Rough guide for historic, non-gamey tank purchasing?

[Jarmo]

I'd like to play non-gamey.

From what I've read, I gather it'd be best to discuss about it with

my opponent before the play.

But what should be allowed?

OK, 10 Panzer IV's would be fine, while 5 king tigers are a no no.

I know this much. But how about a Jagdpanther? 2 Jagdpanthers?

Are you ever allowed to get a Jumbo? Or a King tiger? How about

a platoon of Panthers?

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest Germanboy]

Hi Jarmo,

good question. I think if you only use one or two (depending on the size of the battle of course) of the big ones, that should be fine. Panthers were quite ubiquitous, so there should not be a problem. Also, I always think in terms of attrition, so you rarely would face a full platoon of anything especially on the German side, and a nice mix of German vehicles thrown together to counter-attack locally or stem a break-through makes for much more interesting game-play. In a battle of up to 1,300 points combined arms, I would not really enjoy to have more than one Übertank on either side.

For the allies, I believe that they kept standard formations to a larger degree than the Germans, and they could re-supply any number of tanks in no time at all, as shown after Goodwood. So the typical Commonwealth/Polish tank platoon is 3 ordinary tanks and one Firefly. There were in all only about 50 Crocodiles in Normandy, and very few AVREs. Wasps were much more common though. I have no idea about how many Jumbo Shermans were produced, so I can not comment on that.

General advice from me would be, keep the numbers of heavy tanks low, and you'll find that your battles become much more challenging and interesting affairs.

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

Andreas

[ncounio]

IIRC around 250 jumbos were built , very few of them were converted to Jumbo 76

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

Nicolas

http://perso.infonie.fr/nicolas.counio/combat_mission1.html

"Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche"

Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk

[Jarmo]

Thanks for responses.

How about yanks? How many shermans to a TD? And how were the

76 vintage sherrys used? As full platoons or one to 3 normals?

How about Challengers?

Is there an understandable info somewhere of total amounts produced

for different tank types? I stumbled into one page a while ago that

had ooglalaad of info, but in so complicated tables I couldn't get

anything useful out of it.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

IIRC around 250 jumbos were built , very few of them were converted to Jumbo 76

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

200+ Sherman were feild converted to Jumbo's as well. The conversion work was done by the ordnance companies of First and Third Army's.

Regards, John Waters

-------

"Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!"

[Airborne]

US TD battalions operated either independantly or attached to a Division.. Then they were typically broken down by companies or platoons to support different battalions. They were not generally assigned such as 3 M-4s and 1 M-10..

The Challenger was heavily armed (17lb) but the Firefly was more widely used. I keep coming across the Comet (76.2mm) as the best of the British cruiser tanks. Is it in the game??

The Centurion came on the scene too late but was widely used after WWII...

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

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[Olle Petersson]

Perhaps viewing it from a sloightly different angle...

How many of this or that vehicle that can reasonably be used in a game, based on the historical perspective, isn't really a question. The game scale is too small for that. It becomes more relevant if playing several games, whereas one could suggest that the total of units used should follow history to some extent.

For example Kingtigers *were* used in massed concentrations, so I wouldn't mind letting my opponent use a full battalion (about 10 KTs in running order) in one game out of twenty, but not any KTs for the other games.

As for US tanks and TDs; AFAIK, these rarely operated close to each other, so having a small mix is pretty unhistorical. Having one TD platoon and one tank battalion makes more sense.

Hope you follow my thinking...

Olle

[Jarmo]

Sheet.

This seems to be a lot more difficult than I thought.

The Comet's in there. I don't think I've tried it out yet.

There really are too many tank models around. Just Sherman for allies

and Tiger for germans would suit my poor little brain better.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[L.Tankersley]

For US armor selection, a good rule-of-thumb is to use tanks for an attack role and TDs for a defensive role. I like to buy vehicles in platoons of 3-5 vehicles (but often there aren't enough points so I assume a depleted platoon) that are at least similar if not identical. From what I've seen, 75mm and 76mm Shermans seemed to be found together in the same units, so a mixed platoon doesn't seem unrealistic. I understand that "Jumbo" Shermans were often used as the lead tank in a column due to their survivability, which makes it sound like they were available piecemeal rather than in complete platoons. So if you're buying US tanks, I think you can pretty much mix-and-match to your heart's content without getting too far off the beaten (reality) track. With TDs I think you want to buy them as a type - i.e. don't buy an M10, two M18s and an M36.

You can probably make a case for buying just one or two vehicles of almost _any_ type and attaching them to an infantry force (e.g. in a "combined arms" PBEM - at CM scale I think it's not unrealistic to expect that a platoon or section of tanks, SP guns or TDs would be attached in support, depending on what was available/nearby.

Personally, in a PBEM (particularly a late-war PBEM) as the US I expect to be facing Panthers or worse. I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to get a Jumbo or some 76mm Shermans - they weren't THAT rare. The things were available, so you _should_ be able to use them. That being said, I agree with Olle; you can go berserk with the heavies once in awhile, but if you do it all the time you're not really seeing a fair picture of the war.

[i'm using a Jumbo for the first time in a PBEM right now - it's pretty nifty seeing rounds richochet off an AMERICAN tank for a change! ]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Zulu1]

I look at this as a problem caused by "sometimes you get what you ask for". We asked for a 5000 point limit and now.. In hindsight BTS had a very good reason for limiting the battle size to 1000 points, i.e. to prevent ahistorical fights. It's the same in CC, some of the best fights are low points battles.

So by agreeing to limit the points with your opponent, it somewhat prevents this from happening. If he wants to spend say 750 or so of his 1000 points on King Tigers, he will be short on infantry and support and will be vulnerable.

[This message has been edited by Zulu1 (edited 08-19-2000).]

[Moriarty]

I think it's important to be clear with your opponent at the outset whether you're playing a relatively accurate scenario from a historical perspective, thus limiting the number and type of armor, or you both just want to let the big dogs duke it out for fun, in which case you both buy what you can afford and go at it.

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

"Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" — Oddball

"Crap." — Moriarty

[PvK]

To add a bit of wisdom from long experience playing the Tigers on the Prowl series PBEM, one of the best ways to get an interesting PBEM scenario is to have a third, knowldegeable player, create a quick scenario for them, loosely based on the player's requests. This avoids gamey purchase of only efficient and favourite units, and allows an impartial human to provide some balance in the forces, instead of the "rock-paper-scissors" problems that can happen when players pick forces independantly.

Simple pre-game discussion of forces also helps.

As for realistic armor mixes, I'd add that Sherman types were frequently mixed at the platoon level, where a Sherman platoon might have between zero and two 76mm Shermans of the full strength of five, when all five were present and working. 76's were rarer on D-Day and became more common as time went on.

There were only a few Jumbo 76mm's ever created, mostly in 1945, all in field service yards from fitting guns salvaged from broken ordinary Shermans.

JagdPanthers were employed in battalions, and there were directives prohibiting their employment singly - they were to be used as a battalion-level long-range tank-destroyer force.

PvK

[Wolfe]

Jason (Guachi) came across some rarity figures from an old ASLer recently. He hopes to add it to his excellent units chart. Dunno how long that might take, though.

For a rule of thumb, you can use Fionn's 'Short-75' rule. Which can be found here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008204.html

The Comet is available starting in Mar45.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 08-19-2000).]

[GIJim]

There is an excellent british site giving the detailed makeup of of a division of various nationalities.

http://www.britwar.co.uk/lists/index.htm

[Jarmo]

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

There is an excellent british site giving the detailed makeup of of a division of various nationalities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the one I mentioned earlier, too much data, brain overflow.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[guachi]

The rarity charts are in my database and I am just finishing up some odds and ends before sending it off the Col. Klotz.

The charts are straight from ASL so if you are familiar with the numbers/colors they used you will have no problem with how I present them.

I don't have all the numbers for every vehicle and infantry, so some entries are blank.

I have Chamberlain & Doyle's Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two so I can add production numbers for German vehicles. I hvae no numbers for Allied vehicles so if anybody could point me to a source I would be delighted.

In addition, I also need production numbers for all the field guns, AA guns, AT guns, mortars, etc.

For infantry, I think I will just list jow many divisions of that type were available on the Western Front.

Jason

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

There is an excellent british site giving the detailed makeup of of a division of various nationalities.

http://www.britwar.co.uk/lists/index.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a pretty good site. The information is not as graphically represented as in usual TO&E tables, so it's a little harder to extract. But they've done a lot of work. Thumbs up.

Michael

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

... I agree with Olle; you can go berserk with the heavies once in awhile, but if you do it all the time you're not really seeing a fair picture of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks!

Some clarification though; My suggestion was less to "go berserk" once in a while than to avoid using a few heavies.

The Tiger tanks were (almost exclusively) used en masse where it could make a strategic difference, such as offensives at Kursk and Ardennes, and defence where truly needed.

If one is to use Tiger tanks they should be at least six and closer to a dozen (plus twice as many "gun damaged", "disabled" or "destroyed" in the rear areas or off map ).

Then the scenario is such that the German has to keep all (two or three) victory flags to avoid a total loss, alternatively wipe out the enemy in a very short time...

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

... one of the best ways to get an interesting PBEM scenario is to have a third, knowldegeable player, create a quick scenario for them, loosely based on the player's requests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To make it even more interestingly the two opponents only agree on points total and who plays which side. Then the third party 1) makes a map of his own choice, 2) recieve unit lists from both and 3) make initial set up areas for these units.

This way the players can't opt their forces for the map, but can gamble...

Oh, and I volunteer to become that third party once I get the game, hopefully before September. (Be prepared for extreme terrain then .)

Cheers

Olle

[Henri]

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

.But what should be allowed?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again with people trying to impose artificial rules in CM: the players are left free to choose their own makeup presumably so that they can OPTIMIZE their units for the most effectiveness. If a player thinks that he is going to optimize his effectiveness against a combined arms enemy by choosing all Tiger tanks, he is going to be in for an unpleasant surprise, unless the battle is over even and uncluttered terrain.Balanced forces should be chosen because they are the most effective

What such "rules" imply is that players must be forced to choose "non-optimum" force compositions in pbem. .It is true that in WW2, commanders didn't always have the "optimum" configuration to go into battle; the Germans, especially in the latter part of the war, used many battle groups especially constituted for a specific purpose. No one is going to convince me that at the battle of Kursk did not occasionally have fights of the size modeled in CM where one or both sides did not have all-tank compositions, or that there were no battles in WW2 where one side did not have any tanks at all! Where were the two promised German tank battalions at the battle for the bridge at Remegen?

There is no such thing as imposing "historical" force compositions in random pbem battles in Combat Mission.Historical force compositions only happened in historical battles, and rarely corresponded to "book" force compositions.

It's strange that no one has yet complained about the ahistorical relative strength of forces in CM: in 1944 Western Europe, with very few exceptions, the Germans were strongly outnumbered, had much less material and were usually beaten even before the battle began. Maybe historical maniacs should play a few games like that to see if it is any fun...

I am not against players who want to play a historical scenario choosing the historical unit compositions that were available, but on the Western front, there wil lnot be many balanced battles. The laternative is to play what-if scenarios: what if the German defenders at Remegen had received their promised Panzer battalions? But then, forget about things being historical or not.

The more we try to put constraints to avoid "gamey" and "ahistorical" tactics and forces, the more "gamey" the game becomes. Let's just play the damm game, fer cryin' out loud...

Henri

[L.Tankersley]

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

Maybe historical maniacs should play a few games like that to see if it is any fun...

Well, that's not quite fair ... I don't think anyone disputes that many if not most historical encounters were dramatically lopsided. But that doesn't mean that others weren't remarkably "even." Don't blame people for focusing their time on situations more likely to be fun to play. You can build scenarios that depict a US reinforced company mopping up a few scattered Volkssturm half-squads in a town and it might be quite accurate and more representative of a typical action than the average QB -- but how many people would really want to play it? [Maybe a bad example; might be an interesting situation, actually, with a bit of balancing ... some of those variable victory flags ... give the Germans a victory bonus ... hmmmm.]

[This is one thing that concerns me about the CMMC, actually -- I worry about the ratio of "walkover" battles to relatively evenly-matched fights. But we'll see how it goes.]

The more we try to put constraints to avoid "gamey" and "ahistorical" tactics and forces, the more "gamey" the game becomes. Let's just play the damm game, fer cryin' out loud...

I agree. In a QB where humans pick the forces, I think that anything goes unless you specifically agree with your opponent beforehand about restrictions you want to adopt. If you want a truly historical situation (or even a plausible "what-if") you need to fire up the scenario editor (or have someone do it for you).

Out of personal preference, I like to try commanding force mixes that seem more-or-less historically plausible. This is because of the "how well would I have done" factor which is one of the things that attracts me to wargaming. But on the other hand, it's no fun commanding a bunch of 75mm Shermans and watching them get brewed-up one by one by a defending force of German JagdCats, Panthers and King Tigers. [Once in a while, for the learning experience, ok. But I think the novelty would pall fairly quickly with repeated playings.] By purchasing a unit mix that at least has a chance to cope with an OPFOR like that I'm doing some situation filtering to rule out situations that are less likely to be fun to play. To me. YMMV.