• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
thomboi

tier0 matty equalizer

37 posts in this topic

This is a very fair request - I'd put it high up there, more than aircraft at the moment. It is safe to assume that the Germans would have put more of these into operation if the Battle of France had not ended as quickly as it did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the rod HEAT rounds for PaK 36 and other infantry cannons were 1943...? As opposed to Kilem's 1942.

Terrible weapon. Very short range, considering how hard it would be to maneuver and hide.

I fully agree that the JgPz I would provide better gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, the Pz Jg 1B gives us the panzer IB too - making tier 0 more interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panzer III-F was build with a 3,7 cm gun and a 5cm gun.

Both where build before germany attack france.

 

Simple chance for CRS and better then the bad Panzerjäger 1 joke lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware the 50mm model Pz III E/F only came into service at the very tail end of the French campaign - So the way it is currently modelled is correct (37mm tier 0, 50mm versions available in tier 1). Regardless, the Pj 1 would have an interesting role to play. 

Edited by raptor34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Across the whole war, there were three versions of an 88mm SPG, not counting those on tank chassis. The first was an 88 mounted to a heavy unarmored halftrack. A test batch of that design was ready for France/Belgium. It however proved ineffective because the frame of the halftrack was not sufficiently strong, and firing the gun at low angles to the sides twisted or broke the frame rails, making the vehicle undriveable. Also, the relatively low weight of the vehicle and its lack of jacks, spades or other stabilizers plus the high mounting point of the gun relative to the vehicle's narrow track-footprint caused the vehicle to rock heavily up onto one track when fired to the side at low angle. In one instance, a vehicle fired a practice shot that way, and rolled sideways off the road and down a hillside, resulting in the gun being wrecked. A third fault was that if the gun was fired forward at low angle, the muzzle blast was strong enough to break exposed vehicle features. A fourth fault was that if the gun was fired rearward at low angle, there wasn't room between the breech and the vehicle cab to serve the gun, and hot shell cases ended up in the cab where they burned things. That first design did work for high angle AA use, but was judged unsuitable as a multi-purpose mount which was a key goal of the program. No more of that design were built, and the surviving units after repairs were allocated to panzer divisions in Russia as high-mobility rear area AA.

The second version was similar, but built on an armored heavy HT with a reinforced gun mount. The thinking was that the key issues would be overcome. That however proved not to be the case; the vehicle still was too light and not wide enough for low angle firing. No more of that design were built either, and the test batch also were allocated to an east front panzer division for rear area AA.

The third version was completely different, built on a specialized truck chassis. It was intended only for high altitude AA use, and performed adequately for that purpose.

If CRS wants to model an Axis gun to be effective for low angle firing, the historical best candidate IMO would be the Italian Ansaldo 90mm L/53 gun mounted to a Lancia 3Ro heavy flatbed truck. 1804 guns of various land mount types (not counting naval guns, of which this was a design-cousin) were ordered, with the first deliveries in 1939. 539 were delivered before war events halted production. The Lancia-mounted version had heavy stabilizers fore and aft on each side, ample working room around the gun resulting in 19 rounds/minute, excellent AP performance (120mm @ 1000 meters, 830 meters/second muzzle velocity), and excellent HE performance as well.

This is the same gun that was used on the Semovente 90/53 tank destroyer, but that vehicle was produced only in 1942 and IMO isn't a high priority either for the Italians (because they need T0 stuff) or the Axis side overall (because other SPG choices are available that could be fielded much sooner).

lancia1427.jpg

TD-3-153.jpg

An_Italian_90-53_gun_on_a_truck_mounting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone_da_90/53

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** That article says they only ever made 15... that'd make them rarer than Matty's in tier 0

Ok, that is really funny.... just exactly how rare are matties in tier 0 currently? :)

Terrible analogy :)

 

And yes, think the IIIF didn't get the 50mm gun upgrade till later, so not sure would be available in tier 0.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, B2K said:

That article says they only ever made 15... that'd make them rarer than Matty's in tier 0

And how many Matildas were present in the French Campaign ? 

Matildas were plentyfull in North Africa ,

Not in Belgium not the Netherlands nor in France. 

But in game they are like a dime a dozen and with Allies  being able to have both flags in towns represented no matter what part of the map it is rather obvious. Also with HC FMLS that can pop up anywhere makes the towed 88 pretty much useless. 

Not to mention that the 3h still needs to hit the sapper spot from fairly close range to kill a Matilda . 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ That, and all AAA/ATGs that can't spawn at an FMS, should have the ability to act as an MSP with a small spawn list for defensive inf.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dre21 said:

And how many Matildas were present in the French Campaign ? 

Matildas were plentyfull in North Africa ,

Not in Belgium not the Netherlands nor in France. 

But in game they are like a dime a dozen and with Allies  being able to have both flags in towns represented no matter what part of the map it is rather obvious. Also with HC FMLS that can pop up anywhere makes the towed 88 pretty much useless. 

Not to mention that the 3h still needs to hit the sapper spot from fairly close range to kill a Matilda . 

 

7th Royal Tank had almost Twice the Matilda II (23) in France (there were other Matilda models as well) compared to the above cited flack were ever built.  

which is why I've loved this game for so long.... history has 1 set of #'s, but what if....

 

Personally I'd love to see the continued development of a time based 'win' condition - where the allies have to only hold out for X time  (which would incorporate a very strict true to history unit ratio) =win.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, B2K said:

7th Royal Tank had almost Twice the Matilda II (23) in France (there were other Matilda models as well) compared to the above cited flack were ever built.  

which is why I've loved this game for so long.... history has 1 set of #'s, but what if....

 

Personally I'd love to see the continued development of a time based 'win' condition - where the allies have to only hold out for X time  (which would incorporate a very strict true to history unit ratio) =win.

 

This - I really think we limit ourselves to always sticking to the same victory conditions and always trying to balance things around that. I for one would love to see a historical campaign where TOE is more or less as it was during the Battle of France and maybe a few months longer - If Allies hold until the end of a set time or number of towns, they win. Spawn lists would be vary large but almost never resupply, making every loss count. Now that is a wargame I would play

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, B2K said:

7th Royal Tank had almost Twice the Matilda II (23) in France (there were other Matilda models as well) compared to the above cited flack were ever built.  

which is why I've loved this game for so long.... history has 1 set of #'s, but what if....

 

Personally I'd love to see the continued development of a time based 'win' condition - where the allies have to only hold out for X time  (which would incorporate a very strict true to history unit ratio) =win.

 

Ahhhhh I see the what if applies to one side but not to the other? 

What if the Axis rolled out the pak38  right away after all it was developed in 1938 just not rolled out till the western campaign was already over.

In other words it would be nice to see that gun in numerous amounts to combat the tier 0 onslaught of Matildas. After all there are enough counter measures in game vs the Tiger . 

And even at range Allied tanks might have a tougher time but the likelihood of the Tiger throwing a track or getting degunned are 95% higher then getting the same done on Matilda in tier0. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with comparing units in this game has always been that in RL, the units were developed in a context. Pre-war, the context was doctrinal, and once the war was being fought, many decisions were made in response to enemy capabilities. Minus that context, the what-ifs can fall apart, because we're playing with a stable of units designed for a purpose, and that purpose might not be a thing.

I'm an aviation history nut, so those examples leap to mind. Fighters designed for attacking massed formations of heavy bombers, with substantial defensive armament might be great against ground targets in game, but minus the massed heavy bombers, they lack a reason to ever have been developed. The opposite is also true, lacking any enemy heavy bombers in massed formations, the Allies never bothered with countermeasures for such a threat. That decreases the available stable of Allied aircraft, because they had fewer use cases (axis needed to do all the things, Allies not so much). Naval would be pretty unbalanced if that was ever a thing (a single Fletcher DD had more AAA throw mass/min than Bismark, for example). Anyway, it gets pretty complicated pretty fast, counterfactuals without context make little sense, I think we are stuck with units that are vaguely representative of different capabilities. I for one would prefer less red/blue, and more variation in capability.

The only way to have some rollouts happen in an odd way would be a better strategic level game. Give weapon systems a cost, and have the HCs buy a ToE, perhaps. They can then change it with a tier change in response to what they have seen fielded by the enemy. With loadouts, perhaps there could be variants possible on some platforms to facilitate responses that might not have had a reason in RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 1:43 PM, tater said:

The only way to have some rollouts happen in an odd way would be a better strategic level game. Give weapon systems a cost, and have the HCs buy a ToE, perhaps. They can then change it with a tier change in response to what they have seen fielded by the enemy. With loadouts, perhaps there could be variants possible on some platforms to facilitate responses that might not have had a reason in RL.

Already tried, done, and discarded.  Therein lies a tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 2:43 PM, tater said:

The only way to have some rollouts happen in an odd way would be a better strategic level game. Give weapon systems a cost, and have the HCs buy a ToE, perhaps. They can then change it with a tier change in response to what they have seen fielded by the enemy. With loadouts, perhaps there could be variants possible on some platforms to facilitate responses that might not have had a reason in RL.

This used to be one of the functions of the high command.  I don't really miss the drama that arose no matter what unit development path was followed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Already tried, done, and discarded.  Therein lies a tale.

 

17 minutes ago, B2K said:

This used to be one of the functions of the high command.  I don't really miss the drama that arose no matter what unit development path was followed.  

Yeah, I could see that as a problem, largely because the strat level game would never be good enough, frankly. The French get US equip, for example, which should be in any strat game vs Germany be effectively infinite numbers of whatever they want, for example, with no meaningful interdiction possible (only 1-2% of convoyed shipping in the ATL was sunk during the war). So yeah, I could see the drama there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

 

Yeah, I could see that as a problem, largely because the strat level game would never be good enough, frankly. The French get US equip, for example, which should be in any strat game vs Germany be effectively infinite numbers of whatever they want, for example, with no meaningful interdiction possible (only 1-2% of convoyed shipping in the ATL was sunk during the war). So yeah, I could see the drama there.

Umm, you are assuming that again this game is going to actually go historical recreationist.  It won't, it can't, not without slitting it's throat.  Recreating early tier actual force mixes where the FAF is largely absent and Spitfires not allowed on mainland bases and woefull amount of Bofors against larger mobile armor brigades simulating more concentrated tank formations wouldn't be a fun game for Allies, nor would later tier for the Axis against mountains of Shermans and a lot more bombing.

 

So.  Game.  No.  Really.

 

You can and should shoot for a proper feel, but it's never going to be a full sim.  Including HC-driven RDP.

The system had a point value for all the major units (but not infantry), intro tiers, and you could intro major units in different sequences.  The system was structured to create organizational and player stresses as hard choices had to be made- would you advance your army forces or air forces, would you try to make up for technical inferiority with numbers of already intro'd units?

HCs would as you expect min/max and since RDP was treating the entire force as one big 'buy', you could 'save' money on one branch and pump up another.  The standard move for Tier 1 for instance was to thin out the navy and use that to boost the other two branches.  As part of that, older light equipment was phased out fast, but that created more problems as newer players would have NO trainer planes or tanks to spawn.

As B2K alluded to, the end result was a LOT of politics and ticked off players and advantages that drove off whole squads to sit out the period where their country/branch was 'behind'.  Players did NOT look at having to 'make do' as a challenge, the challenge instead ended up being all manner of compromises and cajolings to show up, including having to promise advancing another branch in this campaign or the next.  RDP bombing which could put your side behind and the fact the enemy was choosing to try and handle their internal politics AND/OR beat you caused issues, and some CinCs would go AWOL for a critical couple days when the RDP sheets were supposed to be turned in, where the Rats would then not do any RDP for that side.

Some CinCs were challenged by the whole spreadsheety resource management aspect of it, and were not prepared to do this at all.  Most did not care for the incessant politics- which to CRS' credit is pretty much the game equivalent of having to be the top dog deciding strategy and setting industrial output to match and all the Generals and backseat drivers and 'historians' criticizing no matter what you do.  But it was too much for many.  Keep in mind the Allied CinC also had to do two countries, each with their own 'issues'.

I think the death knell though was when CRS started putting in all sorts of rules to make sure the T0 starter equipment was not min/maxed out and other limitations that forced a maximum on changes and how much could be shifted around, and it soon became so much of a strait jacket that no real advantage could be derived from 'playing the RDP game', CRS might as well build the spawnlists.  And so it has been for something like the last 13-14 years.

 

There is a lot more to all this and many examples burned into my hide as part of all that, and so I have a Real Hard Time seeing how people who want 'historical let chips fall where they may' have any sort of viable business plan in mind, cause mismatches in basic capabilities of playing the game at whatever level you play, tactical/kill the other guy, operational/take the town, strategic/motivate team and capture territory in sequence that wins the game, will kill it for most players and thus squad OR HC you got only hardcore to lead, and not enough.

 

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


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

Umm, you are assuming that again this game is going to actually go historical recreationist.  It won't, it can't, not without slitting it's throat.  Recreating early tier actual force mixes where the FAF is largely absent and Spitfires not allowed on mainland bases and woefull amount of Bofors against larger mobile armor brigades simulating more concentrated tank formations wouldn't be a fun game for Allies, nor would later tier for the Axis against mountains of Shermans and a lot more bombing.

I don't disagree, I was pointing out why realistic strat would not work.

The other issue related to this thread is that sometimes an "equalizer" is not a thing. Some of that is good, because it creates novel tactics per side, some is less good, as a side feels they have no counter. In many ways Germany has more possible units to make to counter, well, anything (albeit at the great time it takes to dev new units), because Germany in RL spent a lot of effort making so many new units to counter threats (not always to their advantage). Without the need to counter things, the Allies simply made mass numbers of "good enough" to counter. In a sense that's the Allied counter in the war in general.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tater said:

I don't disagree, I was pointing out why realistic strat would not work.

The other issue related to this thread is that sometimes an "equalizer" is not a thing. Some of that is good, because it creates novel tactics per side, some is less good, as a side feels they have no counter. In many ways Germany has more possible units to make to counter, well, anything (albeit at the great time it takes to dev new units), because Germany in RL spent a lot of effort making so many new units to counter threats (not always to their advantage). Without the need to counter things, the Allies simply made mass numbers of "good enough" to counter. In a sense that's the Allied counter in the war in general.

 

Well, this comes out in equipment philosophy where the Allied stuff is relatively easy to use and designed for medium/assault work, whereas the Axis stuff has more inherent capability/long-range/maneuver, but can be more fragile or hard to use.  The Axis equipment often requires an expert with disciplined use and teamwork to employ, and if you don't have both of those they can be frustrating to attempt to use.

 

This has direct implications in any manner of spawnlist building, as you need to valuate for the potential of Axis equipment, but not shortchange the vulnerability aspect so much as the average player is not likely using the equipment to the higher standard of handling they require.  I think that's what has gone wrong with the 88 valuation among other issues for the new spawnlist costs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.