Tigers in QBs

[theblitz]

For a medium Qb,with standard rarity,the axis player can afford to purchase exactly 2 Tigers. On the other hand,there is nothing in the american inventory which can directly match them.

The best tank the allies have is the 75mm Sherman and you can't destroy a Tiger with it unless you're very,very lucky and you manage to take a shot in it's side/rear at point blank range.

You have the 57mm AT gun which has a reasonable chance of scoring a hit if it hits the Tiger in it's side,but if it's a meeting engagement or an american attack it will be pretty much impossible to tow and deploy it in a favorable position for a side shoot.

The bazookas will be useless for the same reasons.

As i see it the tigers are pretty much invulnerable to everything in the allied inventory and this means we'll see a lot of them in QBs

What tactics would you employ to counter the big cats? Or perhaps an agreement between the players that no tigers should be purchased is the best 'counter-measure'?

[ZPB II]

I tried setting up a shooting range where a Tiger mows down 3 battalions of Italians. The Tiger was knocked out by concentrated fire from 12 mortars in less than two minutes as I kept it stationary.

Bazookas and close assault works pretty well if you can close the distance. Any form of concentrated hail fire will strip the Tiger of it's precious components. If your opponent keeps it keyholed, block it with smoke.

Air strikes, especially strafe runs are dirt cheap and the Tiger is a big honking target out in the open. If your opponent is lame and cheesy, you can get 4 rocket batteries for the price of one Tiger. Teach him not make lame buys.

If you play against someone who repeatedly abuses the quick battle system, simply target his deployment zone with air strikes and rockets at the start of every single game. He will understand the point eventually.

[Sergei]

As i see it the tigers are pretty much invulnerable to everything in the allied inventory and this means we'll see a lot of them in QBs

What tactics would you employ to counter the big cats?

Drive to your opponent's home and beat them with a blunt heavy object. Preferably a 1:24 scale solid lead Tiger.

[theblitz]

The issue is in a medium QB you won't afford to buy 3 battalions. Not even italian battalions

Close assaults against AI might work. I doubt a good human player will not support his Tiger with some infantry,or have a screening infantry force in front. So,probably minus a limited set of circumstances,you won't have your bazookas/assault team get near a tiger.

Targeting the setup zones with arty fire is,no doubt,abusive. I wouldn't exactly call purchasing Tigers in QBs abusive,though.

[eltorrente]

I just started a large ladder game in FI and I'm playing the US. I have a bad feeling about this one.. when I was purchasing units, I couldn't believe I had nothing at all to choose from to combat the big bad German tanks.

People talk about tactics and things we could do to take them out, but the fact is that it generally requires your opponent to be stupid and careless with his tanks. Yeah, maybe if he sits in one place and doesn't move, or doesn't use infantry to protect his tanks, or runs straight into the middle of my forces, I might be able to take them out. The fact is though, my opponent is quite good and knows how to protect his tanks.

It's hard enough to kill his Shermans and M10's with my Panthers, since he's so careful - now with the possibility of him having Tigers against my Sherman 75s and 57mm AT guns, I don't see how I can have much hope. Maybe late in the game some bazooka guy will get lucky, but that's about it.

[Battlefront.com]

The Tigers are definitely in their element in this game. Hardly anything can scratch them at a decent engagement range, yet the terrain is generally pretty open and that means getting a close in shot on them (Bazooka, 57mm ATG, flank shots from Shermans, etc.) is tougher than other environments.

And it is as it should be since that's the way it was at the time. The reasons the Germans lost Sicily is they had only a handful of Tigers and the Allies had (literally) boatloads of everything else. Can't defend an entire island of this size with a couple dozen tanks no matter how good they might be.

Which is why I expect gentlemen's agreements to crop up where the German player voluntarily promises to not purchase Tigers. That's the way I would encourage players to go if they are dreading going up against them.

Steve

[ZPB II]

The thing is. There were 11 Tigers in Sicily if I remember right and they were taken out by naval artillery, aviation or simply the drivetrain giving out.

If you want to play a historical game, you encounter a Tiger and then fall back and let the big guns handle it. You use artillery or aviation. You do not want to throw away lives needlessly. You cease fire and lose the match. This is realistic and historical.

Now, you can try your luck and plink away at it with small guns and hope to get lucky. Or simply let the Tigers chow down your men and lose.

Or you can play the game. Your opponent while not strictly stating it, does strongly indicate little interest in a historical match. He wants to play a game. I routinely use gamey tactics against gamey foes. These involve the liberal use of scout teams and bazooka teams on jeeps or scout cars doing crazy kamikaze rushes assisted by creative use of smoke. Direct WP fire. Deployment zone barrages and air strikes. Drive-by bazooka fire. It's about as historically accurate as a slugging match versus a Tiger.

You can't expect to play a historically accurate gentlemen's match if one participant doesn't play by the unspoken rules. Especially if it's a ladder game where people play to win. Nuke his setup zone. Do it. You have to be a really lame and uninteresting person to think that you're allowed to buy Tigers but your opponent isn't allowed to do anything to win. It's behaviour that belongs to a kindergarten.

[eltorrente]

Drive-by bazooka fire.

Is this possible? Do you mean bazookas on jeeps firing on the move? If so, I'll try that if I have to..

[Erwin]

I think you'd have to dismount the zooks. But, hopefully into good cover hidden by smoke etc.

[ZPB II]

I could swear I've seen it happen but I've found it extremely hard to replicate and I'm thinking it was a rifle grenade instead of a bazooka. It doesn't help that I play real-time. The whole infantry firing from vehicles mechanic is a bit of a mystery.

But what I meant is simply fast moving right next to a tank under the cover of smoke and doing a quick dismount-and-pray. It has worked. I've taken out human controlled StuGs by juggling around them with AFV crews. I've also taken out two Tigers with a human wave attack from hundreds of meters away. Creative tactics do have inherent risks.

Also, especially on small maps it is a neat trick to look out for those cool dominant positions that a panzerfetishist would love to park his Tiger on and pose to the world, immune to all incoming fire while having a great view...Unless some gamey bastiche already preplotted these locations and has ordered delayed artillery barrages on TRPs just in case. He can always cancel them...

[theblitz]

The thing is. There were 11

If you want to play a historical game, you encounter a Tiger and then fall back and let the big guns handle it. You use artillery or aviation. You do not want to throw away lives needlessly. You cease fire and lose the match. This is realistic and historical.

People don't usually play QBs because they want to play a historical game,they play to 1) have fun 2) win (and not necessarily in this order )

That's the reason why in cmbn,for example,you'll see panthers more often than stugs or Pz IV,although this isn't historically accurate. And this is perfectly fine because on the other side you'll see M10s or Fireflies more often than it would be considered historically accurate.

You can't in a QB to simply call the naval guns,because you won't afford it. Nor can you wait to be reinforced with a tank battalion because you'll run out of time and lose. You can't just bypass the tigers because the map is of limited size. This are all artificial limitations which aren't historical,but limitations you'll have to live with

You can't expect to play a historically accurate gentlemen's match if one participant doesn't play by the unspoken rules. Especially if it's a ladder game where people play to win. Nuke his setup zone. Do it. You have to be a really lame and uninteresting person to think that you're allowed to buy Tigers but your opponent isn't allowed to do anything to win. It's behaviour that belongs to a kindergarten.

At the blitz we have a rule in effect against fire on the setup zone.Sure you can do it,but what fun would it be to play a game where it all comes down to who can afford the bigger guns?

[Bigduke6]

I haven't seen the QB price tables, but as a general matter of principle 155mm generously applied usually makes Tigers go away. Not least because, if Mr. German is tactically competent and supporting his uebertankie with infantry, that concentrates them quite nicely for several minutes of anti-personnel missions.

If open terrain favors the German and his uebertanks, long LOS also makes raining down death and destruction that much easier for the Americans, who are just overloaded with radios and telephones and binoculars and NCOs capable of seeing targets and adjusting fire, all the time while chewing unlit cigars.

You want gamey, just buy a ton of artillery, enough infantry to observe everything, forget the objectives, and just hammer anything that moves.

[Rocky Balboa]

As i see it the tigers are pretty much invulnerable to everything in the allied inventory and this means we'll see a lot of them in QBs

What tactics would you employ to counter the big cats? Or perhaps an agreement between the players that no tigers should be purchased is the best 'counter-measure'?

Perhaps a rule that any ladder game involving tigers must be played twice with the opponents switching sides before a win can be awarded.

Or at least give the US player an option after the game to declare another match.

[Dadekster88]

... where it all comes down to who can afford the bigger guns?

Funny how in war that's what it comes down to in the end.

[Fernando]

There were 17 Tigers from 2./s.Pz.Abt. 504 in Sicily. All of them but one were lost. All of them had to be blown up to prevent capture because there were no resources available to recover and repair them. The Werkstatt-Kompanie from H.G. was not ready to cope with the Tigers. It was not trained neither had the equipment for taking care of the big cats, so any mechanical problem meant a lost Tiger.

According to Major Griega, commander of Pz.Abt. 215 (15.PzGr.Div.) 10 Tigers were lost the first three days. All of them had had to be blown up to prevent capture. On 20 July three Tigers caught fire or were blown up, again to prevent capture. During the retreat three of the four remaining Tiger broke down and had to be blown up to prevent capture as well. The last Tiger was succesfully transported across the straits to the mainland.

Source: Jentz. T.L., "Panzertruppen", Vol. 2, Schiffer, Atglen PA, 1996

[ZPB II]

what fun would it be to play a game where it all comes down to who can afford the bigger guns?

What fun is it to play a game where it all comes down to who can afford the bigger tanks?

You can be pretty sure the guy buying Tigers isn't interested in both of you having fun.

I see a lot of fun in bombing the daylight out of the Tigers that someone purchased with the intention of getting an easy steamroll victory in a quick battle.

My point is, fight fire with fire. The other guy doesn't want a fair and fun fight in the name of good sports and a jolly time and instead opts to win at all costs to get his kicks. He doesn't want you to have fun so nuke his setup zone and deny him his cheap shot.

I for one would not like to play on this ladder of yours for this very reason. It should be either a no holds barred brawl or a gentlemens fight for fun. None of this "you can be as lame as you wish unless you cross an arbitrary line that isn't clearly definable by logic."

[eltorrente]

What fun is it to play a game where it all comes down to who can afford the bigger tanks?

You can be pretty sure the guy buying Tigers isn't interested in both of you having fun.

I see a lot of fun in bombing the daylight out of the Tigers that someone purchased with the intention of getting an easy steamroll victory in a quick battle.

My point is, fight fire with fire. The other guy doesn't want a fair and fun fight in the name of good sports and a jolly time and instead opts to win at all costs to get his kicks. He doesn't want you to have fun so nuke his setup zone and deny him his cheap shot.

I for one would not like to play on this ladder of yours for this very reason. It should be either a no holds barred brawl or a gentlemens fight for fun. None of this "you can be as lame as you wish unless you cross an arbitrary line that isn't clearly definable by logic."

So do you "fight fire with fire" before actually knowing that your opponent is going to buy a couple of Tigers and not play "fair"? How do you know that he is going to do that?

If you know he's going to play like that, then why would you play him at all?

Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work that way in my experience. If someone is "gamey" and plays like that, then I wouldn't waste my time playing him again.

[Sergei]

I guess the fairest solution is to play with equal forces (eg. Italians vs. Italians) unless the players can decide on any sort of house rules. Personally I find some basic house rules required for any Quick Battles. A tonnage limit on vehicles is one option.

[ZPB II]

So do you "fight fire with fire" before actually knowing that your opponent is going to buy a couple of Tigers and not play "fair"? How do you know that he is going to do that?

If you know he's going to play like that, then why would you play him at all?

Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work that way in my experience. If someone is "gamey" and plays like that, then I wouldn't waste my time playing him again.

By default I play for fun. I am going under the assumption that we are discussing the typical CM scene, which involves long time partners and ladders where you get to know people and recognize certain patterns. Most, including me, would choose the obvious option, the one Steve always reminds us of whenever a discussion about what's gamey and what's not crops up. I wouldn't play him again.

But if you absolutely want or have to play against such a person, then my advice is valid.

[MikeyD]

The first time I tried playing a QB with a pair of Tigers I found myself facing Stuarts. I thought I was guaranteed total victory til I found my running gear shot away on both tanks just short of the victory objective and a T30 firing 75mm HEAT rounds into my rear end. Oh, and I was playing against the AI too, which made it even more humiliating.

[eltorrente]

By default I play for fun. I am going under the assumption that we are discussing the typical CM scene, which involves long time partners and ladders where you get to know people and recognize certain patterns. Most, including me, would choose the obvious option, the one Steve always reminds us of whenever a discussion about what's gamey and what's not crops up. I wouldn't play him again.

But if you absolutely want or have to play against such a person, then my advice is valid.

Bombarding the setup zone is MUCH, MUCH more gamey than picking a unit that is "legally" available to purchase in the unit selection screen.

[ZPB II]

This whole discussion got me thinking... I used to play a hundreds of CMx1 games as TCP/IP. I would hang out at the CMHQ chat and stalk new prey. I had all the optimal force buys thought out for all different time periods. I always bought the cheesiest possible units available and used all the underhanded and gamey tactics in the book. I was 15 and I was pwning n00bs three to four times my age. Rush the objectives on turn 1 and send blobs of M8 HMCs hugging the map edge racing forward. Good times.

Now, I don't think I've ever done the same thing in CMx2. I always buy the rarer and more obscure stuff that just isn't so good. Halftracks with 37mm pop guns, Stugs in the bocage, Panzer IVs and now IIIs. Infantry guns on the offense.

It's just such a tremendous simulation that I find myself doing things that I know I shouldn't do just so I can watch drama unfold in real time. I send tanks racing through hostile terrain just in the hopes of getting to watch a potential Medal of Honor in the works. I find that using perfect textbook tactics, meticulously clearing cover after another with a base of fire and manouver elements while avoiding risks is boring.

[ZPB II]

Bombarding the setup zone is MUCH, MUCH more gamey than picking a unit that is "legally" available to purchase in the unit selection screen.

Please elaborate on this logic. It's perfectly legal to bombard anywhere on the map when we use game terms.

[eltorrente]

Please elaborate on this logic. It's perfectly legal to bombard anywhere on the map when we use game terms.

In an attack/defend scenario, sure it's fine if you are the attacker. Other than that, it's silly and unrealistic because the enemy is bunched up in a small setup zone that is known to you and you can destroy most of his forces on the first turn.

You've already stated how you enjoy gamey tactics, so no point trying to convince you. Keep "pwning n00bs" with any means possible, I'm sure you're a real treat to play against.

[ZPB II]

In an attack/defend scenario, sure it's fine if you are the attacker. Other than that, it's silly and unrealistic because the enemy is bunched up in a small setup zone that is known to you and you can destroy most of his forces on the first turn.

You've already stated how you enjoy gamey tactics, so no point trying to convince you. Keep "pwning n00bs" with any means possible, I'm sure you're a real treat to play against.

The Tiger is right there in the QB menu. You pick it and know what it means to you and your opponent. The same can be said for prebattle artillery. It's there and it's up to the player to decide. I can't see how you can think these two are different things? How is being restricted to small setup zones different from being restricted to fighting supertanks with sticks and stones? You know your enemy has very limited counters to your supertanks and is going to be destroyed in the subsequent turns.

I will also congratulate you on not reading and comprehending the content of my posts and then deciding to go personal. Real solid job there. I'm impressed actually. Do you know when CMBO came out?