rule303

Late War & Alternative/Post WW2 Tech for Really Late Tiers?

77 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, vanapo said:

we only got northern france. No colonies, no italian front, almost no maginot line

Careful what you wish for
Messages like "A Facility in Milan has been captured by the enemy" "Soldiers needed in Berlin!"  "Attack on Fort Schoenenbourg has been recalled" may populate your screen.

 

 

2 hours ago, vanapo said:

If the axis side has to conquer the map in X time or else  it looses - then the axis should get the better equipment

No, they'd get 10 cases of PZII's a 6 pack of PZIII's and a sprinkle of PZIV's (and then things get worse)
And then they would get no movement restrictions and no cap rules or timers, insta cap for axis and they would simply drive around any place spawning resistance go behind and softcap everything, cut it off and just leave it starve while they streaked off 4 towns away.
And all the allied gear would be deployed in the wrong place, and the french brigades would have very long move delays due to the need of
rail transport to move the armor any appreciable distance at any great speed, of which the axis have already taken the rail lines.
The british would have normal movement except for their matilda's which will be along 3 days later, but they will refuse to commit more than a handful of units to the fray because things look a bit dicey in france and GHC has been eyeballing dover and folkerstone.

Ok, now we can have a win timer restriction on the axis.

And if the above sounds absolutely stupid, that is because it is.
You would have to have that level of stupidity before you could expect to force the axis side to pull of a "Blitz" because in real life
that is how the axis pulled off the blitz.
They looked at the situation, saw that it was beyond ill suited to respond or adapt to an attack that simply ran around all the fortified positions
and they rolled the dice simply blew through the openings and weak areas , tried to avoid areas of good resistance, cut them off from behind, disrupt everything blah blah.

We already know that they could have never held a blitz timeline and would have had to do things entirely differently and a lot slower
and it would have been a lot harder if they had run into a properly mobilized french defense (magnitudes harder)
They would not have been able to spearhead with armor, the armor mostly does not support it so they would need new tactics
and a way different timeline, and it would be much more costly IF they pulled it off and definitely a much longer fight.

So unless the allies get hamstrung with the sins of the past, you can not make the axis adhere to a timeline from the past
that hinges on that hamstringing, and if the allies get that hamstringing, well there is not much point in them logging in even and then there is no game
because it is boring to simply log in and drive panzers to the French west shoreline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

further, what if Germany just didn't attack France? France built a defensive line ... could they even go on the offensive? How long might it take?

 

What if instead of attacking France, Germany held the passes and Italy held theirs while focusing everything else on a 1940's red army? What could France really have done? In theory Germany could have wiped the board in Russia as Russia was worse prepared at that time. 

 

What could England have done? from 40-43? Could anyone realistically have gone at Germany at that point? Doubtful - back to vanopo's initiative point. initiative is something you need to talk about at the political/economic level too. frances politics and economy had no initative for war. in fact - they went fully defensive in hopes it would deter anyone from attacking. they didn't want to fight.  chamberlain was a fool too who also did not want to fight. prior to pearl harbor, the US had zero intention of joining another european war. 

 

Germany going at Russia first = Capitalism kinda shrugs but is concerned, however, never miss an opportunity for a buck so any capitalist countries not directly involved will profit. exactly what the US did prior to pearl harbor. 

Germany going east = Chamberlain holds his seat and Britain's involvement stays at arms reach for a bit longer. 

 

Apart from Germany, no country had the imitative. This is why Stalin needed to be attacked before the Red army could muster its [censored]. The decades prior to this invovled massive famine leading to the deaths of 10s of millions of 'Russians'. The Ukraine was essentially starved out as were other non pure Russian areas. The population had no initiative to fight for Stalin - many would sooner poor gas on him than [censored] on him if he were on fire. more would have rather set the fire in the first place.

 

I think you grossly over estimate any of the allies ability to actually go on the offensive. their kit was certainly capable though. you also grossly under value what Bletchley did, specifically Turing and his team. Knowing everything about your enemy, and knowing that the doesn't know ... well bringing this all back ....

 

The day after Enigma was cracked - the entire allied force had 100% initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If germany had not hit France? and do we mean also not rolled over belgium?
I kind of want to say that they would have probably been content to sit in their defensive lines and along with england been happy to cede them some of their pre WWI territory reclamations and such.

Probably issued some stern words in regards to the eastern territories invaded but mostly sat tight in the absence of 
hostile provocation.

France did not want war, England did not want war, they both had just had one and had just barely grown the first replacement crop of male children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And when did this bogging down really happen? It wasn't until after Prescott Bush's UBC bank was shut down that the [censored] war machine ground to a halt. This is a key piece you're missing. The US wasn't in a hurry to get into war because actors within the US were funding/enabling the [censored] war machine (Bush/UBC > Fritz Thyssen > Krupp etc). Meaning, we were already profiting, handsomely - our shores were NOT at risk - why then would we jump into save Britain? We did nothing until they gave us every secret they had - then finally we got involved."----------Madrebel

 

The 'bogging down' happened when the soviet government didn't crumble as was hoped for.  The 'bogging down' happened when germany strayed from their norm and started going for specific pieced of ground rather than just taking ground.  The 'war machine' ground to a halt because they were stopped at great cost by the Soviet army.  

 

Having said all that, I have misplaced my tinfoil hat, thus perhaps it was Prescott Bush's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, vanapo said:

I would be very carefull in reducing an army to it's bare equipment.

 

Here we disagree, insofar as I believe that is the true 'what if' we should be dealing with, i.e. 'what if german players had to decide where to attack and with what portion of available assets, and what if the Allied side had to decide where to defend and how'-----given the equipment of the time.  That, imho (and espoused since before day 1) should be what the game shoots for.  The BoF is unique in that the forces are fairly well balanced without having to resort to artificial means.  If memory serves that is part of the reason BoF was chosen in the first place.

 

My point with timers was meant to bring light to a simple fact:  The current victory conditions put the Allied side at a distinct disadvantage, in that most of our equipment was not designed for conquering territory.

 

Going with what was there, in historically accurate ratios, would be a huge improvement, (again, my opinion only as it has never been allowed to be tested), and would largely eliminate the perceived need to artificially balance gameplay.  Failing that, then balancing victory conditions, i.e. eliminating the inherent axis advantage, should happen.  Giving toys to the Allied side to help with recruiting hasn't worked, because of the need to artificially balance things by also giving new toys to the german side, and has kept us on a path where the game gets less and less historically accurate, which for some of us is one of the main reasons we signed on to play this game.

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, merlin51 said:

So unless the allies get hamstrung with the sins of the past, you can not make the axis adhere to a timeline from the past
that hinges on that hamstringing,

I submit to you that the Allied side is already hamstrung with the sins of the past, in that our weaponry isn't designed to take territory.  We are not hamstrung by having to repeat the mistakes on the strategic and tactical levels that were made by actual Allied commanders, but the effects of improving on the strategies and tactics actually used by Allied commanders do not, and in most cases cannot, result in an Allied victory.  On the flip side, the germans are not required to come remotely close to the strategic and/or tactical skill levels of their actual counterparts, in order to achieve victory.  Pretty much the only thing the german side has to worry about is having a large portion of their troops fail to log into the game, (or worse yet, temporarily switch sides), as that is about the only way they are going to lose a campaign.

 

So, should the germans have to equal the performance of their actual counterparts in order to achieve victory?  No, as you have said, that pretty much is guaranteed not to happen in any campaign where the Allies aren't fully committed to botching our efforts.  The current situation, though, is that they have zero time constraints, zero risk of being blockaded thus zero risk of running out of resources, little to no risk of being outnumbered for any significant amount of time, which combined with troop/equipment balancing makes for zero risk of being forced into a battle of attrition, as the consequences are nowhere near as ruinous as they would have been in the actual conflict, zero risk of a war in the east sapping their strength in the west european theater, and so on.

 

Additionally, the germans 'went fast' because they knew what happens to germany when campaigns DON'T 'go fast'.  It isn't a tomato tomahto argument, either.  Certainly they hoped the Allies would react poorly (as they did), but regardless of how the Allies reacted, the germans were committed to blitzkrieg, as it was the only chance they had, and they knew it.  One could argue they learned the lessons of WWI, but in reality they knew speed was their best friend before WWI, because they knew that in a protracted conflict their enemies would prevail.   Britain would shut down shipping lanes causing germany to run out of important resources.  France, once mobilized, would have more troops than germany could muster thus in a war of attrition germany was doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, madrebel said:

further, what if Germany just didn't attack France? France built a defensive line ... could they even go on the offensive? How long might it take?

If Germany had ignored France, they would have been far less able to attack anywhere else.  It would have given France time to fully mobilize.  It would have given the UK the ability to begin tightening the noose around Germany's resources.  It would not have ended well for the germans----you are correct in wondering how long it would take for France et al to move onto the attack, but not taking France out of the war virtually guaranteed Germany's eventual defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, madrebel said:

What if instead of attacking France, Germany held the passes and Italy held theirs while focusing everything else on a 1940's red army? What could France really have done? In theory Germany could have wiped the board in Russia as Russia was worse prepared at that time.

Germany would have had to committ a large percentage of their troops to defending against an attack from the Allies, thus they would have been even more outnumbered than they actually were had they persisted in their plans to invade the Soviet Union.  Better equipment, troops, and tactics are force multipliers, but there's a point where sheer numbers compensate for equipment issues, troops skill levels, and tactical disadvantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, madrebel said:

What could England have done? from 40-43? Could anyone realistically have gone at Germany at that point?

They could have, and would have, starved Germany into submission.  Germany required the resources of conquered territory in order to sustain its war effort.  Germany required the labor force (namely slave labor) to maintain war production at a proper level.  The Allies would not have had to roll tanks into Berlin in order to defeat Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, madrebel said:

vanopo's initiative point. initiative is something you need to talk about at the political/economic level too. frances politics and economy had no initative for war. in fact - they went fully defensive in hopes it would deter anyone from attacking. they didn't want to fight.  chamberlain was a fool too who also did not want to fight. prior to pearl harbor, the US had zero intention of joining another european war.

While the U.S. wasn't jumping at the chance to enter another european war, we were not shy in making it known which side we were rooting for, and we backed that up by violating our neutrality in extreme fashion.  You say 'we were just out to make a buck'.  Others would say we were throwing a very thin veil of legitimacy over our violations of neutrality.  You say the U.S. had 'zero intention...'  Others would say Roosevelt was actively looking for ways to provoke Germany into 'forcing us' into the war.  One of the 'others' who would have argued that point was Hitler, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, madrebel said:

Apart from Germany, no country had the imitative. This is why Stalin needed to be attacked before the Red army could muster its [censored]. The decades prior to this invovled massive famine leading to the deaths of 10s of millions of 'Russians'. The Ukraine was essentially starved out as were other non pure Russian areas. The population had no initiative to fight for Stalin - many would sooner poor gas on him than [censored] on him if he were on fire. more would have rather set the fire in the first place.

True, but in order for Germany to have a chance at victory it had to maintain that initiative.  The scenarios you have talked about (Germany not attacking France, etc.) would have effectively taken the initiative away from the germans, and would have lead to their eventual defeat.  Your characterization of Soviet citizenry presumes that Soviet citizenry as a whole knew about the deaths of millions of their fellow citizens, which most did not.  I cannot say that the Soviet Union would have backed Stalin's plan to invade westward, but I also do not recall anyone attempting to pour gasoline on him and set him afire when Soviet troops attacked Poland, or when they attacked Finland, so I wonder why their reaction would have been so violent in the case of going to war with Germany...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, madrebel said:

I think you grossly over estimate any of the allies ability to actually go on the offensive. their kit was certainly capable though. you also grossly under value what Bletchley did, specifically Turing and his team. Knowing everything about your enemy, and knowing that the doesn't know ... well bringing this all back ....

 

The day after Enigma was cracked - the entire allied force had 100% initiative.

I believe you grossly overestimate the NEED for the Allies to go on the offensive, while at the same time over-minimizing the need for the germans to maintain the initiative.

 

Again with the Enigma stuff.  I get it---they cracked the codes and everyone was happy.  Had they not cracked the codes, more ships would have been sent to the bottom before the Allies' inevitable victory in the battle of the atlantic would have occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, augetout said:

my point with timers was meant to bring light to a simple fact:  The current victory conditions put the Allied side at a distinct disadvantage, in that most of our equipment was not designed for conquering territory.

I don't see the big impact because this game is not built around conquering territory. It is built around capping buildings next to spawn points. The shortcomings of slow defensive equipment like the matty or char really don't come into play when you are able to spawn them right next to the position you have to hold. I really don't see any allied disadvantage in fielding more defensive equipment especially in tier 0 or 1. You really think having mattys and chars is worse than having a stug B? What's worse in fielding crusaders and somuas than pz3 and pz4? They are all very agile and they all can be taken out by small ATGs - the germans tanks even more so.

Regarding the "what if" part again: This game simulates ballistics not politics. Historians can argue hours and hours about what would happended if this went that way. But putting a timer in game because you think allies got the defensive equipment and axis don't: I don't see that point. Especially not as soon as 'mericans show up on the map. Regarding your point I would argue AXIS should win if the americans can't retake france after x days of being in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, augetout said:

Again with the Enigma stuff.  I get it

I doubt many would accuse you of 'getting it' actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, augetout said:

 The Allies would not have had to roll tanks into Berlin in order to defeat Germany.

odd considering this is exactly what it took to eventually beat the germans. however, in your head - and i suspect only in that vacuous expanse - in some fabled alternate reality the allies could have just starved out the Germans.

 

interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, augetout said:

I submit to you that the Allied side is already hamstrung with the sins of the past, in that our weaponry isn't designed to take territory.

Since i can load up an invisible train with B1's and S35's and R35's And shoot it anyplace across the map at the same speed as a panzer unit
and only have to drive them the last 2km, i'd say it does fairly good at taking territory and arguably sheds more bullets while doing it.

Fast gear only really helps in taking territory when you can rush in and blitz it before someone can come to defend it with anything.
That does not really happen in game much, resistance is only a french AB away.
And French speed gap goes away as the US lendlease gear comes in.
And the S35 is not exactly slouchy in the mobility area, it is actually pretty fast once it gets rolling, in it's day it was considered very fast

B1 is slow as hell, but thing about the B1 is it is about the same speed on road as off
and since we ship all our tanks via invisirail, the speed of moving them long distances over road does not matter much
and offroad, the B1 can mostly keep up with most of its contemporaries on the axis side, it is just slower getting up to speed

Brits are always fairly mobile

Only 2 really pokey guys in the bunch, the Matilda II and the R35

I'm really not seeing where the detriment to taking territory in game is?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, merlin51 said:

Since i can load up an invisible train with B1's and S35's and R35's And shoot it anyplace across the map at the same speed as a panzer unit
and only have to drive them the last 2km, i'd say it does fairly good at taking territory and arguably sheds more bullets while doing it.

Fast gear only really helps in taking territory when you can rush in and blitz it before someone can come to defend it with anything.
That does not really happen in game much, resistance is only a french AB away.
And French speed gap goes away as the US lendlease gear comes in.
And the S35 is not exactly slouchy in the mobility area, it is actually pretty fast once it gets rolling, in it's day it was considered very fast

B1 is slow as hell, but thing about the B1 is it is about the same speed on road as off
and since we ship all our tanks via invisirail, the speed of moving them long distances over road does not matter much
and offroad, the B1 can mostly keep up with most of its contemporaries on the axis side, it is just slower getting up to speed

Brits are always fairly mobile

Only 2 really pokey guys in the bunch, the Matilda II and the R35

I'm really not seeing where the detriment to taking territory in game is?
 

Perhaps I am just logging in at the wrong times, but I rarely if ever see R35s being spawned.  I understand your point regarding 'invisitrains' and only the last 2km, and I appreciate your belief that fast gear isn't as advantageous as I believe, although I disagree, despite the game taking steps to slow attacks down a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, vanapo said:

 

I don't see the big impact because this game is not built around conquering territory. It is built around capping buildings next to spawn points. The shortcomings of slow defensive equipment like the matty or char really don't come into play when you are able to spawn them right next to the position you have to hold. I really don't see any allied disadvantage in fielding more defensive equipment especially in tier 0 or 1. You really think having mattys and chars is worse than having a stug B? What's worse in fielding crusaders and somuas than pz3 and pz4? They are all very agile and they all can be taken out by small ATGs - the germans tanks even more so.

Regarding the "what if" part again: This game simulates ballistics not politics. Historians can argue hours and hours about what would happended if this went that way. But putting a timer in game because you think allies got the defensive equipment and axis don't: I don't see that point. Especially not as soon as 'mericans show up on the map. Regarding your point I would argue AXIS should win if the americans can't retake france after x days of being in the field.

The shortcomings of slow defensive equipment don't come into play (for the most part) in defensive situations---it's when on the attack that the defensive-designed equipment lags a bit.

 

I do not believe having mattys and chars is worse tahn having a stug B, when in the defense.  Both tanks excel at fighting/surviving from hasty defensive positions (or prepared).

 

We can disagree about the impact of modeled equipment versus victory conditions, and I'm ok with that----let's not, however, make an attempt to put the design of Allied BoF equipment being defensive-minded as being 'a thought' augetout had----it is fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, madrebel said:

I doubt many would accuse you of 'getting it' actually.

I do not know where (or IF) you studied WWII history, but I am pretty sure it was a waste of time and/or money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, madrebel said:

odd considering this is exactly what it took to eventually beat the germans. however, in your head - and i suspect only in that vacuous expanse - in some fabled alternate reality the allies could have just starved out the Germans.

 

interesting. 

oye.  I was responding to a 'what if' of yours where the germans did not attack west, despite being at war with the west.  In that scenario, the germans do not have access to French resources, or labor garnered from conquered territories in the west.  In that scenario, the germans have a much more difficult time in the battle of the atlantic, as they would not have access to naval ports in France, thus requiring their U-Boats to sail much further (thus being able to stay out on patrol for less time per sortie, thus being less effective).  The strain on the British Navy to protect shipping lanes would be lessened, especially when left with an intact French Navy to help, thus freeing the Allied navies to cut germany's shipping lanes.   In essence, germany not attacking France would be akin to WWI's static front, albeit without the huge amounts of casualties, and would likely have resulted in much the same result, i.e. germany losing more of starvation than lost territory.  Germany is a relatively small nation, and could not provide all resources needed in wartime (or peacetime for that matter) from within their own borders.  While on a smaller scale than the UK, Germany too was partially dependant on resources imported from other countries, some not connected by land. 

 

Much of Hitler's grand plans were in large part intended specifically to ensure against the Allies being able to starve germany out of the war, as had basically been the case in WWI.

 

Now, if (as in your scenario) germany doesn't attack west, but manages to make the Mediterranean an axis lake as was his (Hitler's) goal, then germany becomes basically immune to the risk of being starved.  Of course that becomes more difficult to achieve, if France is still in the war.

Edited by augetout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, augetout said:

Perhaps I am just logging in at the wrong times, but I rarely if ever see R35s being spawned.  I understand your point regarding 'invisitrains' and only the last 2km, and I appreciate your belief that fast gear isn't as advantageous as I believe, although I disagree, despite the game taking steps to slow attacks down a bit.

R35's are best used to do things like patrol town on defense.
Seek out and suppress enemy FMS
Or support an infantry position like an FMS etc.
FB defense, laying in wait of enemy trucks or scout cars.
They dont really do great fighting tanks, they havent the gun for it.

They have nice armor, better than PZII and PZ38(t) but the gun is better suited for lobbing HE at soft targets.
and they are pokey to drive any place, though they will climb up anything, and do about the same speed on and off road
(which is to say they crawl every place)

I mean you can take them on attack, doesnt take that long to crawl 2km
but it isnt the units strong point cause more often than not, you are going to be running into enemy tanks
and it is no more gunned for tank combat really than the PZIIc is, you might toddle in and give some support to an FMS
or support a capture, but even if you could arrive fast, you would not do much in the way of pushing out enemy armor
unless you get besieged by a bunch of 232's and PZII's

I use them, i think they are fun, but i tend to stick to patrolling town, setting up FB defense, wacking opels and 232's with HE
and chasing off enemy infantry etc.


Equipment Speed wise?
France actually has probably the fastest unit (among those represented in game) in T0
The S35 i think has the highest offroad speed.
Its torque curve may be a little slow on the wind up, but once it is rolling, it is fast.
The B1 is no master of haste, it is lucky to do 17mph down a paved road, but the thing is, when it goes offroad, it only sacrifices a little bit of speed
so it winds up in the same speed realm as the axis units offroad. A bit slower on the uptake, but it is kind of heavy for its time.

When you are only having to travel that last 2km, and your origin is already known, most times the road is not the place to be
so most of the time, it is the offroad speeds that matter the most.

If we had to do a lot more driving over a lot longer distances, you would be correct.
Axis would have virtually everything moving at decent speed on a road march
Allies would currently have A13 Vickers and S35's showing up on time, with Matilda's and R35's arriving too late for tomorrow's dinner and the B1 bis
arriving sometime around late lunch, which would not work out so well because there would be no stand your ground units.
Allied advance would be much slower and they would have to be diligent in not leaving holes for the axis to blitz through
Operation rolling Fortress

At least in T0, obviously the game changes as the tiers advance, Britain gets more cruisers, France begins getting US supplied gear that moves well etc.

Now as tier 0 fleshed in, things would change as the brits would gain more units capable of axis maneuvering and would possess the fastest unit on the battlefield in T0+ with the tetrarch
along with their A9 (A10's are not fast, they keep company with matilda) and A13 MKI along side the A 13 MK III Covenanter

France would also gain some more mobile units
AMC35 light armor, good gun, on par with PZ38(t) sort of
AMR 33 and 35 which class beside the vickers and pzIIc, not suited to fighting tanks unless you enjoy suicide, but good close infantry support.
(the 33 might be redundant to model as it is same armament, same armor capability, and roughly same speed and the 35 has a few variants)

So factoring in that the allies are able to team up, the Allied T0 mobility teams line up might look like
A9 MKI Cruiser *
A17 Mk VII Tetrarch *
Vickers
A13 MKI *
A13 MKIII *
AMC 35 *
AMR 35 
S 35 *

If you want to include non tanks
DAC *
Panhard

*consistently knocks out all axis armored units

And assuming a fleshed out axis T0
those would be competing with
PZI
PZII
PZ38(t)
PZ35(t)
PZIII
PZIV
SdKfz 232

So it does not really have to be terrible, if one does not simply screw the entire thing up with terrible deployment, inability to adapt fast enough and such.
(Something we dont really have to worry about in game, not to realities extent anyways)
Even adding in the eventual italian factions tanks does not change things much aside from variety.
No speed demons or lumbering block houses there.

Did not include
StuG b and Laffly W15TCC and PZJI and similar simply because they are not really for advancing, they are for stopping advancement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merlin, I am well aware of the R35's strengths and weakness.  When in AHC and tasked with being part of the armor portion of an attack, I typically would spawn an R35, as it was so slow (not griping, as it is historically accurate) that I could continue running my portion of the map while driving to the objective.

6 hours ago, merlin51 said:

R35's are best used to do things like patrol town on defense.
Seek out and suppress enemy FMS
Or support an infantry position like an FMS etc.
FB defense, laying in wait of enemy trucks or scout cars.

It is odd, though, that while (unless I am misreading your intentions) disputing that Allied equipment isn't suited for offensive missions, you point out that the most plentiful French tank (if using anything resembling historical ratios) is not suited for an attack role.  Of course you are correct.

 

The stug was an assault weapon on wheels, built to blow through fortifications.  It most certainly was designed for use in the offense.  It is typically mis-used in this game (based on my observations since coming back).  The 31st used to use Stugs so effectively that there were significant worries that the stug had been mis-modeled in an uber fashion.  I shouldn't miss the wrecking crew, but I kinda do.

 

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to see how the next set of gameplay changes (town-based supply that I hope does not end up meaning an return of the instaspawning panzer-armies 4 towns behind the lines, etc.) works out.  Hope springs eternal that folks will come back to (or discover anew) this game, raising ingame pops to a point where the current squad level (platoon at best) combat levels are replaced by a return of at least company-sized elements---and maybe even battalion-sized combat actions that we saw fairly regularly back in the 'early days'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, augetout said:

It is odd, though, that while (unless I am misreading your intentions) disputing that Allied equipment isn't suited for offensive missions, you point out that the most plentiful French tank (if using anything resembling historical ratios) is not suited for an attack role.  Of course you are correct.

It is not. I could crawl to the bathroom faster than all 1500 of them put together.

Then again, the most plentiful axis tank, the PZII at 955 units can be stopped dead by the slow R35's hanging back, at fairly little risk to themselves.
so they'd have their uses.
There are also some 500+ PZI's floating around in there the baby char can play with

Axis have more tanks that are fast, france has more tanks that can take silly amounts of damage
 

Of the 4000 some tanks france had, there is a decent amount of mobile ones if organized and distributed in a decent fashion
They didn't, but we dont have that problem, we just dont have all the units yet

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/05/2018 at 1:09 AM, madrebel said:

odd considering this is exactly what it took to eventually beat the germans. however, in your head - and i suspect only in that vacuous expanse - in some fabled alternate reality the allies could have just starved out the Germans.

 

interesting. 

They legitimately could have once they removed the Germans from occupied territories that they were plundering for supplies. It was exactly what the Allies did to Germany in WW1, because their combined industrial might was significantly better than Germany's, and because Germany could not get any shipping into their country except from limited exceptions. However, unlike WW1 there wasn't a prolonged stalemate of fighting anywhere, so this was not necessary as the Western and Eastern allies by the end of 1944 were pushing the Germans back more and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can just stop this argument. Merlin and I both pointed out that speed is not the killing factor with the spawn points being so close to target.

In this game the "Maus" Tank would be just great despite being allmost immobile - because it would spawn right next to the town and it's very hard to kill while fielding a big gun. It would be a tier 4 Char. Germans got nothing comparable to a Char or a Matty in tier 0 and tier 1. Every tank they field has really weak armor that can be taken out frontally at regular fighting distances even by the enemy scout cars! It's laughable to say (in context of this game) that the germans got the better offensive equipment only because they got significant more road-speed with some tanks. Every battle tank they field got weak armor, and only the 4d and Stug (which is no battle tank) got reasonable penetration with the very few and very inaccurate HEAT rounds they carry. Pointing out they got the more precise optics doesn't help when your shell won't land at your aiming point.

Don't get my wrong. I won't say the german tanks are "nerfed" or the balance is off or something. But to say the axis win because their tanks are better suited for an attack - especially in early tiers - that's waaaay off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.