• Announcements

    • SNIPER62

      64-bit is LIVE   03/27/2020

      CHIMM: 64-bit client is now LIVE and Campaign 172 continues!  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
saronin

Perceived Equipment Imbalances

80 posts in this topic

you know what ' date=' war is like that , your enemy's rifle may be more accurate than yours , or the rear of there tank is weak and yours is strong , or maybe the brit is just a better shot , so dont make it equal , give the weapons and vehicles there actual stats[/quote']

I'm not making an argument for Red vs Blue. As I said in my first post, this is not a war. It is a video game. I've been to war enough to know there is a difference. An unbalanced game is a dead game. CRS has the unenviable task of trying to balance the game while not using the Red vs Blue model. This is difficult to say the least. I don’t think you want this game to be completely historical. Do you really want on 23 Matildas in the BOF? Spitfires only based out of England?

Oh… and the sniping argument that “maybe the brit is a better shot” gets you nowhere. Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. That’s the way this game is. What I am trying to ascertain here in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner, is are there really imbalances that need to be addressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also heard XOOM during the Rat Chat mention that the 88 needs to be looked at. Is that the 88 ATG or the 88 on the Tiger as well? Is there some sort of problem with the Tiger vs the S76 as a result? Maybe XOOM can elaborate on what CRS sees as a potential problem here so players can give some feedback.

Specifically at the time I was referencing the 88mm ATG/AA. I'd really like to update that model and analyze its performance. I think it's a bit under utilized these days for a variety of reasons. By default however that would also mean reviewing the 88mm mounted onto the Tiger.

The bottom line is, the 88mm was an absolutely FEARED weapon that caused incredible devastation. Watch a few video's of the veterans talking about it, it becomes pretty clear that this thing was beast. That said, at the same time we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.

I'm also looking to see about replacing the M10 gunsight for the Allies. We're making changes where we can to improve game play.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah... I have no time for WW2OL just here because of holiday break and WW2ol Patch, back to college and all my play time is spend on WT and other forums.

Those things are what takes me to get back here and I'm sure that a bunch as well of Vets which I reckon is enough to sustain financially and content wise the game.

I'm not willing to put money, if I think mistakes of the past that led to here are going to happen again and seem already happening again with only positive quotes about this change, no public results of the vote, no time set for this public test and no information of a new public vote so we can all make an inform decision.

Also implementing the sapper and setting back the ATR with just ATR shows to me a lack of vision and understanding of the game and game design.. but those are just my 0.02 cents

pbveteran,

While I can appreciate other points of view and some of your observations warrant some thought, it's obvious from your comments that you have moved on to other games. Making comparisons to those games can be interesting and in some ways valuable as most developers would be foolish not to look at other games and emulate some of their ideas and methods.

But it sounds like you have been away from the game for a while and certainly sounds like you do not play much at all unless you pop in with a FTP account. Which I'll remind you is not like other FTP systems. Our FTP is more like a demo to help players make an informed decision as to whether they want to subscribe, that level of play in this game is really not meant for long term play. Might some people use it that way and be happy? Probably.

Since you have been away for awhile you may not be aware that the survey for the spawn mechanic was done twice. And the idea of trying out or testing or featuring or whatever you want to label this experiment has been bandied about the forums for months. We are now trying the new spawn system as a feature in the live campaigns. Once we have at least run a full campaign or two and the development team has been given a chance to properly analyze the change, then if CRS along with the PB feel that another survey is warranted to possibly make a change back or some other form of adjustment to the spawning system we will have another survey. My guess is that the current system is fine all we need to do is focus on complimenting the system with the proper delivery vehicles and the right MSP design, along with an armor audit and additional vehicles and perhaps types of infantryman or changes to loadouts that complement the system.

You also obviously have other issues with the game and frankly with the old development team (which got us this far by the way). So to come in late in the game and challenge the development team and to call for more votes or to even insinuate that CRS did not do their due diligence is quite wrong in this respect. We all want transparency as much as possible there are always areas that are not open for public consumption. The difference in transparency between then and now is very great. This team is much more transparent and are making strides to make it even more so.

Since you have been out of the loop, a lot of your ideas are just not feasible right now even though they may be good ones. So unless you are willing to start playing and frequenting the forums regularly then some of what you say gets perceived as simply trolling or harassing the current development path or team. If you need all of those things that you are asking for to even consider playing and contributing financially again (to even have a chance to get to what you want) then perhaps come back in a year or so when this development team has had the chance to really make their mark upon the game. Then subscribe and play for a while and get to know the team before making such assertive accusation and comparative analysis of the game and how it plays and functions.

But that probably will not be the case because you have already written off the development team over what, some adjustments to the ATR and the introduction of the sapper. I'm sure there are other examples that you could point out and please go ahead and do so. Just remember, your not the development team and quite honestly not even part of the player base anymore, as far as I can tell. Your just a forum contributor at this point or at the very most can offer points of view from a FTP perspective and how the game now affects FTP accounts. I think I saw a post were you said you played for a couple of hours and came off very negative against the patch.

http://discussions.battlegroundeurope.com/showpost.php?p=6957484&postcount=141

Well I'll take that with a grain of salt. It took me a few days to reach my first impressions and I still have an open mind about the future and whether the patch is overall good or bad. Why? Because I''ll need to play and observe an entire campaign or two to unfold before I can make a real informed decision.

I play all those other games that you mention often. None of them really compare to this game, from my point of view. I'm sure if the development team could borrow a lot of the good things from those games they would. Right now they are figuring out the old code, trying to get us on a new development platform within the code they inherited (1.35) and doing the best they possibly can to move the game forward. I don't recall those other game development teams making decisions directly from player base surveys or majority opinions either. I do not frequent those forums much at all but I cannot imagine they are more transparent. Maybe the game play does through the I got shot from here and the shell impact did this. I really do not enjoy those aspects of those games as I like to learn weaknesses through a lot of experience or intuitively. I enjoy the fog of war where you are unsure where or why you were killed. I do not even like death cameras. I'm dead already, how can I possibly report enemy positions or even have a remote idea of my surroundings. I dislike spoilers in any form really. But that is me. I do not expect those games to change for me specifically, yet I still enjoy them for "Casual Play". I turn to BGE for intense, time consuming hard core pvp play. The only other place I might find that is a well run Arma 3 server with the right settings and conditions. I know I can find that in BGE, especially since the change.

I hope you find a way to contribute in a more efficient or even financial matter and I'm glad you found some games that you enjoy to play. Hope you do well when you get back to college. Maybe one day we will be good enough for you to come back for real.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Specifically at the time I was referencing the 88mm ATG/AA. I'd really like to update that model and analyze its performance. I think it's a bit under utilized these days for a variety of reasons. By default however that would also mean reviewing the 88mm mounted onto the Tiger.

The bottom line is, the 88mm was an absolutely FEARED weapon that caused incredible devastation. Watch a few video's of the veterans talking about it, it becomes pretty clear that this thing was beast. That said, at the same time we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.

I'm also looking to see about replacing the M10 gunsight for the Allies. We're making changes where we can to improve game play.

S!

XOOM,

I will leave any performance issues about the round itself to the CRS staff.

My observation from spending a lot time with the 88 is that there are some major disadvantages to the weapon system relative to game play in the WWII Online environment. The whole system is not easily hidden and as such is exposed. As others have mentioned there is no gun shield on the front of it making it relatively easy to pick off by enemy infantry. The recent FRU change should help a bit with this aspect though as it is now a bit harder for enemy infantry to get to an 88 provided you have a good zone of control. Even still, not all battles lend themselves to a nice forest where an 88 (and HT) can be adequately hidden.

Sometimes you need to set an 88 up as part of a zone of control. In WWII Online this is problematic because 88s are easily picked off from the air. Being such a high profile weapon they are easily sighted from the air. As a matter of fact XOOM, I believe you personally witnessed and had a discussion with me in game about picking off individual enemy infantry from the air which I accomplished based on a bit of limited intelligence from the ground. If I can do with individual EI, an 88 is easy to sight by comparison. A recent thread here (http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=460116) by monsjoex discussed the lack to attrition in air units. I’m not suggesting that we deplete air units to the point where there are no planes to fly. What I would like to point out is that air assets tend to be somewhat limited even in modern warfare. That is not the case in WWII Online. Combine that with the Allied turn and burn versus Axis boom and zoom tactics in each side’s respective Air Force and you have another dynamic that makes it difficult for 88’s to operate effectively. Allied air tends to dominate local air space more often due to the ability to turn over towns. Globally the Axis air units may be getting more kills for all I know, but this matters little to the ground game if local air superiority can’t be maintained over towns where it matters most. The current PPOs for ATGs essentially work for every ATG in game but the 88. The most they can be used for is a wall that an 88 can maybe shoot over if they are set up sideways. This is unhelpful for protection from the air. FLAK is also generally useless to protect the 88s as all it takes is for 1 plane to make it through. Even a suicide run usually does the trick quite nicely as oldzeke politely pointed out here (http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=459759). If tanks have a problem with this, 88s don’t stand a chance. Not to mention, you don’t even need bombs as BBs will do the trick to take out an 88. All of these factors make the 88 somewhat impotent in comparison to the historical fear you mentioned.

The only real solution I can come up with is a new PPO that can encompass an 88 so that it can be hardened from the air. This would possibly allow it to be used as part of a zone of control on both attack and defense. As VICTARUS said during the Rat Chat, the idea is to move away from stealth and more to a straight up battle. I like that premise, but the 88 does not fit well currently in that environment.

I can’t really comment the M10 sight. The last time I played Allied on a regular basis I think the sight had a better zoom than it does now. Perhaps an Allied player with more experience can take that one.

S! saronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you know what ' date=' war is like that , your enemy's rifle may be more accurate than yours , or the rear of there tank is weak and yours is strong , or maybe the brit is just a better shot , so dont make it equal , give the weapons and vehicles there actual stats[/quote']

Sure... but when the game mechanics change to force dependence on armor and ATG support, the Axis get left behind.

I've seen EVERY AO I've helped to set up disintegrate in the face of Allied armor as the panzers got spent and the infantry couldn't get in to town.

The start good, then fizzle.

Compared to an Allied AO, where the tanks camp out and eventually roll to town, I'd say it's slanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the honey spot to hit the tiger to de gun it?

When was using it felt like anywhere at 180 degree radius towards it :)

Muzzlebrake and from sides inner half of barrel. Also mantlet hits to right side of barrel seemed to work when was doing more atg stuff when we still had UMS :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe for one full campaign allied side should be forced to use AXIS equipment, and the axis side use ALLIED equipment.

This is the only way to get the dedicated squads to try other sides' equipment without switching sides.

I wonder what everybody would think after that campaign. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hhaahah I like this idea Krazydog - we did a reverse map a few years ago - maybe time to try a reverse equipment map lol.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe for one full campaign allied side should be forced to use AXIS equipment, and the axis side use ALLIED equipment.

This is the only way to get the dedicated squads to try other sides' equipment without switching sides.

I wonder what everybody would think after that campaign. :)

I have a bold prediction: the side with more people playing will win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure... but when the game mechanics change to force dependence on armor and ATG support, the Axis get left behind.

I've seen EVERY AO I've helped to set up disintegrate in the face of Allied armor as the panzers got spent and the infantry couldn't get in to town.

The start good, then fizzle.

Compared to an Allied AO, where the tanks camp out and eventually roll to town, I'd say it's slanted.

I don't know why people are still debating this, the game already got an explicit comparison years ago when Ce came axis and tried his usual tank "zoc" nonsense. What is the most effective strategy for the allies got him utterly annihilated as axis; you can't just grab some panzers and park outside of town to win. I don't know if people just forgot or what but telling axis players to organize a panzer rush is just going to waste the spawn list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why people are still debating this' date=' the game already got an explicit comparison years ago when Ce came axis and tried his usual tank "zoc" nonsense. What is the most effective strategy for the allies got him utterly annihilated as axis; you can't just grab some panzers and park outside of town to win. I don't know if people just forgot or what but telling axis players to organize a panzer rush is just going to waste the spawn list.[/quote']

And allied rushing armor get killed as well.

KGW was capturing towns just fine, two times a week.

Head-on. Axis were winning campaigns pre-FRU just fine.

Numbers matter, not equipment. Allied now got numbers because TZ3 got balanced.

The reason axis attacks are failing is because allied have more guys on to react.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stonecomet

Where did they say they were keeping truck only FRUs for 1-2 campaigns and would then make a new vote?

If you really started playing just in 2011 .. I have played more time since I starter on 2005 and have a more understanding/experience with the old system(the truck only FRU) than you that's not second guessing you, it's just math.

I simply had to remind myself of the negatives of Truck only FRU of the past and see if it held true today and it's the same.

I left right when development stop so I haven't miss anything around the end of 2012 plus I'm pretty in on whats going on here since I read everything that is written on WW2ol.

My views are my views and my opinion is my opinion, they should not be forced on anyone they should be compared with other views and a solution that is the most suitable should be chosen.

@ATR

My issue is not with devs but pointing that the ATR is small step back logically. If you play the game before ATR became the only infantry defense against tanks, you knew that class was practically never used, it was always the last infantry class on the poll and would be used just because of the pistol. Sappers were removed to give their non-AntiTank role to engineers who would take care of repairs and the construction of PPOs has they done in real life. Also sapper is not a very realistic and historical class in 1939-1940 Anti-Tank Rifle units where also equip with Anti-Tank Magnetic Mines.

I think even you can agree ATR is mostly useless, makes sense to keep engineer as FB destroyer and PPO builder and you can't ignore that sapper is overlapsing both of these classes and not historical.

In terms of Game Design there shouldn't be redundant or unused classes.

@issues with the old team

My issues are more with the community management after MM departure. The devs where pretty open or seem more transparent or at least as approachable at that time.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@stonecomet

Where did they say they were keeping truck only FRUs for 1-2 campaigns and would then make a new vote?

If you really started playing just in 2011 .. I have played more time since I starter on 2005 and have a more understanding/experience with the old system(the truck only FRU) than you that's not second guessing you, it's just math.

I simply had to remind myself of the negatives of Truck only FRU of the past and see if it held true today and it's the same.

I left right when development stop so I haven't miss anything around the end of 2012 plus I'm pretty in on whats going on here since I read everything that is written on WW2ol.

My views are my views and my opinion is my opinion, they should not be forced on anyone they should be compared with other views and a solution that is the most suitable should be chosen.

@ATR

My issue is not with devs but pointing that the ATR is small step back logically. If you play the game before ATR became the only infantry defense against tanks, you knew that class was practically never used, it was always the last infantry class on the poll and would be used just because of the pistol. Sappers were removed to give their non-AntiTank role to engineers who would take care of repairs and the construction of PPOs has they done in real life. Also sapper is not a very realistic and historical class in 1939-1940 Anti-Tank Rifle units where also equip with Anti-Tank Magnetic Mines.

I think even you can agree ATR is mostly useless, makes sense to keep engineer as FB destroyer and PPO builder and you can't ignore that sapper is overlapsing both of these classes and not historical.

In terms of Game Design there shouldn't be redundant or unused classes.

@issues with the old team

My issues are more with the community management after MM departure. The devs where pretty open or seem more transparent or at least as approachable at that time.

I never said CRS or they were keeping truck only FRUs for one or two campaigns and then would make a new vote.

My point was that if you were correct and the truck only based FRU was lacking as you believe, then in a campaign or two the conditions of the game might be such that CRS might be considering another survey or even have decided that a change is needed and will be engaged with the player base to find a solution. However, I still believe this system will do well once the game is built around it and everything is improved and audited. I also do not think CRS is done with infantry load outs just yet. Besides, I haven't been in the position to operate one since the change but I imagine the ATR game is now much more about longer ranges and disabling before any attempt at destruction and early on they are quite effective without ever having to use the charge. I would prefer that ATRs carried one charge even with Sappers (I am not aware that Sappers are a-historical) around. I don't think it is a game breaker though.

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch a few video's of the veterans talking about it, it becomes pretty clear that this thing was beast. That said, at the same time we need to find a balance somewhere in the middle.

XOOM please do bare in mind that to a Veteran whose life was on the line the 88 was everywhere and that the psychological effectiveness of the weapon on people is not an effective way to judge actual performance in the cold light of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I decided to weight in on this.

One historically the 88mm flak / pak was quite a numerous weapon.

No more so than any other, proviso after 1941.

1940 found that nothing the Germans had, could kill a Matilda II.

So make sure we update the Matty please.

Then the Churchill that spawned the upgraded 88mm because nothing would kill that either.

And while we look at the 88mm, The 17lber also needs looking at, afterall the 17lber was the most powerful AT Gun of WW2.

Now as I understand it, some are decrying the lack of 88mm / 17lber usage currently.

It's not just them, but the primary reason would be the Ballistic missile Zook.

And increased Armour allotment.

There was also much more teamwork, people would tow out 88mm's especially to deal with allied heavy armour.

But since it was degraded long ago, what need is the 88mm or 17lber now?

So many reasons.

Total 8.8 flak + Pak Produced 21,310 including pre war all marks.

Total 6lber Produced 15,637

Total 17lbers Produced ~ 15,000

just my two cents

Sincerely

fenir

Edited by fenir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All.

Hmm I decided to weight in on this.

Thankyou for your response but I feel there are a couple of points that could do with a little more consideration:

“afterall the 17lber was the most powerful AT Gun of WW2.”

I do feel this statement ignores just a couple of weapons that did see service during WWII.

The weapon that I feel most likely fulfils the claim to be “the most powerful AT Gun of WW2” in probably the German 128 mm L/55. It was deployed in the Jagdtiger. This weapon probably has the most muzzle horsepower of any weapon used in WWII as a specific Anti-tank/Tank gun.

Other contenders for that claim also include the German 88mm L/71 as used in the Tiger II (King Tiger / Royal Tiger) as well as the Jagdpanther, Elefant and the Nashorn SPG. Don’t forget its antitank gun cousin, the Pak 43. The German 75mm L/70 as used in the Panther and a couple of later Assault Gun / Tank Destroyers, would also stand up as a candidate as well. Let us not overlook the US 90mm as used in the M36GMC and the M26 Pershing. Other potential contenders would also include the Soviet 76.2 mm, 85mm and 100mm guns. I am not as familiar with these weapons capabilities so I am unwilling to include them outright, but felt they are worthy of at least a mention to give an indication of the full field of contenders.

“It's not just them, but the primary reason would be the Ballistic missile Zook.”

Each side has a weapon available of this type in their respective TO&Es. From a Historical perspective a weapon that is missing, especially from the “Last Tier” is the Panzerfaust. From a Historical perspective, its inclusion in the last tier in the Axis TO&E would be reasonable as it did serve in significant numbers on all fronts during the final years of the war. The presence of this weapon in Battleground Europe would make life as an Allied Tanker very difficult indeed as, it would, for Historic reasons once again, be potentially available to pretty well any Axis Infantry Unit. This particular weapon is very unlikely to ever be introduced into Battleground Europe. But I could be wrong.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And allied rushing armor get killed as well.

KGW was capturing towns just fine, two times a week.

Head-on. Axis were winning campaigns pre-FRU just fine.

Numbers matter, not equipment. Allied now got numbers because TZ3 got balanced.

The reason axis attacks are failing is because allied have more guys on to react.

monsjoex,

I remember the KGW attacks well. I played Allied at the time.

You are right that the Axis were winning campaigns pre-FRU. They also won campaigns prior to truck only MSPs.

However, I don't think we can discuss the FRU change in isolation. Many people seem to talk about the FRU change as if it is the only change that has been made since the last time we had truck only FRUs.

I seem to remember bush tunnels that could almost conceal entire armor columns and spawn lists that included 50 sappers with 4 heat charges each. I remember tankers in these very forums calling the tank game dead as a result. I'm not suggesting we remove the FRU change or increase the size of the bushes again. All I'm saying is that it is not an apples to apples comparison from the game as it was to the game as it is now. I think we need to remember that when discussing the change.

I also see alot of emphasis put on TZ3. There seems to be a perception on the Allied side that the Axis exploited TZ3 to victory. Some have even suggested the Axis had the inability to move the map during prime time hours. My only question there is if they did not have the ability to move the map during prime time, why would that be? I'm not even sure if the perception is true. I don't know if CRS has the ability to query a database and look at average town capture times to test this assumption. I'm not even sure it would help if they did given that once morale is shot the map tends to move in all time zones. However, if the assumtion is true that TZ3 was the only way the Axis side ever gained momentum and this change somehow balanced it, then I would expect to see a string of Allied victories in the near future such that CRS will have to provide further balance.

I have no doubt CRS will elvaluate and find the way forward. I think only time will tell what effect the change had on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daywalker,

Feedback is good. What specifically about Axis armor sux? I think it would help CRS to know what the Axis player base perceives as the problem.

For example, the thing I question from the Axis perspective armor wise is that I tend to lose slug fests in a PZ3H vs a Stuart. This confuses me as I thought the Stuart was a light tank and that the 3H should have reasonable armor against a 37 MM. Perhaps a problem with the 50 MM on the 3H? However, I am not a ballistics expert (very few of us here actually are, some just think they are) so maybe I'm wrong. Again this my perception, maybe others see it differently.

The other issue I have is the Matilda MK II in Tier 0. It is an excepted fact that in the Battle of France Matilda MK IIs were largely impervious to German tank fire. That is an interesting historical aspect to the game. However, Matilda MK IIs were rare with only 23 of them seeing service in the battle. The question is, how doe CRS balance the historical accuracy there with numbers in game. Obviously they can't limit the entire British army to 23 Matildas MK IIs. What is the answer to balance historical accuracy with game play? Maybe move the pak 38 to Tier 0? I mean, are we not using the Gewehr 41 in Tier 0 at this point?

I also heard XOOM during the Rat Chat mention that the 88 needs to be looked at. Is that the 88 ATG or the 88 on the Tiger as well? Is there some sort of problem with the Tiger vs the S76 as a result? Maybe XOOM can elaborate on what CRS sees as a potential problem here so players can give some feedback.

In any case, I think specific constructive feedback is helpful. The only other option is to make a series of hilarious video cartoon productions depicting what we see as the problem.

I think CRS knows quiet well about axis armor issues. The armor at all angles seems to be made of tissue paper and the smallest projectile kills you. Tigers being killed frontally by allied weapons that historically could not penetrate a Tiger frontally. The invincible Sherman that can become a bush at the drop of a hat as well as most other brit tanks. ****y Axis vehicle camo that makes us stand out like a turd in a punch bowl. I am not an articulate guy like some of the folks who post here as you might tell but that is what I see. The Axis armor at all levels has been handicapped for the past couple of years. I vary rarely tank because it's a death trap. I at least have a fighting chance as a Soldaten on the ground with my rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello All.

Thankyou for your response but I feel there are a couple of points that could do with a little more consideration:

“afterall the 17lber was the most powerful AT Gun of WW2.”

I do feel this statement ignores just a couple of weapons that did see service during WWII.

The weapon that I feel most likely fulfils the claim to be “the most powerful AT Gun of WW2” in probably the German 128 mm L/55. It was deployed in the Jagdtiger. This weapon probably has the most muzzle horsepower of any weapon used in WWII as a specific Anti-tank/Tank gun.

Other contenders for that claim also include the German 88mm L/71 as used in the Tiger II (King Tiger / Royal Tiger) as well as the Jagdpanther, Elefant and the Nashorn SPG. Don’t forget its antitank gun cousin, the Pak 43. The German 75mm L/70 as used in the Panther and a couple of later Assault Gun / Tank Destroyers, would also stand up as a candidate as well. Let us not overlook the US 90mm as used in the M36GMC and the M26 Pershing. Other potential contenders would also include the Soviet 76.2 mm, 85mm and 100mm guns. I am not as familiar with these weapons capabilities so I am unwilling to include them outright, but felt they are worthy of at least a mention to give an indication of the full field of contenders.

“It's not just them, but the primary reason would be the Ballistic missile Zook.”

Each side has a weapon available of this type in their respective TO&Es. From a Historical perspective a weapon that is missing, especially from the “Last Tier” is the Panzerfaust. From a Historical perspective, its inclusion in the last tier in the Axis TO&E would be reasonable as it did serve in significant numbers on all fronts during the final years of the war. The presence of this weapon in Battleground Europe would make life as an Allied Tanker very difficult indeed as, it would, for Historic reasons once again, be potentially available to pretty well any Axis Infantry Unit. This particular weapon is very unlikely to ever be introduced into Battleground Europe. But I could be wrong.

Cheers

James10

!S James didn't need to consider them at all.

The 12.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone 44 L55.

Total Produced guns 51.

Total Kills never recorded.

Operational history, No fuel, used as pill boxes.

Or mounted as SPG, used as pill boxes.

Sorry whats' there to consider?

8.8cm Kwk 43 L71 ..Projectile 7.3kg 3,700 ft/s Performed better than Pak.

8.8 cm Pak 43 L71 Projectile 7.3kg 3,700 ft/s

Ordnance QF 17-pounder Projectile 7.72kg 3,950 ft/s

PzGr. 40/43 Armour-piercing, composite rigid, With a tungsten core.

Problems, poorer ballistic qualities, loses velocity and accuracy, poor quality materials.

Is still at it's best performance ~50mm less penetrating power than the 17lber at equal distance. 900 yards

Fun fact. (17lber tested @3,000 meters penetrating 162mm of 30 degree slope).

8.8cm never tested past 1,800 meters.

Never happened, but in theory the 17lber could frontal kill the Tiger II.

Based on German tested Data for the 8.8cm 43 L71.

Based on British & USA tested data for 17lber.

US 90mm Best USA AT Gun of ww2. And the worst performing of Great Britian, Germany, USA and Italy. Italian 90mm was a better ATG, also an AAA. Copied from 8.8cm 36.

The original testing of the 90mm by the US Army, when they tested the 17lber they even said the 17lber "was by far, a superior weapon"

It was half the weight of the 90mm.

But........and I quote "was not made here".

Like most US equipment, very rarely met design.

Russian 100mm was the best ATG for them from memory.

Russian testing is absolutely shocking.

The only reliable testing was by Germany in the time period.

The British American German stuff, it's now published data.

Direct comparison made at the time by the best of the USA 76mm and 90mm against the 17lber.

BY THE US ARMY.

Ranking them from memory it's pretty much agreed.

Great Britian 17lber...Best Munitions

Germany 8.8cm..........Good Munitions.

either

Italy 90mm....German Munition copies, not as good as original.

USA 90mm...............Average Munitions originally, Then produce British designed Munitions.

Russian 100mm........All munitions Shocking.

Hope that helps

!S james

Sincerely

fenir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All.

Thank you for your reply.

Just one little thing though:

!S James didn't need to consider them at all.

The 12.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone 44 L55.

Total Produced guns 51.

Total Kills never recorded.

Operational history, No fuel, used as pill boxes.

Or mounted as SPG, used as pill boxes.

Sorry whats' there to consider?

fenir

For completeness I include the following:

128mm L/55 Pak44. Projectile: 28.3 kg 3,100 ft/s

There were apparently 51 Pak guns produced using this weapon as you pointed out. There were also approximately 80 SPGs produced also using this weapon. In addition there was at least one Maus turret produced using this weapon. Therefore a closer count for the 128mm L/55 would be in the order of 132. Yes the SPG also known as the Jagdtiger did suffer from a lack of fuel (just like a lot of German vehicles at the time) and it was used as a pill box. It also suffered from being mechanically unreliable due to its weight BUT it was used and did serve in WWII.

Closer, more complete examination my find your claim to be true but to dismiss something to support a claim I would suggest is just a little inappropriate.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daywalker,

Feedback is good. What specifically about Axis armor sux? I think it would help CRS to know what the Axis player base perceives as the problem.

For example, the thing I question from the Axis perspective armor wise is that I tend to lose slug fests in a PZ3H vs a Stuart. This confuses me as I thought the Stuart was a light tank and that the 3H should have reasonable armor against a 37 MM. Perhaps a problem with the 50 MM on the 3H? However, I am not a ballistics expert (very few of us here actually are, some just think they are) so maybe I'm wrong. Again this my perception, maybe others see it differently.

The other issue I have is the Matilda MK II in Tier 0. It is an excepted fact that in the Battle of France Matilda MK IIs were largely impervious to German tank fire. That is an interesting historical aspect to the game. However, Matilda MK IIs were rare with only 23 of them seeing service in the battle. The question is, how doe CRS balance the historical accuracy there with numbers in game. Obviously they can't limit the entire British army to 23 Matildas MK IIs. What is the answer to balance historical accuracy with game play? Maybe move the pak 38 to Tier 0? I mean, are we not using the Gewehr 41 in Tier 0 at this point?

I also heard XOOM during the Rat Chat mention that the 88 needs to be looked at. Is that the 88 ATG or the 88 on the Tiger as well? Is there some sort of problem with the Tiger vs the S76 as a result? Maybe XOOM can elaborate on what CRS sees as a potential problem here so players can give some feedback.

In any case, I think specific constructive feedback is helpful. The only other option is to make a series of hilarious video cartoon productions depicting what we see as the problem.

You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to "historical numbers". The British brigades in tier 0 already get a bare minimum of Matildas, you can't reduce it any further. And once that matilda is dead in your infantry brigade, or the 3 in the armor brigade, all we have left is a13s with laughably thin armor. We already limit the British divisions in the game to having a maximum total of around 30 matildas during tier 0.

Compare this to the current Tiger numbers, where axis gets as many Tigers as we get Sherman 76s or Churchill VIIs, despite there being all of what, 200 Tiger Is on the western Front? And this also despite the fact that it outperforms its counterparts both qualitatively and statistically. Just like how the axis gets loads of g41 and g43, and now get the fg42 in their army divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to "historical numbers". The British brigades in tier 0 already get a bare minimum of Matildas, you can't reduce it any further. And once that matilda is dead in your infantry brigade, or the 3 in the armor brigade, all we have left is a13s with laughably thin armor. We already limit the British divisions in the game to having a maximum total of around 30 matildas during tier 0.

Compare this to the current Tiger numbers, where axis gets as many Tigers as we get Sherman 76s or Churchill VIIs, despite there being all of what, 200 Tiger Is on the western Front? And this also despite the fact that it outperforms its counterparts both qualitatively and statistically. Just like how the axis gets loads of g41 and g43, and now get the fg42 in their army divisions.

I don't believe I asked for more Tigers here. If CRS added more Tigers to the game they must have felt it necessary to do so based on the needs of the game. I would encourage them to do the same anytime they feel the Allies need more units in game. The point I was trying to make was that the Matilda MK II historically was extraordinarily rare on the battlefield during the Battle of France. I'm also not asking CRS to reduce the number of units any further. What I am saying is that historically Axis armored units could not compete with the Matilda MK II. In that sense I think CRS has modeled the tank extremely well. However, there were so few of them that in a historical sense they could not have any real impact on the outcome of the battle. I think most of the British tanks in the Battle of France were actually A12s. I understand why the Matida MK II was add in terms of game balance though.

This leaves CRS in a tough spot in tier 0 in terms of balancing its usage in a video game though. They can't add too many of them without completely upsetting the balance of the game. They also have to give the Axis an effective method of dealing with them since we are talking about them in the context of a game here. Historically, the Axis used the 88 to deal with threats like the Matilda. XOOM has indicated that for some reason or another the 88 seems to under perform. Hence, my suggestion for the pak 38 in tier 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing more weapon systems for the axis alone to deal with a tank that exists in very low numbers and can already be taken out by existing ATGs, tanks, and infantry really doesn't make sense though, because it then makes the french a lot more vulnerable as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is meant by underperforming?

Some very broad brush strokes and I wonder what exactly they mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agentwade, you complain about the A13. That's what axis tanking is like. Every tank - including the Tiger - is a rolling toaster. JUST LIKE A13s. Imagine fighting the entire campaign in A13s. Thats what we are talking about ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.