What's being underutilized?

[MikeyD]

I see few game screenshots or movies of SU-152s (KV chassis), SU-85s, late war (September timeframe) T-34-85s or the big ball mount ISU-152s. Is some equipment simply being under-utilized, like that kid in gym class who always gets picked last when choosing teams?

Maybe players are happily playing everything but just aren't commenting on it. Or maybe they're forgetting there's more tucked away than first meets the eye. If the default QB date is June, why bother switching to September? If the default SP gun is ISU-152 why bother switching to SU-85?

[db_zero]

Bigger is better syndrome? In all the h2h battles I've played so far I got IS2's, T-34/85, SU-122s and SU-76s.

Quite happy with the SU-122's as they are good Panther killers. So far my SU-76s have been murdered, but I do like their smoke capability.

I suppose the SU-85s have a faster reloading time as the shell is one piece, but I have noticed the 85mm is not always effective against a Panther.

Whats has been a pleasant surprise is the Soviet 45mm AT gun. In 2 h2h games its proven to be a nasty Mark IV killer and its taken out a Panther with a side shot. I also hit and penetrated 2 other Panthers with side shots, but it didn't kill the tank. It appears they are not easy to spot.

I haven't been able to use the SU-152 or any Tigers yet.

[H1nd]

The real question is why should you use anything else than t-34-85 in Quick Battles? (preferably late model ofc)

[Lt Belenko]

I avoid T-70s too. Most of my QBs are smaller and I don't go for the recon stuff.

[JasonC]

If you want to appreciate T-70s, try a German force with light armor and you will see the point of them. When the Germans have a few 20mm PSWs, MG armed SPWs, and 1-2 Stummels, suddenly an actual tank with a 45mm main gun looks pretty darn good...

[MikeyD]

The real question is why should you use...

Heh heh, this brings up the old topic of differing gameplay philosophies. There's the "play to WIN!" folks, and then there are the "Making my own war movie" folks. One tries to maximize firepower, the other tries to get that perfect dramatic movie camera shot.

[Pewpewchewchew]

I personally like the SU-76 a lot. It's not the best "tank" in any means for for the amount that you can bring its definitely something.

[H1nd]

Heh heh, this brings up the old topic of differing gameplay philosophies. There's the "play to WIN!" folks, and then there are the "Making my own war movie" folks. One tries to maximize firepower, the other tries to get that perfect dramatic movie camera shot.

Aye, there is also that the eastern front does not quite feel right to me without rampaging horde of t-34's blasting away everything in their path. But yes it is also my judgement on most economical choice between mobility, firepower and armored protection versus points used per individual unit. Just like the soviets did

It's also makes very dramatic camera shot..

The only problem is that you pretty much need to have lots of them grouped together if going against Tiger in order to atleast disable it's gun if firing from range.

[Oddball_E8]

BA-64...

I can PROMISE you that it is definately being under utilized... and with good reason... thing can hardly stand up against submachinegun fire...

[wadepm]

Definitely the Nashorn. But that should change soon...

[Lethaface]

Well in the campaign so far I have only received SU-76's, which are certainly not being underutilized!

[Kauz]

It seems to me that a lot of units do not get in use ....especially because of the rarity points.

Despite that.... i often ask myself how the costs of units got determined by the developers.

Is it their amount on the battlefield? Is it the costs economical wise (Rubel, Dollar, Reichsmark)? Is it a abstract firepower? Or is just a mix? Or is it arbitrary?

For instance:

When i play russian...i always buy 10-30 artillery units of the 82mm katjusha rocket launcher. (they cost nothing)

Why i should buy for 30-60 creditpoints a single machine gun unit when i can buy for 15-35 credits a katjusha rocket launcher.

I always pulverize the whole battlefield with my 10-30 rockets launcher and decimate the whole enemy infantry with low costs and casualties....

then i attack....

In case i play german....i just try to spam with Panthers (may be some infantry for recon purposes).....all other purchasable units....no matter if tanks, artillery, air-force or infantry seems to me more or less useless/inefficient in comparison

Eventually a single King tiger could be a option (because of his armor) for spotting and advancing without loosing him.

As german defender it may be an option instead of Panthers to buy 75mm Pak40 (other guns are to easy to spot and hit....the 88mm for example is just a victim in comparison....even on 2000 meters the enemy tanks are able to hit it with their first to third shot....)

One thing which i not tried and think could be an option is the 150mm sig33 infantry gun against infantry attacks....

[Vanir Ausf B]

Despite that.... i often ask myself how the costs of units got determined by the developers.

Is it their amount on the battlefield? Is it the costs economical wise (Rubel, Dollar, Reichsmark)? Is it a abstract firepower? Or is just a mix? Or is it arbitrary?

I am fairly sure there are formulas that take into account various unit attributes. The weights assigned to these attributes relative to each other will necessarily be somewhat arbitrary.

For instance:

When i play russian...i always buy 10-30 artillery units of the 82mm katjusha rocket launcher. (they cost nothing)

Why i should buy for 30-60 creditpoints a single machine gun unit when i can buy for 15-35 credits a katjusha rocket launcher.

I always pulverize the whole battlefield with my 10-30 rockets launcher and decimate the whole enemy infantry with low costs and casualties....

then i attack....

Unit prices are generally reasonable, but Soviet rockets (and U.S rockets in CMBN) are an exception. They are seriously jacked up, price-wise, to the extent that I ban them from my QBs. This is not a big deal for U.S. rockets which were very rare, but it's a shame for the Katushas.

[Kauz]

I am fairly sure there are formulas that take into account various unit attributes. The weights assigned to these attributes relative to each other will necessarily be somewhat arbitrary.

Unit prices are generally reasonable, but Soviet rockets (and U.S rockets in CMBN) are an exception. They are seriously jacked up, price-wise, to the extent that I ban them from my QBs. This is not a big deal for U.S. rockets which were very rare, but it's a shame for the Katushas.

Yep...in case of 82mm rockets we seem to agree.

But if you take a closer look you will find a lot other examples.

A light machine gun unit for instance ...it cost low (in real life), is widely established on the battlefield in real life and has low firepower (in relation).....and despite these 3 aspects it is quite expensive in relation to other units (for example: infantry gun, 20mm flak).

[Vanir Ausf B]

A Flak 38 (20mm) costs 2.3x as much as an LMG42, so I'm not seeing a serious problem there.

[Childress]

Despite that.... i often ask myself how the costs of units got determined by the developers. Is it their amount on the battlefield? Is it the costs economical wise (Rubel, Dollar, Reichsmark)? Is it a abstract firepower? Or is just a mix? Or is it arbitrary?

Steve re-introduced, under duress, the unit purchasing system after Shock Force. QB players lobbied for it but Steve found it impossible to fine tune to everyone's satisfaction. Entire forum pages were devoted to the relative costs of SMG units or Shermans. Was it fair? Unfair!!? Constant adjustments were added and tweaked. Finally BF gave up. Like Sisyphus who was doomed to push a boulder uphill, only to have it roll back down to push it up again.

You shouldn't expect any changes except for the most glaring discrepancies (themselves open to heated controversies).

[Kauz]

Steve re-introduced, under duress, the unit purchasing system after Shock Force. QB players lobbied for it but Steve found it impossible to fine tune to everyone's satisfaction. Entire forum pages were devoted to the relative costs of SMG units or Shermans. Was it fair? Unfair!!? Constant adjustments were added and tweaked. Finally BF gave up. Like Sisyphus who was doomed to push a boulder uphill, only to have it roll back down to push it up again.

You shouldn't expect any changes except for the most glaring discrepancies (themselves open to heated controversies).

well at least the 82mm katjusha rocket price is one of the candidates....

EDIT:

if possible i would establish economical prices (dollar, rubel, ...) which are set in relation to each other.

For sure tanks become much more expensive than an infantry group ....but they were also less established on the battlefield.....

If someone wants to fight a tank-battle he just gets more money...and this money he only can spend for tanks....

[db_zero]

If you want to appreciate T-70s, try a German force with light armor and you will see the point of them. When the Germans have a few 20mm PSWs, MG armed SPWs, and 1-2 Stummels, suddenly an actual tank with a 45mm main gun looks pretty darn good...

Sounds like a RT version of Cats Chasing Dogs is in order.

[Childress]

if possible i would establish economical prices (dollar, rubel, ...) which are set in relation to each other.

For sure tanks become much more expensive than an infantry group ....but they were also less established on the battlefield.....

If someone wants to fight a tank-battle he just gets more money...and this money he only can spend for tanks....

The only solution is enabling players to upload their own pricing systems. Even if the ensuing debates force BF to add another sub-forum. Using convoluted rules and charts (remember Fionn?) will never win durable appeal. Also hth quick battles (and MEs) seem to have declined in popularity relative to scenarios. Could be wrong about that, tho'.

[LukeFF]

While we're on the subject, I was absolutely amazed (while compiling the German Parade Ground mission) how many different vehicles are fielded by the German army in just this first installment of CMRT. That, and the overall quality of the vehicle and gun textures has gone up quite a bit since CMBN, IMO. Not that the textures in CMBN are bad (because they aren't), but the level of detail has noticeably gone up (again IMO).

[Oddball_E8]

While we're on the subject, I was absolutely amazed (while compiling the German Parade Ground mission) how many different vehicles are fielded by the German army in just this first installment of CMRT. That, and the overall quality of the vehicle and gun textures has gone up quite a bit since CMBN, IMO. Not that the textures in CMBN are bad (because they aren't), but the level of detail has noticeably gone up (again IMO).

And then we install Aris' mods and they look even more stunning

[John Kettler]

Kauz,

Did I miss something? Aren't Katyusha formations Army and Corps level assets, therefore not typically available at CMRT level of play? Remember, DIVARTY consists of a mere three Battalions: 2 x 76mm ZIS-3 and 1 x 122mm M38.

Here's what the excellent site WW II Artillery has to say.

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html

"Mortars and rockets play a greater role in the Soviet army than any other. Mortars are massed and used (and observed for) like conventional artillery; while rockets are under corps control and are added to key breakthrough attacks. In the attack, self-propelled artillery such as the SU-122 and SU-152 are used heavily for direct-fire artillery support. 120mm and 82mm mortars have roughly the same effects and burst radii as 122mm howitzers and 76mm guns, respectively.

76mm guns are widely used for direct-fire support of infantry and tanks. Less commonly, they're used as conventional artillery. 122mm howitzers are the backbone of conventional Soviet artillery, and 152's are used to supplement or against tougher targets. 122mm guns and 152mm gun-howitzers tend to show up in corps artillery. Antitank guns see heavy use."

My conclusion? Unless conducting a full-blown attack, they shouldn't be available at all.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

Breakthrough attack support was doctrine, but they were used opportunistically in other roles, notably instant counterattack support, as operational reserves, etc. They were motorized and fast, readily got into firing position, did one stonk and got out of dodge. It was normal to move at least 10 km after a salvo to avoid counterbattery or any other sweep, and reload at the new location, well off the line.

The unrealistic bit is the price and the way it encourages overuse of the smallest variety. In the real war, the 132mm variety was by far the most common, about 3/5ths of the rocket units, with the others split evenly between lights and heavies. The lights needed a particularly soft target to be effective, and were marginal at best vs dug in positions, limiting their prep fire usefulness.

[Kauz]

Kauz,

Did I miss something? Aren't Katyusha formations Army and Corps level assets, therefore not typically available at CMRT level of play? Remember, DIVARTY consists of a mere three Battalions: 2 x 76mm ZIS-3 and 1 x 122mm M38.

Here's what the excellent site WW II Artillery has to say.

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html

"Mortars and rockets play a greater role in the Soviet army than any other. Mortars are massed and used (and observed for) like conventional artillery; while rockets are under corps control and are added to key breakthrough attacks. In the attack, self-propelled artillery such as the SU-122 and SU-152 are used heavily for direct-fire artillery support. 120mm and 82mm mortars have roughly the same effects and burst radii as 122mm howitzers and 76mm guns, respectively.

76mm guns are widely used for direct-fire support of infantry and tanks. Less commonly, they're used as conventional artillery. 122mm howitzers are the backbone of conventional Soviet artillery, and 152's are used to supplement or against tougher targets. 122mm guns and 152mm gun-howitzers tend to show up in corps artillery. Antitank guns see heavy use."

My conclusion? Unless conducting a full-blown attack, they shouldn't be available at all.

Regards,

John Kettler

John,

i do not understand your question.

I only said, that i always buy in quick battles (depending on the size of the map and the money) minimum 10-30 of 82mm katjusha rocket launcher to annihilate the enemy infantry on the map .

Why i am doing this? Because i can....a 82mm katjuahs only costs 15-35 bucks (depending on the version) ...

nothing can beat this cost-benefit ratio....(why buying a LMG unit for the same or even more money if i can use a katjusha rocket launcher) :-)

I do a lot of tests and try to find out which unit is capable of what for its money.

Rarity is one thing which forbids a lot of units, but simple firepower for the money the other point.

And a lot of unit-costs stand neither in relation to their firepower nor in relation to their economical costs (Dollar, rubel, reichsmark).

sometimes it depends a little on the situation and sure you can buy some exceptions (like 1 King tiger if you have enough money).

But regulary when i play german the most relevant units are Panther and may be some infs for recon-purposes.

(if you are german-defender you may eventually buy 75mmPak40 and some infantry with panzerschrecks and perhaps 81mm or 120mm mortar with TRP ).

As russian i so far always spam with 82mm rocket launcher...the infantry is dead after that.

[Baneman]

John,

i do not understand your question.

...

He asked because in almost all your other threads, you have been arguing about aspects ( weapons etc. ) that you think behave unrealistically, but in a Quick Battle, you're happy to "spam" rocket launchers to flatten the entire battlefield.