Matrix Games Forums

This question came up in Tarhunnas AAR and on his request I'm moving it here. Am I the only one (who plays both sides equally) who thinks this is the case? I'd start a poll but don't have the rights.

If I'm wrong so much the better. Perhaps I'm hoping that the devs would share their thought making process here so we can at least understand why certain decisions have been made. Let's hope.

ORIGINAL:
Ultimately, just about everyone discovered that a more balanced approach to their tank forces (i.e. filling the gaps with mobile/motorized/mechanized infantry) was the way to go. The more tanks & less infantry - particularly in the attack, the higher losses the tanks would take (look at the fighting the British & Americans did in Normandy) - in the vast majority of cases, unless you were in full pursuit mode, tank-led attacks without proper infantry support were decimated by dug-in anti-tank defenses.

Over the course of the war, the Germans also revamped their armored forces to include more infantry until they reached a much more balanced OOB of about equal battalions of infantry to armor.

Hmmm, I think the Germans got that lesson exactly right from the start. A panzer division didn't actually change a lot (except on how many tanks and other supporting arms) concerning infantry. Standard, 2 regiments, 4 battalions during the whole war, +1 recon and 1 Engineer batt. They did lose the motorcycle batt mid 1942. SS, 2 regiments, 6 batt. Obviously, the Sovs, and the UK focussed more on tanks with less infantry BUT, their doctrine required the infantry divs to provide the infantry. That didn't always work out though.

Point is however, the tank was the crutial weapon in the panzer division or TC. And, whenever tanks caught infantry in clear terrain and not dugin to the teeth (level 4-5) infantry almost always paid a steep price. As in completely eliminated, like all other games I know except WitE. In this game, tanks route infantry, cause minimal damage, lose quite a few tanks in the process. On the defense it even gets worse, I'm shocked with how easy it is to push a 90 morale/experience 90% TOE panzer division from it's hex, even in 1941! And causing 40% casualties in the process. Just pile up enough crap infantry divisions and poof, there goes your panzer div. Surely, it wasn't as easy as numbers. Again, check out some tactical wargames to see how easy it is to attack tanks.

The Normandy example is actually not quite right. It wasn't that more tanks wasn't better. It wasn't that the infantry wasn't supporting the tanks, it was that the Germans had less but vastly superior tanks and used them to great effect and with great determination. The Allies chose to have a lot of inferior tanks versus fewer but better tanks. And they paid a serious price for this. Only 1/3rd of the British tanks were Fireflies and had the upgraded 76mm gun which could penetrate the Panthers and Tigers at a reasonable distance. Most where either still the 75mm or the normal 76mm. I don't think the US had any Fireflies. Those tanks could only penetrate Tigers and Panthers at rediculous close ranges if at all. In addition, the Germans had the superb 88mm gun which just tore the haert out of any tank attack. Come to think of it, why can't we attach a 88m LW regiment directly to a German division in the game? Surely, it was done quite often historically. Or would that upset the balance of the game?

This probably will sound rude but it isn't intended as such. This is a GREAT game. And I'm having a ton of fun playing both the Germans and the Russians in the 2 pbem's I'm playing. But my honest, unbiased opinion is that as it stands, the game is heavily biased towards the Soviets at this point in time. To name but a few key "rulings" in favor of the Soviets:
1. massive importance of arty. I'm not about to dispute the effect of arty, but the germans did devellop tactics to reduce it's effects. For instance withdrawing to a second line before the barrage (read the Raus book for more info). Secondly, quantity is good, but that doesn't mean the fire is accurate.
2. Germans can't attach arty directly to a division but can to a fortified region!?? Which to boot is rediculously weak?
3. Soviet Corps and the stacking advantage it brings. I mean, seriously, you have a stacking limit of three units regarless of size, but that is actually trippled when the Soviet get their corps (each corps being 3 divisions). I mean, why can you suddenly get 3 times as many men and weapons in a 15km hex as before? What's the rational? It certainly smells like a serious game balancing trick in favor of the Sovs.
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.
5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.
7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.
9. No seperate pool which keeps experience for returning disabled soldiers from lowering experience. An experienced soldier returning from hospital is still an experienced soldier. In a system that depends so heavily on experience (or should) this is really a source of annoyance. Especially affecting the German side.
10. No real reason to fight forward for the Russian player.
11. Too easy to move industry and too fast back in production, even if radom and not at full production.
12. Capturing Moscow and all the other cities doesn't have any effect.
13. Losing industry doesn't really matter.
14. Basically zero chance for the German to win the GC 41 game on points.
15. etc... etc...

Again devs, this is intended as positive, constructive critism. I write because I care. [;)]

Ill react to your item 4

- How about giving the side using tanks in a battle against the side that doesn't use them (or not in sufficient numbers) a bonus in CV - Breakthrough/local counterattack event - when calculating odds?

I have some serious question marks with these statements. Not the makeup of the Mech/Tank/Inf. Corps but certainly with the combat efficiency of the Russian infantry. And the unefficientcy of the tanks. Let's say the game is right, that poses the question why all WW2 particpants produced the amount of tanks they did? If they're just for exploitation, you don't need that many. Secondly, often in Russain offensives, the tank armies (which normally had the role of exploitation as you mention) were committed to effect the breakthrough when the infantry corps failed to do so. Take for example Operation Kutozov (12 july 1943) to liberate Orel. I'm writing from memory so I probably get some details wrong, but the Soviet threw something like 4 infantry and 2 tank armies against a couple of infantry corps backed up with 5th and 8th Panzer divs and some more armour redeployed from 9th Army. Only in 11th Guards Armies sector did they achieve a clean penetration that was then halted by the reinforcing panzers. On the East side of the Orel Bulge, they got nowhere and a tank army was committed to achieve the breakthrough and failed in this instance.

Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.

Frankly, while the Russians certainly envisaged infantry making the breach which then would be widened by tank corps attached to the infantry armies and exploited in depth by the tank armies, more often than not, the tank armies where needed to MAKE the breakthrough, and paid a tremendous price for doing so. In Operation Kutuzov, the Russains lost about a 1000 tanks more than in Operation Citadelle, something in the order of 2500. Simply put, the infantry just didn't get through without the tanks!

The tanks could also not get through without the infantry, it's a combined arms operation. However, using the tanks as armoured guns for support was not why they were designed or something they were particularly good at with their in many cases mediocre frontal armour compared to the firepower of the AT guns of the opponent.

In Citadelle, against such though defenses (fortifications) heavy German tanks were key to make any progress at all. The infantry just could not follow the tanks as they were subjected to tremendous fire from machine gun, arty, etc.. This in turn made the tanks vulnerable to close in attacks.

Without tanks, the Russian infantry just didn't get anywhere against the German panzer divisions untill well into 1944, perhaps until the end of the war. And until the end the German Panzer divisions inflicted terrible punishment on the Russian infantry.

What you're describing here goes for all combatants, even in modern times. Tanks need infantry just like infantry need AFV's for support. The infantry/tanks are not likely to get anywhere fast without support, not in modern war.

Certainly, the approach of the game in the way it _SEEMS_ to handle tanks (seems because there is not really transparency) is a clean break away from most if not all other hardcore wargames I've played over the past 20 years. To name the W@W series again, upto +10 shifts for armour. Boardgame FitE/SE +3 attack -2 defense in clear, OCS, CV value doubled against soft infantry.

I agree that the lack of a chase phase or some sort of overrun rule can limit the effectiveness of tanks significantly, it's also something I'm not entirely happy with.

Finally, when going down to the tactical level, like for example the Close combat series also from Atomic and now through Matrixgames. Have you ever tried attacking a Tank with infantry in clear terrain? It's bloody difficult and bloody costly if it works at all!

True, but now think of a scenario where the enemy has dug in AT guns, or AFV's of its own, and you have a mostly AFV centered force, with maybe a couple of infantry squads with trucks in support. The result is going to be highly predictable, and it's not going to be a nice and easy victory for the attacker.

The Normandy example is actually not quite right. It wasn't that more tanks wasn't better. It wasn't that the infantry wasn't supporting the tanks, it was that the Germans had less but vastly superior tanks and used them to great effect and with great determination. The Allies chose to have a lot of inferior tanks versus fewer but better tanks. And they paid a serious price for this. Only 1/3rd of the British tanks were Fireflies and had the upgraded 76mm gun which could penetrate the Panthers and Tigers at a reasonable distance. Most where either still the 75mm or the normal 76mm. I don't think the US had any Fireflies. Those tanks could only penetrate Tigers and Panthers at rediculous close ranges if at all. In addition, the Germans had the superb 88mm gun which just tore the haert out of any tank attack. Come to think of it, why can't we attach a 88m LW regiment directly to a German division in the game? Surely, it was done quite often historically. Or would that upset the balance of the game?

Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.

The Germans can't attach Luftwaffe units to divisions, and they can't attach regiments either, so that's why you can't attach Luftwaffe regiments. You can, however, attach mixed FlaK battalions which also have 88mm's.

1. massive importance of arty. I'm not about to dispute the effect of arty, but the germans did devellop tactics to reduce it's effects. For instance withdrawing to a second line before the barrage (read the Raus book for more info). Secondly, quantity is good, but that doesn't mean the fire is accurate.

It seems there was (in your version: is) an issue with long range artillery effectiveness, which can be rather underwhelming, so artillery by itself is less effective in the game than you think. Mortars can be very effective, but medium/heavy artillery usually isn't. Infantry guns can also be very effective.

2. Germans can't attach arty directly to a division but can to a fortified region!?? Which to boot is rediculously weak?

The Soviets can't attach artillery directly to corps either, and fortified zones/regions are meant to be weak as they were generally not supposed to survive an attack by a division sized force. They're mostly there to dig or to guard an area where only weak enemy forces are present, they're not actual forts.

3. Soviet Corps and the stacking advantage it brings. I mean, seriously, you have a stacking limit of three units regarless of size, but that is actually trippled when the Soviet get their corps (each corps being 3 divisions). I mean, why can you suddenly get 3 times as many men and weapons in a 15km hex as before? What's the rational? It certainly smells like a serious game balancing trick in favor of the Sovs.

The stacking rules can become a bit problematic in practice because the amount of men in a unit doesn't matter, but only the size of the unit does. The Soviets are meant to get an advantage in stacking, to allow them to mass historical amounts of manpower in a sector.

4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.

Tanks do have an effect, but it isn't always as pronounced as the effect of an attack by infantry. Generally, as long as the attack was successful and the enemy wasn't packing a lot of AT firepower, you'll end up with fewer losses for the same or higher casualties inflicted on the enemy compared to an attack made by infantry.

5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.

Better leader ratings and corps HQ's are a significant benefit, it's mostly the retreat losses (which don't seem to be influenced by leader ratings entirely the same way that regular losses are) where the Germans could use a bit of an advantage.

6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

We're trying to find a way to reduce the long term problems the post-release morale changes can cause for the Axis, but it's difficult to make it all work without the Germans or Soviets being able to become supermen, like in the release version.

7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.

Well, an attack can turn into a scouting operation, but I agree there's less flexibility with orders than in, say, TOAW.

The other points are already being discussed in other threads or have recently been discussed.

Comrade, RE: Morale, have you guys thought of a quicker "bounce-back" of Morale levels to National Morale, if Morale of a unit goes below National Morale?

At the moment, there isn't a great "bounceback", it takes a long time. This rule would really only help the Germans. Couple it with the Morale changes, and the Wehrmacht morale would more closely follow the actual National Morale levels.

This wouldn't unleash a high "ceiling" which was what the problem was before with 99 morale Romanians, etc., but it would create a harder "floor"

ORIGINAL: glvaca
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.

I think you need to reflect the change in the effectiveness of AFVs, from the early war period when infantry AT weapons (anti-tank rifles, small calibre AT guns [exception 88mm)) were not as effective, into the change of tactics (Pakfronts) in the later war period, with much more effective AT guns and widespread use of individual infantry AT weapons (Panzerfaust, bazooka).

Note : during the 1940 French campaign, Meuse crossing at Sedan, the mere report of tank shells (which was erroneous) landing in the area was enough to start a major panic in the rear areas, leading to the cancellation of a counter attack on the German bridges. This 'tank fright' was not so apparent later in the war, as infantry tactics and equipment began to provide an answer to the tank, giving more confidence to units to stand and fight.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.

That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I can´t really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.

I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons. In game terms this should be reflected by exp, morale and leaders.

I´m going a bit oftopic here though! [:)]
I do agree with glvaca wholeheartly on most points!

ORIGINAL: glvaca
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.

This is simply not true: attacks, with good odds, and AFV support on clear - no river crossing, etc. - are successful more often than not. The problem is to understand/see what actual damage are doing your AFV's. When we get the more detailed combat reports, I think we'll eventually get some insight into this - and other issues.

BTW, regarding AFV's in the defense. You might have a point here: I wonder whether tactical combat simulation handles differently AFV's in the attack or in the defense. I think it should: AFV's are mobile weapon platforms, and the Germans historically perfected their use to spoil local breakthroughs with local counterattacks. How this should be reflected at the *operational* level in WiTE? Better chances to hold? Retreat - as ComradeP suggests - with milder losses (less destroyed, more damaged) for the defender and higher losses for the attacker (more destroyed, less damage)?

ORIGINAL: glvaca
5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.

Perhaps hasty/deliberate attack MP costs should be variable (lower variance for better leadership, experience and morale), or asymmetric between both sides. See the discussion above regarding AFV's on the defense.

ORIGINAL: glvaca
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

Not entirely true. It's easy to get up to National Morale for bothsides (just put them behind the lines on Refit). What is actually hard is to get significantly above National Morale.

You make a lot of good points towards the case that the game is Soviet biased. In its current form I am a firm believer that the very best Soviet play trumps the very best Axis play every time. I also believe however that the game developers are working on the situation and are getting closer and closer to getting the balance down so that the game becomes more fun for both sides.

Although I would like the stacking in the game to be more of a regiment equivalent system like FITE I think that type of change would be a tremendous amount of work. We have seen that the game can "bug" a higher stacking ability and it is also evident that when a unit is placed on reserve units can be overstacked on both offence and defence so within the system it must be possible. One of my Soviet opponents seems to place everyone on reserve and I have seen one hex defended by 3 units increased to 6 units from reserves. That is an ouch!

I would like to see a change where HQs have some sort of defensive combat value reflective of the SUs that reside within them.

I think it is important to temper the initial claims of bias - while there are definite issues that have been described in 1942 and beyond, any Soviet player will raise an eyebrow at claims that 1941 is biased toward them. Even a slapdash German player like me can make hash at times out the Russians. The issues of scale and changes over time are certainly important and being worked on, however I dislike absolute arguments.

Now, I have been involved in the long losing war after the 1st winter, I have also been involved in successful campaigns in 1942. The game evolves and changes and right now as has been said it seems that the later war issues do indeed seem to raise flags. Still, having the ants overrun by the rampaging elephant in 1941 does seem somewhat right.

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.

I have to be carefull with wording, so to be clear, I'm not disputing that the tank excelled at the exploitation role and was indeed used as such by the Germans (and later the Sov). Where we seem to differ in opinion, is that while they excelled at exploitation, they obviously could be employed very effectively as weapons in their own right. That to be most effective they needed to work with the infantry is without question. But to claim that the Soviet infantry didn't need the tanks and could make the breakthrough alone is quite simply wrong. And it is that which I think most people are trying to say. Soviet infantry corps are too powerfull versus what a tank corps or panzer division could achieve.

Secondly, the losses caused by Panzer divs are just too light. As discussed a lack of a persuit (or chase as you call it) doesn't help. Clearly though, infantry divs lack the mobility and a tank can drive faster then we can run. So once a massed tank attack routes a division losses should be VERY high, much higher then an infantry on infantry attack as it is much easier to run away. This is seriously undermoddled currently.

Thirdly, the tank versus AT topic is interesting. However, aren't we forgetting that setting up a big AT gun takes quite a bit of time. Once setup that AT gun isn't particularly mobile, in fact it's fixed. On the other hand that tank just needs to drive around, find a weakspot and attack there and can outflank the defence. It is exactly that, mobility, tactics, doctrine that the Germans excelled at. They didn't attack at the strongest point, but exactly at the weakest point. They could because they have the mobility and initiative to do so. So while the AT gun certainly could exact a toll, there weren't enough in a division to cover the complete front line and they are defensive weapons by nature, certainly they don't really help in the offense because of their lack of mobility. Hence the creation of SPG's.

Fourthly, tanks could get through without the infantry. Terrain would be the most important factor. And also, what kind of tank obviously. A PzII of 1941 can just not be compared with a Panther or Tiger of 1942-43. It's a totally different beast.

Fifthly, tanks on the defense are not stationary waiting to be attacked. As another poster wrote, they formed local reserves and counter attacked often to very great effect because after the initial advance, the infantry would be without AT support unless it had accompanying tanks to provide that capability and did not have time to bring up the heavy weapons.

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.

Isn't the TOAW combat system tied in with the action points? I think the hasty v deliberate attack covers it but on defence some form of all costs v mobile defence would be useful to both sides.

The Germans had really a LOT of tanks in Normandy. They started with:
21st, 12SS, 130th Lehr, 2nd Panzer on or close to the beach heads.
They were reinforced by the 17SS Panzer Gren., 1st SS, 2nd SS, 9th SS, 10th SS, all within about a month of the invasion. Later by I think another 2 or 3 panzer divs.
In addition to these, there were at least the 2 SS Tiger batt. And later an army Tiger batt. that were attached at corps level.
In addition, all these panzer divs where at full strength and appart of the 21st Pnazer, they all fielded the on batt. PzIV's and 1 batt. Panzer V's. By then they also had strong SPG's like the JagdPanther, etc...

From Panzer truppen volume 2:
21st Pz: 4 PzIII, 21 PzIV(kz), 98 PzIV(lg)
12SS: 98 PzIV, 79 PzV
Lehr: 101 PzIV, 89 PzV, 3PzVI
SS101: 45 PzVI
2nd Pz: 98 PzIV, 79 PzV
1st SS: 98 PzIV, 79 PzV
2nd SS: 78 PzIV, 79 PzV
9SS: 46 PzIV, 79 PzV
10SS: 39 PzIV
SS102: 45 PzVI
503rd: 45 PzVI
116th Pz: 73 PzIV, 79 PzV
Total:
PzIII: 4
PzIV: 652
PzV: 563
PzVI: 135

This is just what was comitted during June and July!
Clearly, The Germans had quite a few tanks in Normandy and the above numbers ignore SPG and tank destroyers. The problem for the Germans in Normandy was:
1. lack of infantry divisions to hold the line so they could concentrate their armoured force in a counter attack.
2. Total air dominance for the Allies.
3. Naval barrage.
4. very strong AND effective arty
5. Lack of supplies and replacements reaching the battlefield.

It definitely wasn't lack of tanks

ORIGINAL: glvaca

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.

I am with you on the tank issue, but I am not sure WW1 is a good example. Stosstruppen, mission tactics (or whatever Auftragstaktik would be in English) and improved artillery tactics gave the Germans the ability to make much larger breakthroughs than the Entente did with tanks.

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.

That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I can´t really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.

I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons. In game terms this should be reflected by exp, morale and leaders.

I´m going a bit oftopic here though! [:)]
I do agree with glvaca wholeheartly on most points!

Exactly, US doctrine emphasized mobility over armour and firepower, they were proven wrong in Normandy. The loss rate in tanks was just horrible. Obviously, once the break through and collapse was established, tank losses rose spectacular for the Germans. But if you compare figures for June-July, it's not pretty for the Allies.

For a good read on Overlord try Max Hastings Overlord.

Simply put, the Germans had better weapons on all cathegories except arty and transport. OTOH, the Allies could lose 400 tanks and have them replaced the next day. The Allies won by attrition.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.

Better leader ratings and corps HQ's are a significant benefit, it's mostly the retreat losses (which don't seem to be influenced by leader ratings entirely the same way that regular losses are) where the Germans could use a bit of an advantage.

6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

We're trying to find a way to reduce the long term problems the post-release morale changes can cause for the Axis, but it's difficult to make it all work without the Germans or Soviets being able to become supermen, like in the release version.

7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.

Well, an attack can turn into a scouting operation, but I agree there's less flexibility with orders than in, say, TOAW.

The other points are already being discussed in other threads or have recently been discussed.

5. That's exactly what I mean. German discipline, leadership should really weigh much more heavily. As you say, especially during retreats, they should be much less punished as currently the case. At least, that's what it seems like.

6. If the reason for changing the initial morale settings was super Rumanians, then why not set a hard cap for the Rumanians, Italians, etc... of say 60, 65? Was it necessary to punish the whole Whermacht for a couple of Rumanians? Secondly, with the first winter being so incredible hard originally, the effect on the Whermacht was obviously that they would finish the winter with really low morale. Honestly, again sorry if this sounds straightforward, it took till patch 1.4.36 to reduce the winter effects. It only took one patch to take away the one ace the Whermacht had going for them to regain morale fairly easily. Hmmmm...

7. Yes, I've seen that happen maybe once or twice. Okay, I'm overstating, but seriously the chance of this happening is really not high and that's even with the great, super, German leaders that give a lot of benifits.

On the topic of the Rumanians and Italians, OCS (not a beer and prezzles game by any margin) actually rates these units a great deal better as in this game. How did those morale/experience values come to being? Interesting tit-bit of info, in Operation Uranus the infantry couldn't effect the breakthrough even against the Rumanians and it was 5th Tank army that was committed and quite literally overran their positions with T-34's as their AT guns were ineffective.

Final thing, even in 43 citadel, the standard AT gun for the Soviet infantry as the 45mm AT gun. 76mm and 88mm AAA, were consolidated in the AT brigades.

Again guys, this is just my opinion based on the very limited info available, and certainly nothing personal or offensive intended.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: glvaca

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.

I am with you on the tank issue, but I am not sure WW1 is a good example. Stosstruppen, mission tactics (or whatever Auftragstaktik would be in English) and improved artillery tactics gave the Germans the ability to make much larger breakthroughs than the Entente did with tanks.

Off course, it wasn't just tanks alone, it was the whole blitzkrieg concept/doctrine. But you will admit that the tank was at the center of the whole concept.

And let's not forget the effective ground support by stuka's, command and control. And, not to forget, the kampfgruppe system that combined all the different elements needed for combined arms tactics.

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: glvaca
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

Not entirely true. It's easy to get up to National Morale for bothsides (just put them behind the lines on Refit). What is actually hard is to get significantly above National Morale.

Well yes, but for the Germans it's all about getting above the 86 Morale limit. Everything goes better once you get there. Faster movement is really key. The point being, if one silly hasty attack which doesn't really cost you a lot of casualties can set you back -2 morale, and it's so difficult to gain morale back, you're not going to get to the winter with high morale troops. During winter, you're going to be hit during blizzard on your morale. Each turn, each combat, etc... So even if you can get back to your nationale morale of 70(?) fairly easily, that's not really a good state of afairs.

It's especially frustrating with the panzers. Once these guys lose morale, it's almost impossible to gain it back. With 1942 being so difficult for the Germans, I wouldn't look much further than this with the very limited info available to me...

Net result is, whatever you do, you're going to end up with low morale troops. So maybe that's the intended effect. Ok, no problem. But it certainly is a BIG advantage for the Soviets. As they have low morale troops which can easily gain to national morale and that's already a huge improvement.

[;)]

Comrade, RE: Morale, have you guys thought of a quicker "bounce-back" of Morale levels to National Morale, if Morale of a unit goes below National Morale?

At the moment, there isn't a great "bounceback", it takes a long time. This rule would really only help the Germans. Couple it with the Morale changes, and the Wehrmacht morale would more closely follow the actual National Morale levels.

This wouldn't unleash a high "ceiling" which was what the problem was before with 99 morale Romanians, etc., but it would create a harder "floor"

Currently, getting back to national morale through combat is fairly easy, but getting there through resting can take a long while, that's one of the things we're trying to tweak.

That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I can´t really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.

AT guns wouldn't destroy a tank every time, of course they wouldn't, but tank only attacks would be less effective than combined arms attack when facing a dug in defender with good AT support. The tank is just a weapon, or weapon system, it's still vulnerable.

I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons.

Allied corps and army level leaders were not great and their divisional leaders were often not spectacular either, but the lower level leaders did what they could and suffered high losses (which was one of the reasons why Allied force quality decreased from 1944 to 1945). They were facing an initially determined opponent in difficult terrain, there's not much they could've done in terms of winning the battle quicker than they did aside from committing more forces or taking some serious risks in the first week beyond D-Day.

But to claim that the Soviet infantry didn't need the tanks and could make the breakthrough alone is quite simply wrong.

World War II was primarily fought by infantrymen, not by tank crews. I'm not saying the infantry didn't need the tanks, I'm saying that limited numbers of tanks could be enough as more tanks didn't always mean a greater success, it all depends on how they're used. Attaching the tanks to the infantry was one of those pre-war ideas that failed badly in practice.

Soviet infantry corps are too powerfull versus what a tank corps or panzer division could achieve.

Remember that you're talking about 3 Rifle divisions when you're talking about a full strength Rifle corps. In a head-on fight, they would be more likely to achieve something than a single mobile division. The mobile units come into play when the riflemen and artillery did their thing. Attaching tanks to a slow infantry assault can work, but it might just as well result in a plethora of burning wrecks post-battle.

Fourthly, tanks could get through without the infantry. Terrain would be the most important factor. And also, what kind of tank obviously.

Yes, they could break through, but their logistics would be non-existent unless the infantry bailed them out after being cut off by the enemy after making an unsupported breakthrough. A lot would depend on enemy strength, but a poorly supported breakthrough just leads to a classic case of spearheads being destroyed one by one.

Fifthly, tanks on the defense are not stationary waiting to be attacked.

They don't act as such, they generally keep some distance. Most of the losses you see happen when the parent unit of the tanks withdraws, so it's retreat attrition.

To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong.

They were not "just" exploitation weapons, they were weapons with a role. That role wasn't going Rambo in unsupported operations, the way Pelton uses them in his games, their role was to keep the momentum, disturb enemy rear areas and, if needed, to attack enemy positions, but that was better left to the infantry. I stand by an earlier statement that mobility was their greatest strength. Against a determined defender with good AT support, a Panzer division/Tank corps is not going to achieve much by itself, infantry (and artillery) is needed.

The Germans had really a LOT of tanks in Normandy. They started with:

They key thing to note is that they theoretically >started< with a fair amount of tanks. After the initial move from various parts of France/rear areas to the front using a disrupted transportation network and constant Allied air strikes, running tank numbers rapidly dwindled. AFV density was somewhat high near Caen, with the SS, but the front west of that had a minimal AFV density. The lack of replacements also meant the tanks that were lost, either through direct action or simply through breaking down could not be replaced, which combined with futile counterattacks in the face of Allied air superiority and artillery barrages reduced numbers even further. All of that lead to a lack of tanks to cover the entire frontline within weeks of D-Day. There was no single time where, with the historical setup, the Germans decisively employed any AFV advantage they might've had initially to push the Allies back, it just didn't happen. The best they could do was stage limited counterattacks and defend. It all ended with the typical German problem of, as time past, having to do more and more with ever decreasing numbers.

No matter what historical fact is that 80% of casulties came from Artillery fire rest 20% from tanks and small arms.

Artillery is that tells how much damage you can make other stuff is there just to provide the hit points.

ORIGINAL: glvaca

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.

I don't know if I can agree with your conclusion of "tanks ruled WW2". I would argue it was the concept of "combined arms doctrine" which was the foundation of blitzkrieg. The close coordination and support of each of the major combat types (armor, infantry, artillery, air) is really what ruled WW2. And, to Germany's credit, they seemed to have mastered this to a much greater proficiency than their counterparts. So much so that the German armored formations were more efficiently used and required much less armor in their TOE.

As far as tanks advancing on their own with little or no support from the other combat arms, I'm not aware of this being widely done to much success.