Tank supply imbalance

[fidd]

1 hour ago, N8 said:

And there is no "need" for these unnecessary paragraphs.

"ok".

;-)

[fidd]

23 hours ago, Kilemall said:

What I disagree with is integrating historical cost into that valuation, and seemingly no adjustments for the reality we experience on the battlefield.

 

Exhibit A, the 88.  Yes theoretically it's a kill everything in 2km death machine with optics to match.

It was an expensive gun to manufacture.

But on a practical basis in our game, it's not so valuable.

It involves more player manpower to maneuver and tow.

It's soft yet large nature makes it easy prey to air units, ironically the thing it was RL designed to kill, yet it doesn't have effective AA fire.

Our marking systems in game belie a level of communication and instant 'marking' for ground targets not seen on the RL battlefield until Blue Force Tracker- created about the same time as the game.  88s are particularly affected by this.

And above all, the porous nature of our lines and density and 'offsides spawning', the lowest infantry can sneak through the area and kill them.

Wasn't that way in the early going of the game because of the different terrain and nature of the game reality they operated in. 

Spot on Sir. Where I think you may be a little awry, is that "historical cost", as a baseline, is still a good place to start. Practically every German designed machine in WW2 was both very well made, and generally very well designed in terms of function. So they were technically frequently at the cutting-edges of optics, armour, guns as well as ergonomics for the crew. Where they failed was in producing tanks usable in theory for years, at great expense, which tended not to last anything like their forecast life; the other failings being lack of ease of servicing and repair - witness having to remove the turret of a Panther just to get the final-drive gear-box out - and close tolerances causing issues in the Russian Winter. 

US tank design, by comparison was all about two things: 1: Able to function at the end of long supply lines, & commonality of parts aiding mass production, and 2: keeping weight down so that assuming the axis blew up bridges, armour could still cross on more temporary crossings. The weight also affected ease of shipping/road transport etc.

There is no doubt that had the US put it's mind to it, and not set itself these priorities, tanks such as the Pershing might have been developed much earlier. So in our game the two factors which were the core of US development do not arise. Therefore to give a start-point when considering TOE's, the cost in Reichmarks, dollars, sterling or 'furlongs per fortnight' seems a reasonable thing to me. Not the end of the matter of course, but it's a fairly good indicator I think.

There is no "rule" that there has to be 4 Tigers per Bde, or whatever it is, or however many PzIV's it is. I imagine that if GHC were to ask CRS what a TOE with 2 Tigers per Bde might look like, it could be put to a vote or poll amongst axis players; and more importantly, this might also affect what the various allied TOE's looked like, as presumeably, were the axis to downgrade the number of Tiger's a similar scaled reduction in the heavy-hitters (Firefly and Sh76/M4A3) might also occur, with the more of the 2nd order allied and axis tanks. 

Better still would be if the axis had 3 possible TOE's per tier, 1 optimised for on the flat, 1 for hilly terrain and 1 halfway between the two, with Marders and Hetzers devved too, in order that Tigers are not the bloody-millstone around axis necks in terrain where neither their gun nor armour can avail them much. Which is the other side of the "it's the terrain at fault" coin, so to speak.

 

 

[rob]

The problem is the Terrain. It's too cluttered and unmorphable. A soldier can't dig a foxhole and what CRS calls trenches... Tanks can't burst through buildings, they just bounce and sometimes explode. The tanks, not the buildings. The bushes don't crush, the trees don't get knocked over by tanks or splintered by shellfire. They won't even burn, no matter how many flaming aircraft crash into them.

It's all due to the limitations of a 20 year old game engine built by people who really wanted an Air War, so terrain wasn't a major factor. And I suspect that many of the original programmers either kept lousy documentation, took the documentation with them when they left or didn't document much of anything.

Edited May 20, 2021 by rob

[fidd]

2 hours ago, rob said:

We're already in lala -land, BMBM. Mostly due to terrain and the FPS solo style of the vast majority of players. One of those can be fixed, the other not so much.

The issues of terrain are eminently solvable, I believe, although it will undoubtedly completely and radically change the nature of the infantry game. I believe that if the terrain is well done, a great many of our current issues can be designed out; however, it would spell the end of infantry always being able to advance into town, or defending infantry always being able to advance to sapping-range for individual players, which has made a nonsense of the game in terms of realism since the night 1.26 came out, no matter how "pretty" it looked.

If infantry can't be "pinned down" in defence or attack, the terrain isn't right! Likewise, if there's no relationship between the appearance of linear visual cover, and it's quality as an obstacle to certain unit types, the terrain isn't right. Finally, if attackers have eyes on the 1km around a town before defenders spawn in, the mechanics are not right. 

Just consider the 88 v Matty issue in tier 0, and why 88's were/are left in the barn. 

If the terrain is reworked well, and the mechanics of MSP's/FMS's reformed, then whilst the infantry game will be very different, in my view it will also be very much better. Players will adjust, I have no doubt.

 

[N8]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

"ok".

;-)

ok

*waits for 5 paragraph essay on why i shouldn't say ok*

Edited May 20, 2021 by N8

[fidd]

1 hour ago, N8 said:

ok

*waits for 5 paragraph essay on why i shouldn't say ok*

What, so WOT?

[jwilly]

It'd be interesting for CRS to add a column to the TOE lists with the game-cost for each unit.

I doubt if very many players have any idea where their equipment budget goes...and the units that cost them the most, as opposed to those that are the most fun to play or that get the combat job done.

Of course, maybe no one at CRS would want to do that from the perspective that the less the customers know about such systems, the less they ask for improvements.

[undercova]

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

It'd be interesting for CRS to add a column to the TOE lists with the game-cost for each unit.

I doubt if very many players have any idea where their equipment budget goes...and the units that cost them the most, as opposed to those that are the most fun to play or that get the combat job done.

Of course, maybe no one at CRS would want to do that from the perspective that the less the customers know about such systems, the less they ask for improvements.

so you are kinda referring to my combat value and credit system for units 

[jwilly]

Not going that far, though it may have merit. But I acknowledge BMBM's reminder that there are a lot of complexities to take into account, and any system focused on fixing a single consideration may excessively discount others.

Obviously an overriding factor is getting enough customers on both sides, though. Whatever the advantages of the current system, it may not do that job well enough...partly because it hides the disproportionate manufacturing costs that result in 4 Tigers vs. 12 S76s.

Players, I think entirely rationally, tend to think that spawn list numbers are CRS-subjectively-decided based on combat matchups and stats-informed lethality. (As we were contemporaneously told was the case in the early days of the game.) So they see 4 Tigers vs. 12 S76s, look at lethality stats, and are confused and upset at the apparent mismatch between how they think the game should work, and how CRS is running it. 

From the German perspective, their tanking game is close to unwinnable because of the accidental historical fact that the Germans developed very expensive tanks, plus the CRS-imposed marketing decision to model those very expensive German tanks and not yet Germany's other less expensive AFVs. Some German-side-preferring players don't see why they're being punished for CRS's marketing decisions.

[fidd]

28 minutes ago, jwilly said:

(snip)

From the German perspective, their tanking game is close to unwinnable because of the accidental historical fact that the Germans developed very expensive tanks, plus the CRS-imposed marketing decision to model those very expensive German tanks and not yet Germany's other less expensive AFVs. Some German-side-preferring players don't see why they're being punished for CRS's marketing decisions.

The Germans did not just create the expensive Panthers and Tigers; by far more numerous were relatively "cheap" extemporised weapons, of which the Stug3G was a good example, with the Marders, Hetzer and all manner of weapons mounted on repurposed chassis, such as the Pak40 on the 251. If the game is "unwinnable" for the axis, it is because the necessary depth of different axis vehicles was not attained. There is literally a whole class of cheap but effective TD's missing from the axis orbat.

Where we agree is that  in effect, the axis are being compelled to field unsuitable but "expensive" armour in terrain where it is  vulnerable, without cheap TD's to off-set the sometimes rapid loss of the Tigers. I've been bashing that point for over 3 years now, Given more variety of vehicles, from which different TOE's for each tier can be assembled, it becomes possible for the axis to optimise their frontline, via Armee placement, not so much to have the maximum uber tanks, as to be able make the 3 different Armoured Bde TOE's work to the terrain in which they are deployed. So: Most Panthers and Tigers go to hilly terrain, most cheap and chearful pz IV's and Marder types in flat terrain where the number of gun-tubes matter more than armour or armament. The allies would likewise tend to put their Bde's with the strongest tank-killers roughly facing the axis armee with the Tigers/Panthers in later tiers.

I agree about the marketing-manager, you know my thoughts on him, whoever he was!

[JAMES10]

Hello All, if I may make an observation.

The Sturmgeschütz series of vehicles were not designed as a “cheap extemporised weapons”. They were designed with a specific purpose in mind, that being Infantry close support, or Assault. They were to be used as self propelled artillery that was fully armored, not armored against anti-tank weapons but infantry weapons and shell splinters. That way they could operate close to the enemy where unarmored guns would be vulnerable to close enemy infantry fire.

It is my understanding that the biggest problem faced by German wartime production was that the way Germany produced pretty well everything, limited the numbers that could be produced. A comparison of the German production techniques to the US techniques was like a “cottage industry” (German) vs a “mechanized production line” (US).

Germany entered WWII with a significantly underutilized production capacity. Unfortunately for them Poland, France and the other western countries fell very quickly. It wasn’t until the attack into Russia ground to a halt just short of Moscow did German industry commence winding up for a “long protracted war” and thereby becoming more in line with the US production techniques. I had read that the Germans indicated a Sherman wouldn’t pass German quality control, while a T34 had absolutely no chance.

The US on the other hand, being the place where mass production was effectively created and seriously embraced, entered WWII with significant mass production facilities already in existence. All they had to do was repurpose them to produce what they needed to win the war that was laid at their doorstep. The way US was dragged into the war also had a significant bearing on the resolve to prosecute the war until ultimate victory was achieved.

So, in short Germany wasn’t able to produce sufficient quantities needed for the war they ended up fighting, so utilized what ever they could to “cover the gaps”. This is where the cheap and cheerful TD’s, SPG's  etc came from, along with the reuse/repurposing of captured vehicles/equipment.

Cheers.

Edited May 24, 2021 by JAMES10

[dm79]

On 5/24/2021 at 4:59 PM, JAMES10 said:

Hello All, if I may make an observation.

The Sturmgeschütz series of vehicles were not designed as a “cheap extemporised weapons”. They were designed with a specific purpose in mind, that being Infantry close support, or Assault. They were to be used as self propelled artillery that was fully armored, not armored against anti-tank weapons but infantry weapons and shell splinters. That way they could operate close to the enemy where unarmored guns would be vulnerable to close enemy infantry fire.

It is my understanding that the biggest problem faced by German wartime production was that the way Germany produced pretty well everything, limited the numbers that could be produced. A comparison of the German production techniques to the US techniques was like a “cottage industry” (German) vs a “mechanized production line” (US).

Germany entered WWII with a significantly underutilized production capacity. Unfortunately for them Poland, France and the other western countries fell very quickly. It wasn’t until the attack into Russia ground to a halt just short of Moscow did German industry commence winding up for a “long protracted war” and thereby becoming more in line with the US production techniques. I had read that the Germans indicated a Sherman wouldn’t pass German quality control, while a T34 had absolutely no chance.

The US on the other hand, being the place where mass production was effectively created and seriously embraced, entered WWII with significant mass production facilities already in existence. All they had to do was repurpose them to produce what they needed to win the war that was laid at their doorstep. The way US was dragged into the war also had a significant bearing on the resolve to prosecute the war until ultimate victory was achieved.

So, in short Germany wasn’t able to produce sufficient quantities needed for the war they ended up fighting, so utilized what ever they could to “cover the gaps”. This is where the cheap and cheerful TD’s, SPG's  etc came from, along with the reuse/repurposing of captured vehicles/equipment.

Cheers.

This is semi incorrect, The Stug was as you point out originally set out as you say in a inf support role, but it evolved into a TD role due to being able to have a lager guns installed into a hull without a turret and as Germany tried to find a solution to the ever increasing numbers of tanks on the East front. They were both quicker and easier to produce due to a lack of a turret, this route took them through the Stugs to Jagdpanzer 3s and 4s with the Panther gun, though to the largest and heaviest operational tank in the war the Jagdtiger with a  (12.8cm) 128mm gun coming in at over 70 tons as they moved from attack to defence front, you no longer need inf support if you always falling back and not having to attack fortifications.

A Panzer 4 tank without armament cost 103,500 Reichsmarks, while the StuG without armament cost 82,500 so yes they were a lot cheaper to make.

Now the whole Germany lost as it could not produce as many tanks as USSR and USA quantity vs quality argument is an oversimplification of a complex problem. The main problem Germany had was not that it did not have enough tanks but the fuel and support infrastructure to support large forces of Panzer/motorised divisions, on the other hand the US and the USSR had huge amounts of fuel to be able to use that massive output of motorized units, why would you over produce units you can't use in battle due to lack of fuel and that is in fact what happened, tanks were left sat in factories unable to be delivered to the front duel to both a lack of locomotive infrastructure and overall fuel.

So if you are in the situation where you have to use limited forces due to a lack of both logistic and fuel issues, you are going to want quality over mass production numbers, as they can never use all those tanks. The whole German Strategy was for fast sharp wars as they could not fight a long war, they knew that this and it was very clearly the driver for the Blitzkrieg doctrine.

This video should open your eyes to why Germany ultimately lost the war, he also has some fantastic videos on the logistic issues Germany had as well as some of the other nations of the war.

What i will add to the whole tank supply argument is some people in these comments have been talking about WW2 numbers to dictate in game supply, you are making a huge mistake in that assumption that Shermans were cheap in WW2 so in WW2OL they should have more than the very very expensive TIger 1. The mistake is in that the Sherman in WW2OL is over performing compared to its historical WW2 counterpart, even more so with the Sherm 76, its frontal hull armour was made thinner but the angle changed to keep its thickness the same, the problem with WW2OL is that it does not have the ability to do overmatch, or at least its not live as i am, sure Scotts has given them the data to do it. 

If/when they code this into the game, your Stugs and 4gs are going to start going through the front of Sherman's almost as easy as they go through the front of 4gs. If you are interested this guy does a good job of giving you an idea of what it would do to Shermans.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=110070

And god forbid they dont have over match if the Panther comes in, the front of that thing is going make the Tiger look stupid.

Regarding the game, having used both the 76 and Tiger in game, Past 1km the Tiger is king, although the Firefly now makes this more of an issue,  but likely the numbers in game are correct, the problem is fights are won in and around towns where fights are in the under 1km range under 1km the S76 gets better and better the closer the range, which is the issue, if the 76s can close to a town and get within this 1km marker they have a huge advantage in turret speed and tank speed, along with reload. 

The only solution is to give the Axis something that can compete with the S76 up close under 1km, the Allies now have equipment to deal with the Tiger at range. Either add overmatch to the game or add new units to the game. 

[kareca]

This is what is lacking in the game.
Axis player in CRS.

 

some veterans still follow the forum
(despite being emptied)

[BMBM]

7 hours ago, dm79 said:

The only solution is to give the Axis something that can compete with the S76 up close under 1km, the Allies now have equipment to deal with the Tiger at range. Either add overmatch to the game or add new units to the game. 

The Tiger, PzIVG and H does that pretty well and so does any axis tank bar the pzII, from the flank. Pro tip: Get the first shot, avoid slugging matches. More panzers, beyond the oh four or five I’ve already added, are inbound - the usual suspects - eventually.

Overmatch is coded in.

[delems]

*** so does any axis tank bar the pzII, from the flank

Did it ever occur to anyone, how come axis has to flank?

Maybe we should try a year or two of spawn lists where allies have to flank?

[delems]

Maybe every rat has to play an axis panzer for a couple weeks.......

Put your action where your words are.

Edited May 26, 2021 by delems

[stikyfingr]

2 hours ago, dfire said:

Once in awhile I can catch Rotsechs on 

I'm here d. But there isn't many other Panzertruppe men around

I haven't seen you at all. 

[BMBM]

2 hours ago, delems said:

Maybe every rat has to play an axis panzer for a couple weeks.......

Put your action where your words are.

I’ve played almost exclusively axis over the past three campaigns and mostly with the 4G/H, ATGs and AA. Did some 38(t) and Stug3G sorties as well. Am pretty confident with my skills and have had no trouble flaming anything - if you can’t flank you can’t tank.

Never trust in armor for protection against return fire. That is true for any tank, all the time. Get the first (flank) shot, displace, repeat. Simple as that. If you persist in frontal slugfests you’re certain to be disappointed.

And fwiw I haven’t noticed any lack of panzerdrivers out there, only lack of skilled ones. Far too many sit in the bullseye or drive out singly on or near roads - the number one cause of death.

[dm79]

4 hours ago, BMBM said:

The Tiger, PzIVG and H does that pretty well and so does any axis tank bar the pzII, from the flank. Pro tip: Get the first shot, avoid slugging matches. More panzers, beyond the oh four or five I’ve already added, are inbound - the usual suspects - eventually.

Overmatch is coded in.

That sort of stupid comment is why i no longer think this game is not worth my $ anymore, i outline the main issues with Axis late tier tanking in a fairly detailed way and your response to that is "just flank and shoot first" come on don't insult my intelligence or experience with the game, get better does not account for equipment imbalance it can make less impactful but its still an issue. The fact you think there is no problem is half the problem.

So taking your argument and showing you how stupid it is, the tank numbers should 1-1 as every tank in game is vulnerable in the side and all everyone has to is sit on the flank, even the S75 can pen the Tiger in the side so why limit the numbers.

Most flanks will take place past the 1km mark so it's a none issue as you have the room, once you come in under the 1km range flanking is very unlikely as the room to maneuver is not there and you will also be seen and heard. 

Overmatch is coded but is it in the live game and effecting ballistics yet?

Edited May 26, 2021 by dm79

[stikyfingr]

1 thing CRS could do is sort out the Tiger engine sound as its far too distinctive and nothing, not even remotely, like how they should be. There is very little between a Tiger and a Panzer 3/4 in sound when you hear them running. 

 

[BMBM]

Keep it civil or I’ll lock this thread in an instant.

Overmatch is not about ballistics per se but about catastrophic rupture of an affected weak plate when hit by large caliber shot, and yes, it’s in the live version afaik. The only thing about it is that the visual damage model isn’t upgraded to depict the carastrophic effects - however the data is in there.

So, let me get this straight - you’re implying a wish for a near-impervious tank that can survive duels against similar tubes at distances below 1000 m so that you can sit near the objective and pound away? The only tank so capable is the Matilda, through tier 0. There are no such axis beasts until the Jagdtiger and Königstiger arrive in 1944, and even they are vulnerable to certain munitions and from certain aspects. So don’t hold your breath just yet - they are years away.

59 minutes ago, dm79 said:

Most flanks will take place past the 1km mark so it's a none issue as you have the room, once you come in under the 1km range flanking is very unlikely as the room to maneuver is not there and you will also be seen and heard. 

Greed and haste is usually the bane of most tankers. You’re describing an admittedly normal situation where panzers roll out, usually with very limited SA and no support, from an already invested objective, with predictable results - there are however other ways to skin a cat, as you’re most certainly aware of. Personally I avoid such battles and prefer the long cautious approach.

FTR I’ve had several nice sorties in the IVG/H with 6+ kills and (sometimes) rtb, against opponents who never saw the shot - sometimes as close as 300 m to the AB (not camping mind you), which would be either unlikely or imbalanced and unfair in your book?

The Tiger (and certain other tanks) was a rare beast in the field, while the Sherman was not. That’s why the numbers are so arranged, in keeping with the historical flavor of the game. This is not a perfectly historical reenactment: if it were the ratio would be considerably more adverse for the axis.

[Kidd27]

Equipment is only useful if there are players to spawn them. Either side is vulnerable to population migration, low pop leaves tons of tanks unspawned and useless. This is the main issue.

It will never matter how many tanks are in the list if there are not enough players to utilize them.  Garrison supply adds to the glut of equipment.

I suggest a pruning of the garrison list, and even not allow garrison supply to be used in attacks.

[undercova]

5 hours ago, delems said:

Maybe every rat has to play an axis panzer for a couple weeks.......

Put your action where your words are.

haha... WILL NEVER HAPPEN !!

[Kidd27]

5 hours ago, delems said:

Maybe every rat has to play an axis panzer for a couple weeks.......

Put your action where your words are.

 

Originally, they were gonna call the game AlliedOL, but marketing said it had a biased twang to it, and settled on WWIIOL.

Its creative things like this that allows CRS to sucker in axis players.

It follows the proven strategy of creating a game so wildly unbalanced it screws half of its paying playerbase.

Their anniversary slogan was suggested as "screwin' the axis for 20 years!" but again......damn marketing... sigh

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by Kidd27

[BMBM]

48 minutes ago, undercova said:

haha... WILL NEVER HAPPEN !!

Your reading comprehension is lacking. I’ve done nothing but play axis for the past three campaigns, bar one or two allied sorties, mostly in tanks. I always play on the underpop side, whichever it is. There are other CRS who play axis mostly, TEX64, KARDEHK, XOOM notably among them.

The woes expressed here is mainly attributable to population imbalance and secondly to the (IMHO) unhealthy fixation on CP capture before survival. If you drop that fixation and focus on the latter you can feast on the fixated.