snappahead

support tanks

181 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

Axis get a tiger in T2, later can be properly adjusted to T2.5 (This campaign started in T3)
In T2 allies have Sherman M4A2's with 75mm guns for tanks
S76 and firefly dont come in until T3, because presently T3 is the end of the line, anything and everything not T2 either lands there or does not exist at all.
If there was a Tiger II, presently it would land in T3 also, cause it would not have any place else to go, RDP ceases to advance at T3

Once the US faction has proper RDP cycling so it can continue beyond T3, then things can further move to proper orientations, along with early year and later year tiers for even better entry times.
Until then, T3 is simply the place where everything after T2 goes.

Well, first of all, why have a 1943 timeline and have 1944 tanks involved? Balance of course. Well, to give support tanks for one side that has machine guns and not the other, well that isn't balance. The word "historical" gets thrown at me. Well what's it going to be? balance or historical? And the end around I get is basically "whatever we feel like at the time"

You try to get a tank to help the infantry and all you have is the 232 that gets taken out by everything...including rifles. Balance would be infantry divisions getting scout cars only. The DAC might have an advantage in that it can take out heavy tanks, but where there are no tanks infantry vs infantry, it would be balanced as where both scout cars can take each other out and carry machine guns to support. But hey, I guess that would be just too simple an answer I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, delems said:

Can't you manually place them when tier 4 hits?  That way they don't have to exist in 1943, when they didn't.

i think the only way to do that would be ohm hand editing the database, bringing down the server, etc.
Aside from probably not being a good way to go about it, as Ohm has a normal full time job, he'd not be able to maintain any kind of exact schedule to it
so that alone might cause some unhappiness when a tier does not roll out on time?

Better to ride it out a bit longer, while we work it out to happen the right way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that any Matilda II CS tanks were ever directly part of an infantry division's TOE. They were part of the RTRs...the infantry tank sub-units of the Army Tank Brigade, along with the regular two-pounder-armed Matildas. 

StgG IIIB vehicles were part of a few infantry divisions in 1940...all of them the more-motorized " Schützen" ones that later were renamed "Panzer Grenadier". They however were not considered tanks; they were crewed by Artillery personnel, not Panzertruppen. 

When the British needed tanks as part of an infantry action, they attached part or all of an RTR. When the Germans needed tanks as part of an infantry action, they formed a kampfgruppe with an independent panzer unit or a tank unit borrowed from a panzer division.

If StuGs are going to be in German infantry TOEs for T0, maybe those vehicles should have an almost-all-HE-and-smoke loadout. Certainly the Germans thought of them as the iG 18 direct-fire 7.5cm infantry support cannon, mounted inside a self-propelled chassis with enough armor on the front to withstand fire from the pillboxes that StuGs were used to take out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao I almost never see people use the stuH, and when I do I sometimes ask people how many kills they get and its usually none or a couple. It's too hard to use it as a CS tank and cut spawns/buildings/bunkers when you fire 1 round every 15-20 seconds. Plus its hard to use it most situations. For example, if there is an ei in front of you behind a berm, you have to contact that EI with the round, which is a very very precise shot. If you hit the berm in front of the ei, it won't damage the ei. then you have to wait 15-20 seconds for a reload. With a mg, you can hold down your fire button while you make a slight adjustment to your aim. Next is cutting things. So say they have a depot on one side of a street and the CP for the depot on the other side. you are trying to cut. You have to either contact the ei with the round or place it super close to him. That depth perception is very hard to calculate in the limited time you have to fire while an ei is sprinting across the road. Even if you are a great shot, itll still take 15-20 seconds to reload, which means more and more ei crossing that road. Plus, if EI smoke the road, you are screwed. you have 1 shot every 15-20 seconds to have an attempt to get ultra lucky and hit an ei crossing, where if you had a MG, you could just lay down a continuous stream of fire or bursts into the smoke. 

I think I made my point here and I hope this makes sense as to why people don't use it.

My statement isn't to argue if its historically accurate or not, it's to explain why people don't use it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL it is funny with the historical stuff. Historically when people get shot in the head they die but for some reason in the game they live. But when I shot people in the foot when they put it out through the wall (which is very historical, I have read many history books where both allies and axis soldiers did this) they always die. So lets keep arguing about tanks and guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya cept the problem is the thin-skinned 88 requiring towing even out to town's edge effectively AND a large high profile AND unrealistically close strafing fused with computer age forward observer marking is not the monster in RL in this game.

 

Either that or the thin to no armor valuations are way whack.

 

Or another thought, all that AA gear that drove up the cost of the 88 is not effectively in play, we don't have time-fused AA shells, it's literally not the same gun and ammo in terms of capability.  Again, another example where this cost business does not capture the game situation, or vice versa.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kilemall said:

another example where this cost business does not capture the game situation, or vice versa.

Story of this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Ya cept the problem is the thin-skinned 88 requiring towing even out to town's edge effectively AND a large high profile AND unrealistically close strafing fused with computer age forward observer marking is not the monster in RL in this game.

Either that or the thin to no armor valuations are way whack.

Or another thought, all that AA gear that drove up the cost of the 88 is not effectively in play, we don't have time-fused AA shells, it's literally not the same gun and ammo in terms of capability.  Again, another example where this cost business does not capture the game situation, or vice versa.

Well said. I know many have beaten to death the point of view regarding the divergence between RL production costs and combat effectiveness in the confines of WWIIOL. The StuH I think is a perfect example of this as it is essentially a completely useless tank due to limitations in the game engine. So while it may cost XYZ production dollars, its WWIIOL-value is effectively $0 since. I understand that it may be difficult to quantify a "WWIIOL-value" but using historical production costing to make the spawnlists is like measuring the weight of the toaster to figure out how many slices of bread you should have for breakfast.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, a race where one side gets the keys to the Lexus dealership while the other side gets a choice of Ford Cortinas and Peugeots isn’t fair. That’s why we have equal budgets, so that quality is balanced by quantity. 

We then attempt to balance side A who gets apples, oranges, pineapples, gold bricks and rye bread with side B who gets prunes, cornflakes, used wallets and platinum bars.

We can’t tell whether combat will be short range and desperate or long range and carefully set up - that’s for you to decide, and to use the respective gear to maximise its potential. If the enemy cuts your OODA loop, well, you’ll just have to adapt.

We could take out the 88s and HTs from the German list and put them in HQs only, to give room for more panzers or less Matildas/Churchills in the inf brigades - but then you would be up another creek, right?

The StuH is as worthless as the CruIIICS or the Vickers - IOW they have pretty narrow windows of opportunity. Realize that and move on.

Share this post


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

To give one side tanks from 1944 and then say "Spawnlists will be subject to historical timeline" is contradictory. I don't want to hear "historical timeline" when crs throws that out for "balance" when it's convenient.

You have one side with infantry support tanks that carry heavy machine guns, the other with tanks without and say "historical, that's the way it was". Then when it's pointed out that the Sherman 76 and firefly didn't see combat until 1944...."well, it's like this, we need balance" The imbalance in the air war gets pointed out and I'm told "historical, that's the way it was", yet, crs will be damned if the historical fact that the German tanks were far superior is going to play out historically.

 

I don't know who would be saying the Sherman 76 and Firefly are in-game for 'balance' purposes.  Maybe that happened before I came back.

It being a 'historical fact that the german tanks were far superior..' is at best a debatable topic, and would dependant on which theater at which time period within the war you are referring to.  Certainly you weren't referring to May of 1940 in France...

I am a huge fan of the move towards more historically accurate spawn lists, even as I note that the game will most likely never factor in the huge production advantage enjoyed by the Allies once the Americans were fully involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, snappahead said:

To give one side tanks from 1944 and then say "Spawnlists will be subject to historical timeline" is contradictory. I don't want to hear "historical timeline" when crs throws that out for "balance" when it's convenient.

You have one side with infantry support tanks that carry heavy machine guns, the other with tanks without and say "historical, that's the way it was". Then when it's pointed out that the Sherman 76 and firefly didn't see combat until 1944...."well, it's like this, we need balance" The imbalance in the air war gets pointed out and I'm told "historical, that's the way it was", yet, crs will be damned if the historical fact that the German tanks were far superior is going to play out historically.

 

That really is ridiculous, in two tanks that are pitted directly against each other, one has an MG, the other doesn't. That's a huge difference in killing power. Bringing up anything but the comparison between these two tanks is irrelevant. I don't play often atm but knowing that that's the state of balance is not making me feel good about coming back.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BMBM said:

Look, a race where one side gets the keys to the Lexus dealership while the other side gets a choice of Ford Cortinas and Peugeots isn’t fair. That’s why we have equal budgets, so that quality is balanced by quantity. 

We then attempt to balance side A who gets apples, oranges, pineapples, gold bricks and rye bread with side B who gets prunes, cornflakes, used wallets and platinum bars.

We can’t tell whether combat will be short range and desperate or long range and carefully set up - that’s for you to decide, and to use the respective gear to maximise its potential. If the enemy cuts your OODA loop, well, you’ll just have to adapt.

We could take out the 88s and HTs from the German list and put them in HQs only, to give room for more panzers or less Matildas/Churchills in the inf brigades - but then you would be up another creek, right?

The StuH is as worthless as the CruIIICS or the Vickers - IOW they have pretty narrow windows of opportunity. Realize that and move on.

listen the stuH is totally useless, it cant kill tanks or inf........ the vickers and c3cs can both kill inf all day.  Maybe play a few sorties with those tanks...... and you might realize how crazy it is to compare the 3

Share this post


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

Well said. I know many have beaten to death the point of view regarding the divergence between RL production costs and combat effectiveness in the confines of WWIIOL. The StuH I think is a perfect example of this as it is essentially a completely useless tank due to limitations in the game engine. So while it may cost XYZ production dollars, its WWIIOL-value is effectively $0 since. I understand that it may be difficult to quantify a "WWIIOL-value" but using historical production costing to make the spawnlists is like measuring the weight of the toaster to figure out how many slices of bread you should have for breakfast.

100% accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you gave me a choice between 1 p2 or 1 stuH in the spawn list....... I would take the p2..... and we already know how I feel about the p2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not 100% useless. The HE round will be worth a lot more when HE effects are revised. It can kill any soft target, wreck buildings, suppress spawns, provide limited smoke support and knock out any allied tank with its limited ammo allowance. Like I said, it has a narrow window of opportunity like many other vehicles.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot to unpack from BMBMs insight but the statement of how worthless the StuH42 / Cru IIICS, and Vickers are really jumps out. 

It begs the question, given the very limited resources, why CRS would even model the StuH & Cru CS versions at all.  Furthermore, why is the Stug 3g modeled w/out the MG in the first place?  Will that be a Tiered upgrade or will it just replace the existing 3g which leads me back to why it was modeled at all.

Bah, I'm going to bed.  I had fun ingame tonight so that's what I'm focusing on.  Not how the 1's and 0's are arranged and by who does them.  Good night.

ps - I guess you were trying to sound enlightened, pithy, etc but when you give the examples of Side A (Lexus, sexy fruits, & gold) versus the Side B (Ford/Peugeots, fiber foods, Goodwill donation, & precious metal) - it just comes off wrong.  It would not be a great lap to surmise how you feel about one side over the other.  And I hate even typing the previous sentence because I would like to think that I'm pretty even-minded.

2 hours ago, BMBM said:

Look, a race where one side gets the keys to the Lexus dealership while the other side gets a choice of Ford Cortinas and Peugeots isn’t fair. That’s why we have equal budgets, so that quality is balanced by quantity. 

We then attempt to balance side A who gets apples, oranges, pineapples, gold bricks and rye bread with side B who gets prunes, cornflakes, used wallets and platinum bars.

The StuH is as worthless as the CruIIICS or the Vickers - IOW they have pretty narrow windows of opportunity. Realize that and move on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BMBM said:

It’s not 100% useless. The HE round will be worth a lot more when HE effects are revised. It can kill any soft target, wreck buildings, suppress spawns, provide limited smoke support and knock out any allied tank with its limited ammo allowance. Like I said, it has a narrow window of opportunity like many other vehicles.

1

sigh bmbm........ go into the game for 3 hours tomorrow and test what you just said plz

1. can the stuH kill soft targets..... sure........ but will it?  99.9% of the time...... no.... because if you are shooting at ei with a StuH you either haven't played in 80 campaigns or you're a greentag.  I literally laughed out loud reading Dfires post because he so perfectly illustrated the uselessness of the stuH.... but did it so specifically that it basically comes off as condescending to anyone that really knows lol

2.  In 2,500 sorties I have purposely destroyed a building maybe 5 times..... and it's 100x more effective to do it with inf satchels ..... so again StuH is useless in real gameplay terms..... 

3.  Suppress spawns LOL...... its impossible to suppress a spawn without an MG in terms of realistic gameplay

4.  Its ability to smoke things....... well isn't even worth a response

5.  Please.... I will leave this as an open invitation..... I will meet you on the training server any time you wish...... You get the StuH ..... I get a Sherm 76..... if you can kill me 1 out of 30 times ill give you 100$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tex64 said:

It begs the question, given the very limited resources, why CRS would even model the StuH & Cru CS versions at all.  Furthermore, why is the Stug 3g modeled w/out the MG in the first place?  Will that be a Tiered upgrade or will it just replace the existing 3g which leads me back to why it was modeled at all.

They were modelled because 1) they were all represented in the war; 2) the Brits previously didn’t have HE capability at all and suffered a capability disadvantage for 17 years; 3) we could add them at practically no cost or time expenditure (which makes you wonder why it took 17 years in the first place to plug the hole).

Why the Stug was modelled without a MG is for CRS 1.0 to answer. I’m exploring the possibility of adding it. When it comes it’ll be as a late upgrade to the series, with Saukopf mantlet and Schurtzen.

The comparison I made is apt. German gear is arguably qualitatively superior in most respects and thus carry a higher price tag. Balancing a great diversity of capabilities and features is not trivial but in the end, with equal budgets and quality/quantity distribution, it is the most objective and most fair way of balancing that we can devise at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know HE isn’t working as well as it should. We are working to resolve that issue.

The StuH didn’t have an mg so we don’t give it any.

I invite you to try a CS tank match against any panzer. At least the StuH has a chance, albeit a small one, whereas all but the Churchill VIII doesn’t have one at all.

You’ll just have to realize its purpose and what it cannot possibly do, and adapt accordingly. That goes for any vehicle/weapon.

Share this post


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

Well said. I know many have beaten to death the point of view regarding the divergence between RL production costs and combat effectiveness in the confines of WWIIOL. The StuH I think is a perfect example of this as it is essentially a completely useless tank due to limitations in the game engine. So while it may cost XYZ production dollars, its WWIIOL-value is effectively $0 since. I understand that it may be difficult to quantify a "WWIIOL-value" but using historical production costing to make the spawnlists is like measuring the weight of the toaster to figure out how many slices of bread you should have for breakfast.

PnzIIs would be far more use than this complete waste of developer time and money, not to mention our historical spawn list production $$$'s

But it seems no matter how many times this is pointed out, CRS have decided that this "Game" is now an attempt to simulate axis panzer doctrine (which the game manifestly is incapable of doing) and the production power of the various nations, and that their figures are sacrosanct regardless of any other documentation offered, whether that be official state publication of costs or not. The $ is king for the CRS spawnlist production costs, but I fear the $ is trickling away in terms of player subscriptions and it certainly sees less logging in day after day, and part of that is the dearth of "toys" to play with as an axis player.

I hope 1.36 can save this game, because I dont think it will be successful as "WWII drive an authentic french tank circa 1940" Online.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BMBM said:

 

We can’t tell whether combat will be short range and desperate or long range and carefully set up - that’s for you to decide, and to use the respective gear to maximise its potential. 

But we cannot use the respective gear, because it is not there to spawn.

Now if it is coming back in 1.36 garrison supply, why the heck not just put it back now? SMGs went back to allied flags inside a week. Axis not having MG Panzers is now 3 months. ANd you wonder why the few still playing scream CRS side bias on side chat??

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BMBM said:

 

The StuH is as worthless as the CruIIICS or the Vickers - IOW they have pretty narrow windows of opportunity. Realize that and move on.

LOL The vicky is a first class inf spawn suppression tool. It is not useless.

Do you read the comments? Axis have been deprived of light panzers to suppress/protect their infantry. How the hell do you see the StuH as the same as a Vickers? AND the CruIIICS has MG.

But yes, I would question the wasted dev. time on the StuH, P3N & L, and the CS tanks. Players spawn them usually when the "better" rides are gone, and there is nothing left, or in the CS case often because they dont actually know what a CS tank is.

SO FYI, I would be only too happy to have some Vickers to spawn in the axis inf flags.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ian77 said:

PnzIIs would be far more use than this complete waste of developer time and money, not to mention our historical spawn list production $$$'s

I just told you that it didn’t cost anything in time or money. I completed the StuH in a few hours. It is modelled for the same reason as we will model any kit in the game: it existed in sufficient numbers to warrant its inclusion and it fills a role, however small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Axis not having MG Panzers is now 3 months. ANd you wonder why the few still playing scream CRS side bias on side chat?

We have tweaked numerous items for both sides. You have the pz3n in your list and a few DLC pz2, and a bunch of StugG. For additional mg power, bring LMGs or 251s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pz3L is far from useless. Its 50 mm long will kill anything but the Churchill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.