Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
giovanni705

The passage unbalanced?

Recommended Posts

Hi all

I am interested in some feedback. I am being killed by my opponent in the Passage scenario. I have the germans and I accepted a long range battle. I had all the advantage, high groung and stationary, but a disaster nontheless.

Now it is cler that my tanks are inferior, but else could be done there? It looks to me that you are doomed as the germans, am i wrong?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your panzer IVs are superior (at least at long range) against t34-76 but inferior to t34-85 and everything better.

Keep your distance and pop up in hull down position to spot and fire (for about 20-25 seconds) and immediately reverse back out of sight. Build a base of fire with all your tanks available. Do not pop up with single tanks to stop a full tank assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i`ve just checked the scenario and there are only t34-85s on the russian side so theres no wonder that your panzer IVs get screwed. theres nearly no chance that a panzer IV can withstand a shot from the 85. but on the other hand the long 75 guns from your panzer IVs are also capable to one-shot-kill a t34-85 from the front (even at longer range). so its kind of a duel. try what i`ve suggested and maybe keep some tanks in reserve to flank the assault when its getting through the two lakes! that should do the trick but theres always a bit of luck necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I haven't played this one, but will make some generalized comments. I hate Mk IVs myself, eggshells with tracks, but have learned to use them. They have some long range advantages over the T34, but you must be very careful. You will likely struggle on the first scenario of the German campaign too, if you don't figure these frustrating tanks out.

First, check your tactical handling of your MkIVs. Make sure that unless you are in a close fight with infantry, your tanks are unbuttoned to gain spotting advantage.

Go to Bil Hardenbergers' blog http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2013/08/combat-mission-tactical-problems-cmtp.html and read (or reread) the section on hull down. Never offer your opponent a fair fight.

Once you are certain you are putting your tanks hull down, look for some woods to hide them in. Not much on this map, but see what you can find. Use the same waypoint tactic you do for hull down, and move them gradually towards the edge just until they can see. Wait a turn or two to see what you can spot. Once you spot something, consider using "target briefly." In the new 3.0 engine, if you set a "target briefly" command, and then click the "target briefly" button again, it increments up another 15 seconds. Recommend using "pause" for 30 seconds with "target briefly" for 30 seconds, and then reversing your tank into cover. Never just sit up and duke it out. Pull forward, shoot a couple rounds, back up. Pull back up in a slightly different spot. These are real world tactics, but do work in CM as well.

Finally, look for opportunities to put more than one of your tanks against just one of his. In beta testing, I was getting my butt waxed with Mk IVs until I learned to concentrate their fire. While the tactician in me hates bunching my armor up, there are times when pulling two or three tanks forward into nearly adjacent locations in order to mass fire on one T34 is the right way to go.

For what it is worth, I checked the beta test on this scenario for you and most of the testers got German victories, with at least two Russian AI surrender "Total German Victories," so it is possible, if you learn the tactics. As a professional tanker, I can assure you that the tactics that work in this "game" (or sim) are the ones that work in real life too. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, I checked the beta test on this scenario for you and most of the testers got German victories, with at least two Russian AI surrender "Total German Victories," so it is possible, if you learn the tactics.

Without for one second suggesting that the tactics offered are in any way invalid approaches, results against the AI aren't really a good guide as to how evenly matched a scenario is in HvH play, the situation Giovanni is in at the moment. You can use popup tactics and fists of armour against the AI, and it won't use them back at you. A human player can do exactly as you can. You can beat the AI when it has a huge force advantage against you that would make the same battle against a human a completely hopeless proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PIV and T34-85 match up is equal, both can kill each other at 1600m, with either side not having the superior tank does not mean you're inferior.

the guns maybe equal but the t34-85 armor (frontal sloped) is better than the pz Ivs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played this scenario against the A.I. from the Soviet side. Having lots of T34-85's, I expected to face some heavy German armour and so was very careful in my advance.

I saw a few Panzer IV'S off in the distance and moved 3 T34-85's up to deal with them. Some easy kills I thought. Imagine my surprise when very quickly my 85's were burning to the loss of

One P IV.

I managed to persevere, despite losing more tanks, and in the process learnt not to take the

P IV for granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall the German tanks have better crews and in general they will spot and hit better than the Soviet force, although there are fewer of them. If the German player gets the short end of the stick in an early engagement then there could be snowball effect as your numerical disadvantage becomes more severe. The German force also has more variety in that you can use the flak vehicles to fire at unbuttoned Soviet tank crews and your infantry can move rapidly independently of your tanks. You also have a pair of Stummels. As far as the beta testing goes, the results were pretty varied with the main factor being how the German player uses his force. A German player who tended to sit back near the set up area tended to lose and the German player who advanced aggressively tended to do well. The German player really needs to do a good terrain analysis before the scenario begins and he needs to carry out his plan aggressively. The German also needs to use his entire force and not leave stuff sitting around not contributing to the fight.

I should also add that getting a perfectly balanced scenario is next to impossible and a designer can only know if he came close after checking the results of numerous play throughs. One guy saying he is losing badly doesn't mean that a scenario is unbalanced. The simple fact is that even the most 'perfectly' balanced scenario will have someone come out on the short end of the stick very badly from time to time. There are simply too many variables to control for. We do the best we can with the tools available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without for one second suggesting that the tactics offered are in any way invalid approaches, results against the AI aren't really a good guide as to how evenly matched a scenario is in HvH play, the situation Giovanni is in at the moment. You can use popup tactics and fists of armour against the AI, and it won't use them back at you. A human player can do exactly as you can. You can beat the AI when it has a huge force advantage against you that would make the same battle against a human a completely hopeless proposition.

LOL I was just going to offer that comment.

That is the difficulty of designing. What works for one mode or one side can offer a completely different experience if you switch sides or modes. if I were to play this HTH the more experienced player should be on the German side. Those T 34 85s are killers and the terrain is not one where you can ambush a lot versus a human opponent. I found a one shot kill of the T 34s was rare while the Pz IVs were usually going up on the first shot. As others have noted you have to get multiple Pz IVs on each T 34 and you need to get first shot.

At long range I generally found the Pz IVs would hit first, but if you don't put that T 34 down, it is going to kill you rather quick. I did win this one against the AI, but I am betting any even half way decent human player would have crushed me. I sympathize Giovanni but kudos to you for trying. The T34 85 is a very well designed tank - it hits hard, has good armor and mobility. On top of that there are usually a lot of them. Load times are comparable to German tanks as well. The Pz IV on the other hand is a very dated machine. Capable given the right circumstances and terrain, but definitely not the equal of the T 34 85.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the guns maybe equal but the t34-85 armor (frontal sloped) is better than the pz Ivs.

I'm not seeing this when I play the game, it's 45 mm sloped, brittle and heavily overmatched by the 75mm gun. To make the armour proof vs the German 75mm with the IS2 they had to have 120mm at 60 deg. The T34 is not even close to meeting that standard.

In the The Passage I'm penetrating T34's at 1600m, I lost a T34 the first time around after a non penetrating hit at 3-400m on the lower front hull, the Piv then put a round through the gun mount killing the gunner and forcing a bail. It seems to be about the angles of the hulls.

I just finished a match of the Passage vs the ai with 13 out of 14 T34's dead and 5 dead PIV with 3 runners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same experience as OP. I suppose this map was a good learning experience, in that it is helping me unlearn CMBN tactics of keeping German armoured untis as far away from opposing tanks as possible and letting the powerful gun and good optics take care of the lightly armoured Shermans. It's still frustrating though, to get the jump on a T34-85 with two panzers in hull down, and still end up smashing the mouse as your shots ping off the turret (and the one shot that penetrates the armour only damages the radio), and the two shots from the T34 take out both your tanks and all of their crew. I suppose I should have moved my tanks around more aggressively and got in close, but it just felt like this was another scenario that teaches the player how outclassed the Germans were in a standard meeting engagement. Out in the open? Get blasted by superior tanks. Hide in the woods, get blasted by SMG squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops! Missed the human dimension in the earlier post. Certainly does put a different spin on things. Only other thing I can offer here is, try to make him fight in two directions at once. Other than that, it will be a tough slog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoops! Missed the human dimension in the earlier post. Certainly does put a different spin on things. Only other thing I can offer here is, try to make him fight in two directions at once. Other than that, it will be a tough slog.

I think the biggest issue is 8xPIV vs 14xT34s, German's have a higher incidence of crack and vet crews but the jerry's are quite outnumbered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO PZIV are equal to t-34/85 in close and mid firefights, but I think that a PzIV is superior in long range combat. It usualy takes 3 shots to get a penetration at range about ~1600m. T-34/85 miss more often. (on regular crew)

I'm playing this scenario by PBEM and have a bloodbath on both sides. Both of the tanks have capability to kill opponent alike from the distance or close. Losses depends on your and opponent tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not seeing this when I play the game, it's 45 mm sloped, brittle and heavily overmatched by the 75mm gun. To make the armour proof vs the German 75mm with the IS2 they had to have 120mm at 60 deg. The T34 is not even close to meeting that standard.

In the The Passage I'm penetrating T34's at 1600m, I lost a T34 the first time around after a non penetrating hit at 3-400m on the lower front hull, the Piv then put a round through the gun mount killing the gunner and forcing a bail. It seems to be about the angles of the hulls.

I just finished a match of the Passage vs the ai with 13 out of 14 T34's dead and 5 dead PIV with 3 runners.

well iam on your side when you say you cannot see this when you play the game right now but:

1) in the game manual itself the t34 gets a yellow dot armor rating against a orange dot rating from the pzIV (frontally).

2) the t-34 has 100m turret armor against 50mm turret armor from the pzIV.

3) according to jentz tiger book the tiger needs to be 100m or closer to penetrate the t34s glacis if the t34 is standing in a 30° angle to the tiger. (tiger is not pzIV but the 88mm is even better than the short 75mm from the pzIV). the source is a waffenprüfung from october 1944. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

4) i`ve played a lot of achtung panzer operation star and the results t34 vs panzerIVG (1943) were highly different from what i can see right now in CMRT. t34s glacis often bounced shells from the 75mm at 800m and even closer.

by the way those designers are building military training complexes and have a military backgrounds + t34s at hand, so i think they know what they are talking about.

5) from what i have seen i also think that something is amiss or broken or strangely modelled regarding armor right now. i cannot point the finger on it (wrong data, too highly flawed armor values, wrong sloping, uppowered penetration values...) but something is strange about armor penetration right now. like some other forum members in other threads already mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well iam on your side when you say you cannot see this when you play the game right now but:

1) in the game manual itself the t34 gets a yellow dot armor rating against a orange dot rating from the pzIV (frontally).

2) the t-34 has 100m turret armor against 50mm turret armor from the pzIV.

3) according to jentz tiger book the tiger needs to be 100m or closer to penetrate the t34s glacis if the t34 is standing in a 30° angle to the tiger. (tiger is not pzIV but the 88mm is even better than the short 75mm from the pzIV). the source is a waffenprüfung from october 1944. http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

4) i`ve played a lot of achtung panzer operation star and the results t34 vs panzerIVG (1943) were highly different from what i can see right now in CMRT. t34s glacis often bounced shells from the 75mm at 800m and even closer.

by the way those designers are building military training complexes and have a military backgrounds + t34s at hand, so i think they know what they are talking about.

5) from what i have seen i also think that something is amiss or broken or strangely modelled regarding armor right now. i cannot point the finger on it (wrong data, too highly flawed armor values, wrong sloping, uppowered penetration values...) but something is strange about armor penetration right now. like some other forum members in other threads already mentioned.

You're just citing the bits of jentz that accord with your agenda aka wapruf 6 calculations not actual firing tests.

The actual reports in Jentz panzertruppen vols I and II show successful engagements of 1200m and 1600m with the KwK 40 7,5cm gun verses the front of T 34s.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=38951

4. 75mm L43 penetrates T34 front hull at 1000m with a 30 degree side angle during 1942 Russian firing tests, according to Valera Potapov notes from Russian report he reviewed. This result is consistent with 1600m maximum penetration range when gun is lined up with T34 hull direction

3. 75mm L43 penetrates T34 at 1200m at any angle, with 1600m max range, spring 1942. Report included in T. Jentz' Panzertruppen Volume I.

Based on 45 mm of armour, if the t34 has 55mm of armour Rexford cites the reports citing 1200m upper limit pentrations.

Also re read jentz in particular the panzer truppen vols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i`ve played a lot of achtung panzer operation star and the results t34 vs panzerIVG (1943) were highly different from what i can see right now in CMRT. t34s glacis often bounced shells from the 75mm at 800m and even closer.

by the way those designers are building military training complexes and have a military backgrounds + t34s at hand, so i think they know what they are talking about.

5) from what i have seen i also think that something is amiss or broken or strangely modelled regarding armor right now. i cannot point the finger on it (wrong data, too highly flawed armor values, wrong sloping, uppowered penetration values...) but something is strange about armor penetration right now. like some other forum members in other threads already mentioned.

I know we're not supposed to talk about other games but I feel compelled to respond. I own this game that you claim is more accurate (mind you infantry warfare isn't really modeled). So it's basically a tank sim, which I had a different experience with. I played a mission where I had a platoon or so of Tiger I's going up against a company of t-34 76 tanks. In a couple instances I had my Tigers in hull down positions firing at t34's at about 500-800 meters away. The 88 rounds bounced off the front armor of the t34 while every second or third round fired by the t34 would penetrate my tigers with ease.

So you're saying that game more accurately depicts armor fighting? From everything I have ever read it seems that this game depicts reality far better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheT34/85 was designed to fght Panthers and Tigers o more even terms han the T-34/76 could. This was a valuable lesson the Red Army learned from Kursk and other battlefield experiences. Troop quality/training is likely to be a factor here as well and, by 1944 Red Army tank crews weree likely, on average, to be on a par with the Germans. As others have said the human factor is as important as he technical factor.

The Germans often did have to fight outnumbered. Even with parity of training and equipment the Germans could still win but they had to do it with superior tactics in order to defeat the greater Red army numbers. In the summer of 1944 the training and technical gap between the Red Arm,my and the Wehrmachh had narrowed considerably, if not vanished entirely.

So, if you have Panzer IVs you have to just do the best you can and out think and outmanouvre the Soviets. You have to do this with your Panthers and Tigers as well. However, wit a Panzer Regiment of the time having two battalions, one of Panthers and the second with Panzer IVs someone had to fight using the latter. In The Passage scenario that's you.

A couple of other points. Towards the very end of WW2 the Germans adopted the 1945 TOE which gave Panzer battalions, at least in heory, a mix of Panzer IVs and Panthers although the exet to which this was actually used is another matter. We may see this organisation as an option later in the series.

Secondly Stugs were sometimes used inplace of Panzer IVs due o temporary shortages. It would be nice if BF could include Stugs as an option for Panzer battalions to allow for this possiility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know we're not supposed to talk about other games but I feel compelled to respond. I own this game that you claim is more accurate (mind you infantry warfare isn't really modeled). So it's basically a tank sim, which I had a different experience with. I played a mission where I had a platoon or so of Tiger I's going up against a company of t-34 76 tanks. In a couple instances I had my Tigers in hull down positions firing at t34's at about 500-800 meters away. The 88 rounds bounced off the front armor of the t34 while every second or third round fired by the t34 would penetrate my tigers with ease.

So you're saying that game more accurately depicts armor fighting? From everything I have ever read it seems that this game depicts reality far better.

never had a strange experience like that and i also think that infantry fighting is modelled better than in cm. but theres a multitude of updates (like a jungle) to the game so maybe youve played a very early version.

but back to penetration values:

the germans state themself (in their tigerfibel tanker manual) that the tiger is frontally vulnerable to t34-76 fire at ranges under 500m.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're just citing the bits of jentz that accord with your agenda aka wapruf 6 calculations not actual firing tests.

The actual reports in Jentz panzertruppen vols I and II show successful engagements of 1200m and 1600m with the KwK 40 7,5cm gun verses the front of T 34s

well i could say the same to you :) why are the results of a waffenprüfung less believable than combat reports (maybe flawed by bias and exaggeration) ?

how come that there are such totally different results between waffenprüfung 1944 and reports out of jents ?

Iam not saying that the t34 is invincible at that ranges.

1)The turret is always the weak spot even in the t34-85s (100mm turret armor) and penetrations from the front at these ranges can be explained with turret hits (theres a reason why the russians incresed the turret armor with the 85 version but left the glacis armor untouched).

2) there are a lot of weak spots in the glacis plate of the t34. iam not saying that a t34 should always withstand the 75mm shots when angled 30° and further away than 100m. But a 60° horizontally angled plate with additional vertical angling of 30°. how on earth can a AP shells bite into that kind of armor at 1000m. theres virtually no surface to bite, it just glides away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the driving.

The tanks can kill each other. The Russians have odds. If both sides drive equally well the Russians will win, and should win. To defeat superior numbers of equally capable AFVs, you need to drive yours better than the other guy drives his.

That means arranging many on fews, it means scouting for the tanks with your other elements, it means choosing to engage only when you have an advantage, in numbers of hull down vs even numbers. It is not enough to pit your edge in one suite against their edge in another (""I'm hull down but he has numbers, oh well, I'll try it" - no).

How do you arrange many on fews against an enemy who outnumbers you? Deny him firepower integration. That means not putting all your tanks out in the open where everyone can see them. Instead, force him to move to get spots on your tanks. Then arrange to see the Russian tank going first before his friends are in view to help him out. Separate his force back to front.

You do that using cover, peeking around the sides of it; by using reverse slopes so that a whole platoon of yours can see the first Russian to cross a crestline; by keyholing with crossing fire lanes that the enemy can't fit multiple tanks into at once, putting most of your prey's "friends" in shadows from LOS blocks you are sighting between. It means using light armor "bait" to draw his tanks into locations whole platoons of your waiting unbuttoned Panzer IVs with armor covered arcs can see. It means distraction by infantry, light armor, and the like while your tanks hunt into view from 90 degrees off the direction of his turret. It means using smoke from artillery or mortars to "break off" a few of the enemy in view while masking the rest of his force, then KOing the few that are in view.

Tactics. Not gun and armor specs. That is what decides armor fights between equally capable AFVs. It should not be new to you - if it is, you've been walking on crutches up to now. Welcome to the party - Allied tanks have been doing these things forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are so far out of your league you have no idea. The beta testers looking into this stuff are studying actual historical scientific test data, from a variety of sources, which looks not only at the the cannon but also the specific ammunition. Plus modeling a 3 dimensional vs. 2 dimensional impact angle. Plus a host of other factors, many completely transparent to you. I am Armor Officer by profession and have a degree in history. I know of no other game/sim as thoroughly researched, or a community of designers and testers who work as hard to get things right. It is still not perfect, but it likely as close as anyone will come in your lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...