest you to know that you seem hooked on this myth that the T34s were produced at a 8-to-1 (or greater) ratio to every piece of German equipment. You see, the problem is that not only are you believing exaggerated Russian claims but you are also taking your beliefs simply from concentrated battles, not the total composition of both forces. I'm currently reading "Russia at War 1941-1945" which this evidence should make you at least wonder. Page 953 from the Soviet History these figures are for the great attack launched which the Germans weren't expecting in such force (1/14/45 after the Germans had lost so much already), while the Germans had concentrated more in Hungary, so it's not indicative of the entire front, just on a concentrated attack. If the general entire front were an 8-to-1 Soviet advantage, then certainly the great attacks given from the Soviet figures themselves (almost always grossly exaggerated), would shown concentrations of 16-to-1 or better, and yet the following doesn't show that..
The First Belorussian and the First Ukrainian Fronts had 163 divisions, 32,143 guns and mortars, 6,460 tanks and mobile guns and 4,772 aircraft. The total effectives were 2,200,000 men. Thus we had in the Warsaw-Berlin direction [at the beginning of the offensive] 5.5 times more men than the enemy, 7.8 times more guns, 5.7 times more tanks, 17.6 times more planes.
I must point out that the book lists the 5.7 figure on tanks, with the point being not on the bottom of the figure, as I type it, but higher up, so that, perhaps, the point means not a point, but an estimate, so as to say "5-7 times", but I doubt that, for when this applied to the aircraft figure it would say "17-6 times" and that makes no sense, since the lower figure always goes first (In other words it would read "6.17 times" instead).
If you want to compare a tank produced to the entire war to one that wasn't produced till late 1944 (King Tiger), sure you might find an 8-to-1 advantage or larger, but even so, you aren't taking the reality a "tank class" into consideration. You're comparing a medium tank to a very heavy. Try comparing Russian production of the KV series to the Tiger and see there isn't that big of a difference. Even so, the KV was produced at least twice as long as the Tiger (if we include the regular Tigers) was produced. The only relatively fair comparison that can be made between Russian/Soviet tank classes, would have to be over the same periods of the war. For example, one could compare the T34 to the PZIV series to some extent since they were both produced throughout the war.
Also, you have to figure that a lot of the Soviet total equipment was lost without a fight in 41-42 in Russia and Finland both. So how do you emulate the early effects of a Russia which was quite different from the late Russia in tanks? You can't just take concentrated battles and paint that as a Russian production advantage throughout the war for tanks, and even more absurdly for just the T34 class in particular. Weren't there only allegedly like 35,000 T34s produced the whole war? Seems I've seen that figure. If that's so, we know the German figures to be reliable. If you just account for the Panthers and Tigers you come between 4,000-6,000 tanks don't you? The 4,000 figure would "barely" make the 8-to-1 ratio you claim for T34s, and that's not even making the somewhat fair comparison of T34 vs PZIV, even if you can believe the Russian figures.
(Through [url="http://www.achtungpanzer.com,"]www.achtungpanzer.com,[/url] they put the production of Panthers at 5,796, while the Tiger is 1,844. The show the PZIV at 8,544. If you compare T34 to Panther/Tiger for the 2+ years they were produced you have a rough 4-to-1 T34 advantage, while the T34 vs. PZIV is roughly the same.)
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited November 15, 2000).]
Originally posted by Mogami:
Hi, I practice what I preach I am axis 44 and never use Tigers/Panthers/Wurfherman/air and I have not lost a battle yet. I use VG infantry small calibur arty. I like the flavour of being out numbered and having to use my limited resources wisely. If you are just interested in victory then keep it the way it is but if you want to know what it was like to be a german soldier in 1944 then forget about equality and get used to being shelled/strafed every turn and having much larger enemy forces to deal with. Anyone can win battles driving around in herds of Tigers and Panthers against a equal sized enemy but show me where it happened after 1942. Even during the Bulge in 44 after 48 hours the germans were right back to being outnumbered. There are a lot of genius's running around the halls of SPWaW thinking they are good because they never risk battle unless they are sure of having all the good toys. These 15 turn equal force meeting engagements are pure fantasy.
I hear that, I love playing with a core of ONE Inf Co (foot) a section of AT's and a section of 81's. And a section of mules to move em around. Russian front is a B***h. But lots of fun.
Campaigners don't play 15 turn meeting engagements, anymore, anyway, it's usually 30+ and from the way it usually works out, the battle is pretty much over before the 10th turn is reached, whether on the offensive or defensive (the battles could of course be longer, except the AI so often charges, and, frankly, if the objectives are in the middle and timed, the battle ought to be very quick unless gunnery isn't being utilised to it's most proficient).
In fact, when I played the Motherland campaign of Wild Bill's, I had a couple of attacks that ended up getting the last objective hex only on the last turn, and in one instance I only had one unit due to enemy units in and about the hex, that could reach that hex. The tank reached it, a T34, but the tank got destroyed and only the crew remained on that very last turn. Strangely enough though there was also an SGIIIB in the hex, the control of the hex went over to the crew, though the SGIIIB hadn't been damaged.
When you are used to a more leisurely pace of the campaign games, always being leary of mines, it isn't easy to start throwing tanks out there haphazard to blow past opponents to try and capture a last hex or two.
In fact, when I played the Motherland campaign of Wild Bill's, I had a couple of attacks that ended up getting the last objective hex only on the last turn, and in one instance I only had one unit due to enemy units in and about the hex, that could reach that hex. The tank reached it, a T34, but the tank got destroyed and only the crew remained on that very last turn. Strangely enough though there was also an SGIIIB in the hex, the control of the hex went over to the crew, though the SGIIIB hadn't been damaged.
When you are used to a more leisurely pace of the campaign games, always being leary of mines, it isn't easy to start throwing tanks out there haphazard to blow past opponents to try and capture a last hex or two.
From my comments on the myth of the T34 8-to-1 superiority over any german tank line, I would like to add that it makes it a little bit more difficult to figure out, when you take into consideration that not all of the german equipment was on the Eastern Front, but then again, even though they aren't considered to have more than one front, not all of the russian stuff produced was fighting on that front either.
Who knows? Maybe the Germans only had 60% of their equipment, total, in the East, so that it would've been a lot easier for the Russians to achieve, in the field, the occassional 8-to-1 or better advantage in tanks, but when we compare production figures it simply doesn't add up to 8-to-1 for any one type over it's most direct competitors (T34 vs. PZIV for example).
Who knows? Maybe the Germans only had 60% of their equipment, total, in the East, so that it would've been a lot easier for the Russians to achieve, in the field, the occassional 8-to-1 or better advantage in tanks, but when we compare production figures it simply doesn't add up to 8-to-1 for any one type over it's most direct competitors (T34 vs. PZIV for example).
Hi, Well we are Grognards after all so I will be precise
KV production all types 4749
T-34/75 have not found total yet (but over 10,000 had been produced prior to June 22, 1941 including those lost in Winter War and deployed in East)
T-34/76 35,120
T-34/85 18,480
using your production numbers a T-34/85 should be 10 times more common then a Tiger and a T-34/76 7 times more common then a Panther if we assume all of these were on Eastern front which we know is not the case.
Assigning point value by production numbers is a valid means of showing relative value since a T-34/85 is ten times more likely to be on a battlefield then a Tiger it should cost 1/10th of whatever value you give the Tiger. I am sorry if this means the Soviets will outnumber the German but in fact this was the reality of the war. And this will not stop me from playing the german side late in the war just make it more "fun"
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 15, 2000).]
KV production all types 4749
T-34/75 have not found total yet (but over 10,000 had been produced prior to June 22, 1941 including those lost in Winter War and deployed in East)
T-34/76 35,120
T-34/85 18,480
using your production numbers a T-34/85 should be 10 times more common then a Tiger and a T-34/76 7 times more common then a Panther if we assume all of these were on Eastern front which we know is not the case.
Assigning point value by production numbers is a valid means of showing relative value since a T-34/85 is ten times more likely to be on a battlefield then a Tiger it should cost 1/10th of whatever value you give the Tiger. I am sorry if this means the Soviets will outnumber the German but in fact this was the reality of the war. And this will not stop me from playing the german side late in the war just make it more "fun"
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 15, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Thier are many factors your not taken into account do Mogami. Like one is that the soviets were loseing tanks faster then the Germans were so at any one time they did not out number the Germans by that much. What was happing was that the tanks were being sent to the front and destroyed and then replaced.Originally posted by Mogami:
Hi, Well we are Grognards after all so I will be precise
KV production all types 4749
T-34/75 have not found total yet (but over 10,000 had been produced prior to June 22, 1941 including those lost in Winter War and deployed in East)
T-34/76 35,120
T-34/85 18,480
using your production numbers a T-34/85 should be 10 times more common then a Tiger and a T-34/76 7 times more common then a Panther if we assume all of these were on Eastern front which we know is not the case.
Assigning point value by production numbers is a valid means of showing relative value since a T-34/85 is ten times more likely to be on a battlefield then a Tiger it should cost 1/10th of whatever value you give the Tiger. I am sorry if this means the Soviets will outnumber the German but in fact this was the reality of the war. And this will not stop me from playing the german side late in the war just make it more "fun"
Take 1944 for example.
German Tank losses (The German losses are for both fronts)
1941: 2,758
1942: 2,648
1943: 6,362
1944: 6,434
1945: 7,382
Soviet Tank Losses
1941: 20,500
1942: 15,000
1943: 22,400
1944: 16,900
1945: 8,700
I think as it is the Soviets get way to many tank Kills. If the Germans had lost tanks as fast as even me playing Human opponants they would have lost the war in 43 or before.
Hi, I guess I will have to post total Soviet Tank production The Tank lossess you listed were all types of tanks not T-34/KV of which more were lost to mechanical failure then to the germans. The T-34 was designed to withstand a 76mm at 1000 meters and a 37mm at all ranges this was the motivating reason for the german's design of Tiger and Panther
however most of these tanks saw service in the west because Adolph decided to try and break the alliance by inflicting heavy lossess on the Western allies. After Kursk (july 43)the bulk of german heavy tank production went to west front formations so you could argue they would be more common in the West Front 44. Also since we are in a 43 league many of the production numbers given for german hvy tanks have in fact not yet been built but the T-34/75 and 76 have finished their production runs. The Soviet Union had in excess of 30,000 AFV on June 22, 1941 They recieved over 4000 tanks from Great Britian in 41-42 (all of Canada's production went to Soviets) the Valentine should be more common then the Tiger/Panther on Eastern Front!!! But really this is missing the point, why do players insist on equality in a historical game where that equality did not exist? If you want to be a german go for the whole hog and fight those desperate battles against the odds like your heros did. If you want to ride at the head of an overwhelming mass of Germans stay in Poland. France 1940 saw outnumbered germans in inferior machines win a great victory. Russia 1941 the germans again outnumbered pushed nearly to victory. Do not forget it is not the armour/gun rating of the tank that matters as much as the exp/morale of the crew and of the leader that wins or lose's the battle. The fact of the matter it does not matter how many Russian tanks were lost they in fact were there to be lost and in the battles we fight they are not. If the Soviets lost that many tanks in 1943 they did while destroying a German Army Group and advancing. And your posting a 4 to 1 kill ratio for germans in 43 only highlights the need for the Soviets to have at least 4 times as many tanks.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 15, 2000).]
however most of these tanks saw service in the west because Adolph decided to try and break the alliance by inflicting heavy lossess on the Western allies. After Kursk (july 43)the bulk of german heavy tank production went to west front formations so you could argue they would be more common in the West Front 44. Also since we are in a 43 league many of the production numbers given for german hvy tanks have in fact not yet been built but the T-34/75 and 76 have finished their production runs. The Soviet Union had in excess of 30,000 AFV on June 22, 1941 They recieved over 4000 tanks from Great Britian in 41-42 (all of Canada's production went to Soviets) the Valentine should be more common then the Tiger/Panther on Eastern Front!!! But really this is missing the point, why do players insist on equality in a historical game where that equality did not exist? If you want to be a german go for the whole hog and fight those desperate battles against the odds like your heros did. If you want to ride at the head of an overwhelming mass of Germans stay in Poland. France 1940 saw outnumbered germans in inferior machines win a great victory. Russia 1941 the germans again outnumbered pushed nearly to victory. Do not forget it is not the armour/gun rating of the tank that matters as much as the exp/morale of the crew and of the leader that wins or lose's the battle. The fact of the matter it does not matter how many Russian tanks were lost they in fact were there to be lost and in the battles we fight they are not. If the Soviets lost that many tanks in 1943 they did while destroying a German Army Group and advancing. And your posting a 4 to 1 kill ratio for germans in 43 only highlights the need for the Soviets to have at least 4 times as many tanks.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 15, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!