Tank problem

[jep]

I like quick battles but I have a problem with tanks (especially with German tanks). It seems that if I want to win an meeting engagement I should buy nothing but tanks. Seems like infanry can never beat tanks. Since infanry seems to be waste of purchace points, it do make sense to use all points to buy nothing but tanks (and perhaps few soldiers to find targets to shoot). Even bazookas, piats etc. are useless against tanks because they are too expensive when compared how many points would be needed to kill a tank. Guns would be some what useable, but they cannot really ne used in meeting engagements.

Even if I know what my opponent will buy does not help because there are nothing to buy what would make sense when I consider how many points my purchase can take away from my opponent. Planes? No. It seems to take least 5 expensive airplanes to kill one or two tanks. Even terrain does not make too much difference. This is quite a big problem, because if nobody never buy nothing but tanks the game will be dull.

What should be done? Tanks shoud be a little bit more expensive. Antitank weapons should be lightly better. Forest etc. should be little bit more dangerous when using tanks. Air planes should should be lightly better when used against tanks.

Second problem is related to german tanks. When I play an all tanks battle, it seems like player who chooces to purchase quality tanks (Panther etc) is likely to win. In fact it seems like only tank destroyers are able to hurt them. This of course allows german player to experience with foot soldiers, but all tanks choice would still be the best. Panther seems to be too cheap when we consider how many tanks it is able kill.

[YankeeDog]

Well... there are reasons why highly mobile firepower (i.e., armor) is dominant in a meeting engagement. And even if BFC were interested in adjusting point values (which they're not), it would be difficult to tweak things for meeting engagements without throwing things off for other battle types.

But if you really want to reduce the effectiveness of armor relative to infantry, play your QBs on rural maps with few roads, at night and in muddy conditions. Not all WWII combat took place on bright, sunny days under fair skies, you know. Watch the uber kitties bog down hundreds of meters from the objective area while the infantry marches up, takes the ground, and hurls insults in the general direction of the hopelessly mired kitties.

[Vanir Ausf B]

To follow up on YankeeDog's suggestions, I am a fan of random weather. A dirty little secret I have discovered in my own testing is that Panthers have poor off-road performance in the game, slightly worse than even Shermans. This is wildly a-historical and a major departure from the CMx1 games, but the fact remains that bad weather will punish armor-heavy forces and Panther users more than most.

(A side note: the Tiger 1 has the best off-road performance of any medium or heavy tank in the game, which makes me think BFC derived vehicle off road ratings using the same method used to pick US rocket QB prices, i.e. probably something involving monkeys and a dartboard).

Random time of day works too, but some people have trouble seeing what is on their screen.

[poesel]

Also: play against humans. If the map is not a parking lot then you will notice that a tank only force will die a certain death against infantry.

Regarding Panthers: if the map is too small to be able to outflank them, then they are nearly invulnerable. If you can outflank them - not so.

[jep]

Also: play against humans. If the map is not a parking lot then you will notice that a tank only force will die a certain death against infantry.

Regarding Panthers: if the map is too small to be able to outflank them, then they are nearly invulnerable. If you can outflank them - not so.

Can you describe me how you kill tanks?

Yesterday I had small quickbattle (assault, small forest, me as defender) and I had no way to stop tigers. M-10 destroyed / inmobolized two and my antitank mines inmobilized additional two tanks and three light vehicles. Still, I had no practical way to destroy remaining tigers. Even 76mm antitank gun could not hurt them. I had several bazookas yet they were completely useless.

Eventually my opponent did not even bother to move his infary. I would say that Tiger / Panther tanks are too cheap considering how expensive allied tanks with 76mm gun are. Even antitank mines are way too expensive considering how much you would need them to make sure heavy tanks wont be bothering you.

I have feeling that Battlefront believes that people enjoys tank versus tank games most.

[dieseltaylor]

Perhaps you should play the CW module with Fireflies and the 6lber ATG : )

Small maps always favour uber-tanks so try playing on bigger maps so that they have exposed flanks - or at least are nervous of exposing them.

[winkelried]

it's not just about punch (eg using 76ers), but also about correct tactical deployment - i currently play "CW The Mace" (as I don't like QBs - I find them too artificial) as Polish armor/infantry against SS Pz IV and V and SS Infantry.

I have an excellent reverse slope defensive line with a acouple of 57mm ATGs and to my SURPRISE THEY KILL PANTHERS FRONTALLY like flies. Usual tactics - use artillery to separate the infantry from the tanks - open fire in pairs at very short distance (must be 150-200m). They also killed 3 or 4 Panzer IV without being hit once. They ran out of ammo before being finally taken out by flanking infantry fire (my infantry got mauled quite badly in delaying the panzer grenadiers).

On the other hand I found a quite good flanking position for another two 57mm ATGs outside of the setup zone. I move them with the trucks (!) into the position since they are pretty easy to handle. There they were able to kill two Panthers with flanking shots before falling prey to German arty.

(BTW - is used an 57mm ATG with an Halftrack as prime mover in one of the few QBs - a Meeting Engagement - I played in CMBN also to my advantage)

CONCLUSION

You need to deploy your AT assets in a tactically correct manner

• use artillery to your advantage against accompanying infantry and to make the tanks to close-up.
  
• use reverse slope positions
  
• use flanking positions
  
• get short firing distance (below 200-300m as Allied) if you have to fight them frontally
  
• use ATG assets (holds form me also for tanks, TDs and zooks/schrecks) always at least in pairs
  
• for tanks use shoot'n'scoot tactics to minimize exposure.
  
• put a very conservative fire arc to avoid early firing.
  

[Vanir Ausf B]

Even 76mm antitank gun could not hurt them.

US 76mm can kill Tigers, even frontally.

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of an old WWII film - I forget which one - that depicted Normandy fighting. I still recall the panicky cry of "Tank in the road! Tank in the road!" when a Panther(?) unexpectedly appeared between hedgerows. It was eventually knocked out by a GI with hand grenades, but not before the tank tracks had pinched off his legs first. And actual incident, I recall. Must've been more than 20 years since I've seen that film.

[sburke]

Can you describe me how you kill tanks?

I have feeling that Battlefront believes that people enjoys tank versus tank games most.

Here you go, thank JonS for the lesson..... scroll down to post 439.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101195&page=44

Personally I much prefer the infantry aspect. It is simply in those days anti armor capability was more limited than today especially for the allies. The Shrek on the other hand.. oh baby....

[sburke]

I have feeling that Battlefront believes that people enjoys tank versus tank games most.

It's funny how separate threads can end up leading back to the same subject. I was looking back at JonS DAR from prior to the release of CMBN off a link he provided in another thread, and then saw this note from Steve about some topics JonS had covered that led him to actually write up what amounts to a dissertation compared to the level of quiet we have now. It's worth reading again and may change your opinion at least of what they are trying to do.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1224501&postcount=1

[jep]

It's funny how separate threads can end up leading back to the same subject. I was looking back at JonS DAR from prior to the release of CMBN off a link he provided in another thread, and then saw this note from Steve about some topics JonS had covered that led him to actually write up what amounts to a dissertation compared to the level of quiet we have now. It's worth reading again and may change your opinion at least of what they are trying to do.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1224501&postcount=1

Thanks for link. I certainly don't want to criticize Battlefront, but I do feel that it should be appropriate to consider CMBN not only as a simulation but a game. In my book it's bad if CMBN encourages quick battle players to purchase certain fixed unit configuration. Especially if there are problems with game balance. I have not played enought to be sure, but I have a feeling that the system does not do enought to penalize cherry picking. Perhaps stuff should be more expensive if puchased as single vehicles.

Of course tanks are not the only balance problem. At the very least the US player seems to be able to buy enought rockets to completely decimate the defending infanry. This would not be a real problem if trenches/fox holes would better protect against an indirect fire. This seems to indicate that trenches should be able to protect soldiers even when subjected to a relatively long artillery barrage. That said, I need to do more testing to see what actually happens.

[sburke]

Personally I prefer to have BFC focus on things that are strictly engine oriented rather than worry about things that can be controlled simply by player agreement. Not that your suggestions don't have merit, I just prioritze items based on different criteria. My PBEM partners generally aren't gonna go buy a ton of rockets unless the scenario in question specifically calls for it.

If you are playing strangers then it may be worth your while to set some basic ground rules.

I am going out on a limb here as I don't generally play QB games, but I thought there were some penalties for cherry picking and that units were cheaper if purchased in a formation. I could be absolutely wrong though.

[A Canadian Cat]

I am going out on a limb here as I don't generally play QB games, but I thought there were some penalties for cherry picking and that units were cheaper if purchased in a formation. I could be absolutely wrong though.

You are correct purchasing single vehicles is more expensive than as a unit.

If you pick up a platoon of Shermans (M4A1 late all regular, normal, fit, 0) the each tank in the formation is 187 points.

If you add individual M4A1 late regular, normal, fit, 0 tanks to a unit they will each cost 202. So, not huge but there is a difference.

So if you added five tanks to some other formation to simulate a platoon of Shermans that would cost you 1010 points but if you added a medium tank battalion formation and strip away all but one platoon that would cost you 935 points.

[jep]

Personally I enjoy quick battless because they give me an opportunity to outsmart my opponent.

You are correct in that Battlefront should use their time to implement new features. Problems with the quick battles are not that significant, but I would not mind if BF fixes some of the most obvious problems.

I am going out on a limb here as I don't generally play QB games, but I thought there were some penalties for cherry picking and that units were cheaper if purchased in a formation. I could be absolutely wrong though.

Seems like there is a small penalty but nothing significant. M10 (veteran, normal, fit) cost about 204 purchase points where upon an individual M10 cost about 219 purchase point.

[womble]

You are correct purchasing single vehicles is more expensive than as a unit.

If you pick up a platoon of Shermans (M4A1 late all regular, normal, fit, 0) the each tank in the formation is 187 points.

If you add individual M4A1 late regular, normal, fit, 0 tanks to a unit they will each cost 202. So, not huge but there is a difference.

So if you added five tanks to some other formation to simulate a platoon of Shermans that would cost you 1010 points but if you added a medium tank battalion formation and strip away all but one platoon that would cost you 935 points.

I can't look just at the moment, but IIRC, there's a 200pt premium for "starting a new formation", so the balance point between individual purchases and platoon-packets is somewhat skewed towards single vehicles in smaller scale encounters. Just looking at your figures, I think you've included that, but I just wanted to be sure people don't just look at the individual tank price within a formation.

[John Kettler]

Winkelried,

Were your 6 pr. ATGs firing "T" by any chance? If so, I'm not surprised, for it's APDS (armor piercing discarding sabot), a revolutionary kinetic energy projectile developed by the British. This thread gets into the capabilities of that projectile and has links to studies showing its use in combat. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=47318&highlight=karamales&page=1

Regards,

John Kettler

[winkelried]

Winkelried,

Were your 6 pr. ATGs firing "T" by any chance? If so, I'm not surprised, for it's APDS (armor piercing discarding sabot), a revolutionary kinetic energy projectile developed by the British. This thread gets into the capabilities of that projectile and has links to studies showing its use in combat. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=47318&highlight=karamales&page=1

Regards,

John Kettler

could well be. the guns had between 1 and 2 APDS. i didn't have a look at what they fired at a particular moment.

[John Kettler]

winkelried,

I believe APDS had its combat debut at Bou Arada, Tunisia. 6 pr. data here http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Molins.htm Counter argument here, from page 6. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=39949

Here are various firing trial reports. Note the 6 pr. comes in two barrel lengths, while the U.S. 57 mm is a copy of the shorter of the two. http://wargaming.info/category/ww2-to-today/ww2-history/

Regards,

John Kettler

[winkelried]

thanks john

i fired APDS myself as part of my military training - btw seems that it was a french invention (by Edgar Brandt) - the engineering team was evacuated to the UK after the fall of france in 1940. my sources say, that the APDS was introduced for the 6pdr in mid 1944.

[John Kettler]

winkelried,

You're welcome! Brandt? The same guy who basically invented the trench mortar? I thought Permutter and Coppock invented APDS.

Regards,

John Kettler

[winkelried]

winkelried,

You're welcome! Brandt? The same guy who basically invented the trench mortar? I thought Permutter and Coppock invented APDS.

Regards,

John Kettler

Yes Edgar William Brandt ... his team developed the APDS for the Mle1897/33 (75mm) and for various 37mm gun models just before the armistice of 1940. The team then was evacuated to the UK and worked there with Permutter and Coppock who improved the APDS further.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have not played enought to be sure, but I have a feeling that the system does not do enought to penalize cherry picking. Perhaps stuff should be more expensive if puchased as single vehicles.

In another thread I saw a suggestion that players agree that they cannot purchase just 1 of anything. You want a KT, fine, but you have to buy at least 2.

Of course tanks are not the only balance problem. At the very least the US player seems to be able to buy enought rockets to completely decimate the defending infanry. This would not be a real problem if trenches/fox holes would better protect against an indirect fire. This seems to indicate that trenches should be able to protect soldiers even when subjected to a relatively long artillery barrage. That said, I need to do more testing to see what actually happens.

I have not tested this formally, but it seems that infantry vulnerability to artillery is heavily influenced by whether or not they are prone.

At for US rockets... that is a known issue. There is a widely used house rule that US rockets are completely banned from QBs. It's unfortunate we have to do that, but BFCs refusal to fix it leaves us little choice.

[Vinnart]

I disagree with the original post. It is better to have a more versatile force than only armor. Whether it be more armor centric, or not should depend on the terrain. Open maps for sure, but you still need some infantry. In forested maps you need more infantry. I have played a mixed force against an all armor force, and won. I did one game where I had a mix as USA against 3 tigers, and won. My first PBEM was as USA against panthers and pumas, and won. I had 5 tanks and some infantry, and my opponent had 2 panthers, 1 puma, and support infantry. I took out the 1st panther with a 76mm Sherman. Took 4 shots, but I killed it. 2nd panther I got by a heat round from a 105mm, but it survived with bad damage then the time ran out. I have however taken out panthers in the game with 105mm. If you play USA I suggest having late M10’s, 76mm Shermans, and Sherman 105mm. You can kill German tanks, you just need to be crafty to do it. There is no problem with the tanks. When choosing a force you should try to think of different enemy possibilities, and what you can have to counter. If AT guns are deployed right they can be useful in killing tanks. If your opponent has no mortars then it will be harder to kill the ATG guns. “Be like water”, and you can win no matter what country you play as. Someone wants to bring all tanks, and no infantry support. I say bring it on, but I stress terrain dictates how much infantry support needed.

I am surprised though that BF did not have point maximums spent per category for mixed force games like was in CMx1.

[John Kettler]

winkelried,

Never knew that! Ian Hogg has let me down, for it was he who in THE GUNS (Ballantine's Illustrated History of World War II) told the story of APDS development. Looks like something rather important got left out!

Vanir Ausf B,

Since all I have presently is the Demo, what rockets, and why are they such a problem?

Am unaware we even used surface launched rockets at Normandy. Have certainly never seen any pics. When I think of U.S. rockets in Europe, I think of circa Huertgen Forest and definitely in Germany.

Regarding lowered casualties when prone men are shelled or mortared, the game should definitely reflect that reduced vulnerability, for the JMEMs (Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals) certainly did. For analytical purposes, the first volley always assumed the targets were standing, then prone for all subsequent volleys. The first one was the one that smarted. The exception to the rule would be Fuze MT or VT, where the presented area is actually larger when prone than standing.

Regards,

John Kettler