Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:16 am
The previous post got messed up in the QUOTES department...sorry, it's a function of getting logged out every 2 minutes.
-WW
-WW
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
Originally posted by werderwayne
Did we get a little off-topic?
-WW
Originally posted by Voriax
Ammo, what mine clearing vehicles????
Only German mine clearing vehicle in the game is Minenram Pz-III found in Czech oob as a 'scen only' unit with availability date Dec 1949.
As this vehicle will never come up in a pbem or campaign game due to the avail date I really see any reason to gripe???
You are correct though in that it was never produced. But this vehicle could be replaced with the Pz-1 mineclearing tank, at least it was produced, even though in small quantities.
Voriax
Originally posted by AmmoSgt
Do you guys ever listen to yourselves ?
Originally posted by Voriax
Do you?
Your holy crusade attitude unfortunately shows.
Did I ever say I'm against WP, carbines for trucks, Bangalores and like? Either here or in the chat? Did I?????
I only pointed out that in some cases they (may) require modifications to .exe and thus are very hard if not impossible to get in.
Some non-existing German or other country prototypes are not a problem for me, but they apparently are for you, even when their existence has minimal impact in the game.
And yes, fantasy stuff is okay for Germans for historical accuracy. It is also okay for US (M6A1) or Brits (Black prince)..ok, nearly fantasy stuff. Provided it's use is limited only 'what if' style scenarios. I think I've seen only one scenario where Minenram's were used..
Are there any 'fantasy units' in the standard oob and in it's standard formations? No. Do US troops lack a bunch of stuff? Yes. And feel free to add them for all I care.
Voriax
That's the same thing you said in the first place, and it's just as muddy now. If you mean what I now think you mean, what you're saying is that stug production, or new stugs went east, while new tanks went west. Still don't agree. BTW, when you say stug, I think you're still not clear. Perhaps you should resort to the more general term "tank-destroyer", because the "true stugs" were the "SG" lineup, whereas the tank-destroyers would more commonly also fit the JPZ's in as well. In any event, assuming I've hit on one of the possibilities of your meaning, i don't believe any of them (except for the Bulge of course). I don't know why you'd think the 'stugs' were going east, or more peculiarly the tanks going west, when it's normal to send tanks where the tank divisions were, and that post-Bulge was east. Nevertheless, you're more than welcome to prove it again.Stug production went east tanks went west.
Maybe where you come from it isn't, but to say "if you can count" is to tell me I'm stupid; snide indeed. In any part of the USA I know of, it is an insult. If you instead had said "go count" or "you can count" those aren't insults. Your English doesn't seem too precise, so naturally you may not understand the HUGE difference in whether you threw one word in there or not.If you can count is not snide. You state you don't trust me I say go count them your self.
That's not tanks moving west, and I'm pretty sure you'll find the divisions of the west, at about the same time, with a stug regiment as well. Perhaps you already know this, but when the divisions became low enough on tanks, instead of keeping a weak third regiment, or balancing all the tanks between the three regiments, they took the 3rd regiment and consolidated all the tanks into the 1st two regiments, thus, when say 10 stugs arrived and 10 tanks, the tanks went into the 1st and 2nd regiment while the 10 stugs started the 3rd regiment.If you can count is not snide. You state you don't trust me I say go count them your self. If you examine Panzer Regt you will observe one or more Bn being replaced by Stug. If you check all Panzer and Panzer Grn Div you will find a number that on June 6 1944 have Panzer Regt with 0 tanks (stugs instead)
Yes and no. When they had 3 regiments of tanks, naturally they didn't have any stugs. When the stugs arrive new, they in a sense replace the tanks, since there is no longer a 3rd regiment of them, but any that arrive go into the 1st two regiments, while any new stugs go to the 3rd. I don't think this was regulated to just new stugs either. I think a number of infantry divisions had those stugs stripped from them to help the panzer divisions too.The Germans were not adding stugs they were using them in place of tanks.
Okay, well we're agreed on that then.Even some west front formations had this change.
Although total numbers of tanks is on the rise, the total on the east front remains fairly stable. The number of stugs however continues to rise. I conclude the stug was gaining in importance on the eastern front while the tank was being held in the west.
As far as I know the minenrams or whatever they were called, were removed from the game. Other than not having mobile mine-removers, I wonder how you come to the conclusion that GE was "incredibly weak" in that department? They apparently didn't have too much problems with Eban Emal (sp) . the Maginot Line, or Tobruk. Slower than some perhaps, but they seemed to manage. Incredibly weak to me is 30% or worse, the efficiency of what it's compared to. The USSR has used penal battalions/cows at times, and though it may had been primitive I'm sure it was reasonably quick. That's the secret weapon the USSR needs, cows to blow up mines!Just look at Mine Clearing .. Germans were incredibly weak in Mine Clearing, Yet they Have Mine Clearing Vehicles they never produced.
Because maybe everyone that with any regularity plays GE, isn't on some kind of quest to look for every little nat's worth of advantage that they had that the Allies didn't (Goliaths anyone?).Allies developed several Mine Clearing techniques , yet are only allowed the ones that the Germans have as well... "must be that fair and balanced" thing the the Tiger Kiddies are afraid to play the game without.. Not every nation had to clear mines by hand ,, Allies had line charges and Bangalores , But everybody clears at the same rate . I don't know how a German Player can take any pride at all in claiming a win. geeze louise , and the whineing .. put a box of tissues in the German OOB fer Gawds sake .
Irrelevant point. The war wasn't fought in the States, AT ALL, and it WAS in GE. Yes, we might be with glee if we nit-picked and left every vehicle that never crossed the borders of GE and make it useable only there, and how you know that I'd like to know, but that's impossible depth to the game. Does that also mean that if you're defending in Sevastopol, that I get to use my not-in-the-game Dora? mu-ha-ha-ha-ha.M6A1 was made in Quanity ( about 50, heck of a lot more than some German Stuff) and deployed in Bn Strenght Stateside. Just Like many German vehicles it Didn't see any Action outside of it's home Country.
Please don't misunderstand that I'm siding with you on this one, but one possible explanation is that the game is being designed for this awful balance thing. Everything is pretty much revolved around the idea of human playing human, therefore, no human will play, or at least very long when the odds are stacked so heavily against them. In CL, this 'could' change, if the operational layer is any good. Imagine for example how fun it would be, even if you're the side getting stomped all the time, to bide your battles and save up for a select few where you throw in practically everything and have the opponent goingI keep getting told by both staffers and german players US Tactics are not "fun" and Unbalance the game, How can anybody tell anybody else what tactics are fun for them , especially when they are a heck of a lot more Historically correct than the current game options for the Allies ..
You need to be more consistent. You're the one afterall who's always crying that all the Axis players want to always have a field full of Tigers. If you got your precious WP, or whatever else, would you be willing to run into an SS Heavy Tank Regiment with support? It don't sound like it.When you get past all the BS reasons it comes down to a simple lack of will to buck the Tiger Kiddies that act like they are scared to death of even a unrestricted game with the existing stuff in the game at even odds , God forbid the US get any more stuff that they can'rt cope with, Heck they can't cope with half the stuff that is already in the game, so why would anything change if more stuff they can't deal with is added .
Originally posted by Frank W.
i have first hand information from guderian himself.
he complained about that 44 + 45 too much tanks
going to the west, so he could barely form any counter
attack armor force on the eastern front.
some valuable tank divs were even send to rumania
and hungary for "political" reasons as hitler said. and
he wanted to protect the oil fields. but of course this
up splitting of the units was a mistake. most germans
in 44+45 wanted to defend the east and let the western
allies conquer more of germany ( as they realised that
the war was lost ), because of the fear of the russian
hordes and the bolshewism ( sp ? )....
Originally posted by Frank W.
and: i´m now even more confused about the M9 bazookas!
ARE they now overpowered in game or not ? perhaps anyone have some RELIABLE data ( perhaps in comparison with the german gz. fausts or pz. schrecks ? )
Originally posted by Panzer Leo
This has been discussed up and down for quite some time...main problem is, that with the given engine it is almost impossible to simulate a Bazooka type weapon correctly.
In particular being that the decrease of accuracy after a range of 100-150m. These weapons (Bazooka and PzSchreck) were able to hit larger immobile targets reasonably good at much longer ranges (at least 300-400m) like houses and were used quite frequently in that role.
If you now give a Bazooka a range of 7 hexes, it automatically becomes more accurate on ranges of 4-6 hex then you want it to be and there's simply no way to alter that.
Also a squad weapon always gets the bonus of the squads FC value, increasing it even further.
What I did as a workaround now for the new version is: I gave AT-rockets in squad formations a range of 4 (200m), but the last hex of a max range gets a huge penalty, so leaving them with a reasonable effective range of 150m against vehicles.
Individual AT-units are much more expensive and I decided to give them the ability to go further then 200m, namely 7 hexes (350m).
As I could regulate the FC value, they do not go off on the accuracy as a Ranger squad would do...but they're still a bit too accurate over 150m...but that's what we have to live with...
On historical comparison:
M1 and M9 Bazookas:
effective range against vehicles: up to 120m
penetration depending on rocket from 100 to 125mm
the Bazooka rocket suffered from an unreliable fuze mainly because of the rocket's tip shape, causing the projectile to glance off sloped plates sometimes or delays in detonating when hitting the ground at odd angles.
M20 Bazooka:
as far as I know it never saw service in WWII, but maybe AmmoSgt knows more...
PzSchreck:
is commonly referred to as an improved design over the M1/M9 in terms of range, flight stability and penetration, mainly due to the larger rocket diameter (88mm instead of 60mm) and a better detonator.
Effective against vehicles up to 150m with a penetration of 160mm - 180mm, depending on source.
Main setback compared to the M9 can be seen in the missing optical sight as the M9 did have one.
PzFaust:
a completely different system (non-reloadable), not really comparable to the weapons above. Usually fired at ranges not greater then 50m (first model only up to 30m).
At close ranges reasonably accurate, biggest advantages being the high penetration ability of at least 200mm, ease of use and considerably good anti-personel effect due to large explosives amount/warhead.
Range of PzFsts in H2H are either 1 or 2 hex.
Originally posted by Belisarius
Does anyone have any combat statistics about 'Zooks and PzFausts/Schrecks??
So much for theoretical numbers and soldier training....that have these and these sights... that one has such and such warhead...
But a kill is a kill first when the target is dead. So...can anyone dig up some kind of combat record of these weapons?