Germans vs Allied in PBEM

[Johnno]

M.Bates (is your first name Master?)

I'm partly replying to the post by Big Time software on this topic:

--------------------------------------------

Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but it is also my opinion that there is no balancing problem. I play the US more than I do the Germans, and I have NO problem beating the Germans on either attack or defense.

---------------------------------------------

I agree with this post from BTS, I'm been reading a lot of these posts here and thought I was underclassed by the players here being new to this game. However, new to strategy I'm not, I've played a lot of the scenarios so far and won everyone except the first "Carenton" which I tried first as the GERMANS. This was my learning experience, I played as the germans in this huge operation and ended up the allies won by minor victory.

I pretty much play either side 50/50 and feel that now I have to have a human equivilent because I'm too sexy for the AI, to sexy for the AI to seexy foooor the AI.

Email me for a challenge Johnno

johnnocm@direct.ca

[This message has been edited by Johnno (edited 10-07-2000).]

[M. Bates]

Surely, if the matter of German advantage was so clear cut, then people would not be making posts to the contrary.

If the Allies in World War II had no air power, then they would have found life far more difficult - yet this is the case in Combat Mission.

PBEM players are in the ridiculous situation of playing battles with four or five platoons of soldiers, no air support, yet regularly call on mega artillery to soften up the opposition!

As regards balanced forces, how likely is it that all these Tigers and King Tigers, with inevitably veteran crews, are cropping up all the time?

I don't get these people who say there is no problem with PBEM. So let's take the Allied attack/German defend situation to the extreme, and I am well aware that D Day is not simulated... but if the forces were "balanced", with the Allies asked to take twice the number of beaches with the same number of men, who would then win? The Germans of course!

------------------

"War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker."

- Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman:

On the other hand I don't know why you've got that in your head Cav, on every thread where people want to improve German equipment you're in there arguing, hell or high water, they shouldn't be able to.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly. I argue against a one-sided attempt to upgrade German equipment. "Historical" is only used when it suits certain parties.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I see lots of people wanting to improve German equipment, yes, but none saying "but you can't increase the cost to keep gameplay balanced". Lots of people, myself included, feel that is how the late part of the war worked anyway, with German equipment advantages, especially in tanks, matched by Allied material and manpower advantages. Look at how many Shermans, Churchills, and T-34's were produced compared to Panthers, probably 10 times as many. There has to be some reasons why the war was not a walkover for the Allies after '43, especially with the tactical and strategic air superiority the Allies had.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One only has to look at the Western Europe loss ratio to see how "one-sided" it was.

[Pham911]

Speaking as a German player(usually);

I don't root for the SS to win. There are more units than the SS in CM, and even if I am playing with an SS force I don't root for the SS(and the political implications associated with them), but for my command ability to win over another person. It's not like I'm gearing up to commit genocide if I beat someone on a ladder match.

Also, I don't see a great imbalance at all. I will attack, defend, or meet as the Germans, and have had mixed luck with any situations. A recent PBEM game(ongoing), had a platoon of light armor crest a hill to pelt some advancing infantry, then retreat back behind the hill. Good plan, but the enemy had deployed two TD's on top of the other hill(which was on his side), hidden in a nook that blocked LOS to them from anywhere but the hill I was coming over. They were already traversed and ready to fire when my armor appeared and I then lost 3 of my tanks in the space of 10 seconds and was unable to return effective fire.

I just lost a PzIV in the same game to a 110m bazooka shot while my tank was going top speed to flee a high profile area. Then, the other tank that was with it found itself broadside to a Sherman that my opponent had re-deployed(I assume) to counter my tank mobility and firepower.

My point is this, complaining about lack of balance in PBEM doesn't seem valid to me. If you're asking for a better balance in long range tank dueling power, I'd have to ask why you're taking on German armor(or any armor, really) across long, open spaces. You can kill German armor easily if you manuver around and intelligently attack it.

It should never get to a point where 5 Shermans cost as much as 1 Tiger, as that would tip the scales in favor of the Allie player who parks his armor and tried to slug it out with anyone who shows thier head way too much.

I'm not sure what's really being asked of BTS here. Should tank cost be relative to your opponents tank costs? Or, should the Allies be granted an automatic bonus(which is the same effect as the previous question)?

[Jarmo]

I must admit it's a whole lot of easier to fight with the german

heavies. Just point towards the enemy and hope for the best.

That doesn't give the german player much of an advantage though,

assuming both players know what they're doing.

You must use more tactics as allies, but you have the tools for it.

[Bigdog]

Well being an Axis oppenent I must say my German iron burns as well as Allied steel. I have Pz IVs killed by greyhounds, I have had Panthers killed by M5 Stuarts, (you know what a pisser that is). So even 37mm is effective with side or flank shots. I don't purchase Tigers much but it seems the 2 times I have, that I still have not had 1 make it through the whole battle yet. I am dying to use a King Tiger just to see if it could hold its own against 3 or 4 M4s. I find that my cheap STU IIIs do the lions share of my armor work & the big $ armor has some drawbacks.

1. Cost -Pz VIb, Pz VI, Pz V, & JagdPanther all are +175pts

2. Slow Turret or No Turret!

3. Cost

And as far as Infantry goes I see no advantage with the Axis. The Allied company comes with support, ie zooks, mortars & Axis has to buy shricks & mortars. Just my 2¢.

Big Dog

[M. Bates]

It's all very well for these people posting their 5,000 point gigantic AAR's, where tanks are mown down like cannon fodder but with 1,000 to 1,500 pointers, if the German player has a King Tiger there ain't much you can do with your Shermans. I don't know how common King Tigers were, but when I last saw the production figure for them I was surprised at how few were actually made. Then in a PBEM you meet a Dream Team of two Tigers and a King Tiger, which are basically invincible.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bates wrote"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Surely, if the matter of German advantage was so clear cut, then people would not be making posts to the contrary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh... I don't understand this at all There is NO clear cut advantage for the German player. If there were, we would have had many, many threads arguing that we have underprices/overrated the Germans. We have had only one thread so far and that is the one Willhammer mentioned. And I think that it is clear that the Germans are not under priced at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the Allies in World War II had no air power, then they would have found life far more difficult - yet this is the case in Combat Mission.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, and if the Germans didn't have Tigers and Panthers they would have found life more difficult. I don't understand the point here. If the Americans have a harder time in a CM battle it is because they would have had a harder time in a real life battle too.

As for air cover DURING a tactical battle... the Allies very, very rarely had such a thing. Allied airpower was generally not hanging around an active battlefield. They did, instead, shoot up the stuff before and after a battle, not during.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PBEM players are in the ridiculous situation of playing battles with four or five platoons of soldiers, no air support, yet regularly call on mega artillery to soften up the opposition!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is historically incorrect about this? The lack of superior numbers and overwhelming force for the Allied forces? Read more accounts of battles and you will find that this was more often the case than not. The myth of Allied material advantage at the tactical level, as a rule, is just that... a myth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As regards balanced forces, how likely is it that all these Tigers and King Tigers, with inevitably veteran crews, are cropping up all the time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do a Search for the recent discussions on "Rarity". You will see this discussed in depth. But note that when the German side buys the big stuff they are paying MORE for less. When I play the Germans I generally rather take 3 or 4 PzIVs than 2 or 3 Panthers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't get these people who say there is no problem with PBEM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they win as the Allies perhaps? I know I do. Again, how many threads have there been bitching that the Germans are some unbeatable foe in PBEM games? This is the FIRST one I can think of, as the ones talking about cost were just that -> discussing cost. So you are entitled to your opinion, but realize that it is only that. Your opinion. As someone that can beat the Germans as the Allies I strongly disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but if the forces were "balanced", with the Allies asked to take twice the number of beaches with the same number of men, who would then win? The Germans of course!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what do you base this on? There are plenty of examples where small Allied forced defeated larger German ones. As with real life events, the conditions of the battle and better command of the situation generally lead to victory.

So... I counter that someone who is positive that the Germans are INHERENTLY superior needs to brush up on his tactical skills. They are not INHERENTLY superior and can therefore be beaten by superior tactical skills and a bit of luck (luck ALWAYS plays a significant role in battle, no matter which side you play).

I will acknowledge that it is sometimes harder to play against a German player because of the "heavies" they have, but impossible? No way. I offer as proof the above mentioned PBEM game that I have now finished...

Allied Minor Victory. Dang, one turn more and I would have wiped out the last of his infantry AND taken back the Minor Victory location (I was only 50m away from contesting it, 100m from taking it). Overall, I took more casualties than I thought, about 50% of them were from a 150mm artillery barrage, which is a weapon not unique to the Germans I might add This was not an Attack/Defend battle either. We had *EVEN* points to start out with too, so I guess I should have lost?

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-07-2000).]

[Capt. Lortie]

Was said:

"I don't know how common King Tigers were, but when I last saw the production figure for them I was surprised at how few were actually made. Then in a PBEM you meet a Dream Team of two Tigers and a King Tiger, which are basically invincible"

Well help me here Mr. bates. You call 2 tigers and a King Tiger a dream team. I ahve before my eyes the pretty record of Michael Wittman's "dreamy" day on June 13. Only marginally supported by his 4 tanks, brought the 7th Armoured Division to a complete halt (Michael Reynolds: Steel Inferno, p. 126) Believe it or not, he knowcked out 20 Cromwells, 4 Fireflys, 3 Stuarts, 3 artillery shermans and the list goes on. So as you say, meeting a tiger and a king tiger was not rare and yes, it was a hell of a bad day for whoever was standing in the way. Notice how much ink, in veterans' memoirs, is dedicated to the day they had to fight a couple of panthers or tigers.

But notice the brilliant element of luck introduced in CM. I have played the Villers-Bocage battle at least 7 times: Wittman was killed in 6 battles, although I used different strategies. There you have it. If I had been as experienced as the real Wittman was, CM would have allowed me to carry the day. But I was not up to the task.

Thanks

[Guest Pillar]

M Bates,

Send me a setup open terrain, moderate hills, dry, clear, you take germans, I'll take allies, 1500 points. May, 1945.

Armour.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 10-07-2000).]

[Guest grunto]

i find the germans to be more 'brittle' than the americans. take for instance the squad situation. many german pbemers appear to go for the fallschirmjagers with 10 men.

usually though its 12-men american squads against 8 or 9-men german squads.

so on a platoon level the u.s. has a 20-50% advantage in manpower.

the german armored cars are not as good as the m8 greyhound in my opinion.

75mm support is readily available, either through FOs or on-board M8 HMCs.

The chaffee is the best recon vehicle in the game.

anyway it's is just my sense that the germans are more 'brittle' overall.

heavy armor is expensive.

so much of the game comes down to the terrain situation and movement. i think that the presence of german heavy tanks will only result in a mismatch on a relatively open, large board in conjunction with allied movement blunders.

on a closed in board with (for whatever reason) low los, in my opinion the germans are at a disadvatage, that is unless they get fusilers or vgd smg squads isolated on american infantry at close range.

well i could go on and on about specific mismatches, but if i have any opinion right now it's that some of the germans are 'too weak.'

i would like to investigate whether more ammo could realistically be added to the spw250/9, and also think that the 20mm should be better against moving targets, at least by the 3rd or 4th 'shot' where the gunners would be assumed to have figured out just how much to lead the moving target.

also, the mg42 may need to be improved against american halftracks and scout cars, just a _tad_.

but in no way has it been my experience that the germans are invincible... quite the opposite in fact.

the way to get even pbem qbs is to play a certain situation identically 'both ways,' or 'mirrored.' this is the fairest way in my opinion.

this also allows for 'dual-assaults' where it is a test to see which defender can hold on the best in an identical situation at a 2:1 point disadvantage. i can't see the point in playing such a battle 'non-mirrored.' though.

on the other hand i'm always interested in yet another 'mirrored assault pbem.'

(to no one in particular) mirrored is the only way to go.... then you can see if the germans really are great, or if you just tend to get beaten either way

andy

[Wilhammer]

In relation to my cost/FP analysis post;

As I illustrated, the German player does have an apparent cost to FP advantage since he has an excellent selection of troops to choose from. This is the weakness of the QB system in that the German player can buy a dispraportionate force of heavily armed troops relative to what a "real" pool of troops would have.

However, as Steve pointed out, and I have proved for myself, is that this is not the only thing to consider in purchasing a force.

The German squads are more brittle, they do lack staying power.

My original gripe is that some rarity scheme to have an optional place/time "historical" QB is missing from the QB system. BTS is going to do something about this in CM2.

All, in all, if you are considering that what the QB is trying to simulate is relative equivalence in force capability purchase options to create evenly "game" balanced battles, then CM's current QB system lives up to it's promise.

If you feel you are getting the ****ty end of the stick as the Allied player in QBs, review your tactics and your opponent. If your opponent is always german in relatively large flat terrain battles, and he has to have King Tigers, then that opponent has skewed the system.

Now if I could just get really good at this game.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Send me a setup open terrain, moderate hills, dry, clear, you take germans, I'll take allies, 1500 points. May, 1945.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do I smell a smelly cat? A smellycat from hell?

[Spook]

As an added PBEM anecdote, I & my opponent opted for one of the "historical" scenarios posted at the CM HQ.

*****(POSSIBLE SPOILER BELOW)***********

To prevent "full spoiler", I won't cite the scenario by name. But it featured TEN of those frigging King Tiger monsters with a few other vehicles thrown in for support. Against this was a "US Combined Arms Team" with 12 M4's (three with 76's) and with 3 M36 TD's later on.

One might have argued, in the scope of most CM scenarios, that the Germans had their ultimate "dream team" here.

Well, After 15 turns, the score stood at three M4's lost for six KT's, at which time my opponent requested to call the game. The significant covering terrain helped, but it also helped in that I applied preconceived flank ambushes, shoot-&-scoot, "team play" with multiple tanks at a time, and smoke screens for the tank movements where appropriate.

Sure, "Uber Panzers" are daunting to face head-on, especially when they are defending and in the hands of a skilful opponent. But that's the challenge given to you sometimes as an Allied player---under such circumstances, it's left to you to apply the right tactics (like I gave above as examples), the right timing, and to outguess your opponent.

[PeterNZer]

If you have a real problem with it, ask the germy player to stick to Fionn's rule of 76 No guns bigger than 76mm

do a search, I can't be bothered explaining hehe it gets detailed.

PeterNZ

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hamsters Wrote:

PeterNZ: He hasn’t proven to be particularly valiant but I think he’d make a good doorman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jarmo]

One more note to sum this up.

The first round of Rugged defense ladder tournament is complete.

It was done with quick battle meeting encounters. British vs germans.

Everybody played with both sides.

"The average result of the games thusfar is 45,9% for Axis and 49,3% for Allies."

This would seem to indicate no major advantage for the germans.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve:

So... I counter that someone who is positive that the Germans are INHERENTLY superior needs to brush up on his tactical skills. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that, and I think we should frame this one and put up over the wall of the board.

------------------

Andreas

[Mark IV]

This latest "I lost a (PBEM, AFV, etc.) so the game needs fixing" thread piqued my interest, so I set up a 1500 pt. QB against the AI with attacker at minus 10%, me as Allies attacking. Open farmland, small hills, dry at dawn, AI picked all the forces.

Axis surrender on turn 20, with 14 vehicles wiped (I lost 7). Axis had about 6 StuG III, 2 Hetzers, 2 PSW234/1, a PzIV/70, and 3 Mk IVs dominating one large central hill.

My deadliest weapons? The flanking Stuarts, one of which quietly killed 5 AFVs and a flak gun while they dueled Sherman 75Ws (I had one Sherm 105 as well). The mortars and two arty spotters helped (whacked a couple of StuGs with top hits). A 'zook crept laboriously across a wheatfield to plant a rocket in the side of the Pz IV/70.

All my troops were Regulars, by the way. I wouldn't ordinarily recommend a head-on shoot-out with short 75s against Axis tanks on a hill, but they had some of the very little slight cover available and allowed the Stuarts to work into firing position.

I guess this proves those darned German tanks are too vulnerable to top hits, eh? Or is this just a balanced game where real world tactics work, and "things" happen?

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's all very well for these people posting their 5,000 point gigantic AAR's, where tanks are mown down like cannon fodder but with 1,000 to 1,500 pointers, if the German player has a King Tiger there ain't much you can do with your Shermans. I don't know how common King Tigers were, but when I last saw the production figure for them I was surprised at how few were actually made. Then in a PBEM you meet a Dream Team of two Tigers and a King Tiger, which are basically invincible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, I tend to play Axis more often than the Allies, just because there are so many unique toys, and they are just damn stylish. But there are some MAJOR weak links in the German equipment, believe me.

But you talk about Ubertank invincibility? No way, I killed:

1 Tiger

1 King Tiger

1 JagdPanther

2 Stugs

with:

2 Hellcats

1 Jumbo

2 Sherman 75's

1 Priest

Now, I couldnt just stand and deliver in the open plains, but I smacked them down hard, with maneuver and tricky firing angles, and a bit of luck.

[ScoutPL]

I'll play all comers and I'll always do it as the allies. Not because I dislike playing the germans, but becuase everyone else seems to love playing them so much. German success in CM is quite like their success on the battlefield. When they were successful they held a doctrinal or technological advantage against their opponents. Take those advantages away and the party's over. A lot of players like the germans because they dont underestand how battles are fought and they fall into the cherry inclination that bigger is always better. Actually, synchronization, combined arms, and good planning are the keys to success. So if you want to take on my 30th Infantry Division guys with your SS fanatics, then bring it on! I'll kick your tail just like those shopkeepers, farmers, and newspapermen of the real 30th did!!

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911:

My point is this, complaining about lack of balance in PBEM doesn't seem valid to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we want "balance" or realism? My problem comes in when one side argues for realistic historic equipment, or the perceived realism, for one side but at the same time prevents the other side from have its historic and realistic levels.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

It should never get to a point where 5 Shermans cost as much as 1 Tiger, as that would tip the scales in favor of the Allie player who parks his armor and tried to slug it out with anyone who shows thier head way too much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it just likely be to much like "real life" in WWII. Not many want to play the Germans with the historical disadvantage that they had.

Cav

[Jeff Heidman]

Perhaps I am confused, but are people actually claiming that the QBs are unbalanced because they do not represent historical reality?

Huh? Historical reality is that there was very little balance in 99% of all engagements at this level. Usually one side (almost always the Allies after 6-6-44) had overwhelming superiority in men and equipment and would roll over their opponenets. What fun is that?

I have won (and lost) with both sides more than enough to convince me that the game is balanced fine. Scenario design and skill play such a large roll that any conceivable inherent balance issue is undetectable.

If CM reflected history at teh tactical scale, either WW2 would have ended in a stalemate, or CM QBs would be very uninteresting for whichever side got the orders to hold a village with a depleted company of infantry and a single AT gun against a battalion sized mechanized combat team.

Jeff Heidman

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My problem comes in when one side argues for realistic historic equipment, or the perceived realism, for one side but at the same time prevents the other side from have its historic and realistic levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cav, I've read the threads to which you refer and I don't recall ANYONE making that case. There were folks who thought German optics should add more advantage to spotting/accuracy at longer ranges, and folks who questioned why optics were not specifically taken into account, when gyrostabilizers were.

The saner of those arguments were refuted, or at least countered. Without taking a side in those debates, I can't say I recall anyone seriously arguing that optics should be added while gyros should be removed. Even the flamiest posts weren't arguing for an arbitrary German advantage.

I believe CM was supposed to be a game offering realistic models of WWII equipment and tactics. The "balance" factor is up to the scenario designer, and the forces at the beginning of a scenario represent those present after the pre-shelling, strafing, bombing, starvation, etc., at the beginning of the actual ground contact by company/battalion-sized ground forces.

There are plenty of historical scenarios with accurate OOBs which demonstrate local parity in force size. Then it comes down to tactics and, yes, equipment. You can't play Allies very successfully using Axis-type tactics, nor vice versa. They really HAD different equipment with differing characteristics and the game reflects this well.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Huh? Historical reality is that there was very little balance in 99% of all engagements at this level. Usually one side (almost always the Allies after 6-6-44) had overwhelming superiority in men and equipment and would roll over their opponenets. What fun is that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the question is, "What fun is it to have the German superiority modeled but not the Allied?"

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

I guess the question is, "What fun is it to have the German superiority modeled but not the Allied?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not fun at all. Has someone made that argument?

Jeff Heidan