In response to the "Flimsy German Tank post"

[CaSCa]

Has anyone suggested giving the allies a point advantage when generating the QB? You could use the extra points to buy enough units to achieve the numerical superiority you desire.

[Diceman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

A better way in measuring rarity, would be to restrict the actual choice or number of vehicles allowed on the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good idea. I'm envisioning a variation of the point limitations already in place. Currently, based on which type of engagement is selected, a certain % of points are, armor, support, artillery, infantry, vehicle. To reflect rarity certain vehicles could have a limitation where they may constitute only a certain % of total points purchased.

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

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Slapdragon]

I have been taking various factors and trying to compare them to victory ability and point cost, and started getting close to saying that the game is ever so slightly balanced toward Germans based on point costs.

Still, it is very possible to win, and a rarity system would be an interesting feature if it could be rigged into QBs. realize that the US put like 7 or 8 times the number of tanks into the field as the Germans, and true rarity system would result in some battles with no German tanks at all facing some US tanks.

As to the costs of various US tanks -- here I think it may be in part because the tanks are misused. The low cost Hellcat, looking all weak and endangered, had the highest kill ratio in ETO and is a demon in combat. The E8 -- considered the standard tank of the 3rd Army after Bulge, was a hell of a tank that met and defeated the T34/85 in Korea, and served for years post war.

The problem of course is what I call dog fighting. German tanks, with thicker front armor, are often easier to employ because the operator parks them on a strategic location and challenges all comers. Surrounded by Panzerchecks, they can be very tough to defeat, and any idiot can stuff a Tiger hull down on a hill side. The difficulty is that these tough to beat tactics are not impossible to beat, and a good US player can predict the command the hill tops with heavies defense and run it down because it is usually not manueverable or holds any reserves or fall back positions.

[aka_tom_w]

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

I have been taking various factors and trying to compare them to victory ability and point cost, and started getting close to saying that the game is ever so slightly balanced toward Germans based on point costs.

Still, it is very possible to win,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that.

I REALLY don't like QB's where players "buy" units based on the point system. I think the concept that two players can buy any unit they desire within their "budget" is the beginging of where the term "gamey" starts. There are PLENTY of good well balanced, and largely unplayed scneario's out there to choose from that you can play double blind with your opponent.

Its the concept of 'buying' units within a budget based on points that is the problem here not the point allocation its self. I see the point system as it is set up in CM, to be a "rough" guide line to help the scenario designer attempt to balance forces in a scenario he is designing. Then you play test the scenario and try to make it fair to both sides, and as Slapdragon has suggested this may mean giving the Allies some more units hardware or points like arty or a few extra snipers as the Axis side may tend to get better bang for the buck here and there.

I think the point system, as currently modeled, is ONLY a problem when becomes the be all and end all of budget-like spending to create gamey force pools for QBs which are played on maps that are lacking rivers and bridges anyway, so IMHO why bother with the QB and the point allocation budget "buying" business in the first place??

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-03-2000).]

[ianc]

I also don't have a problem with the current point values.

American tanks do perhaps seem expensive in relation to German ones. I began to think about this and came to the conclusion that perhaps the typical units that one might purchase in a QB, (such as a Hellcat, E8, Jackson, or Firefly) are actually pretty competent vehicles. Ever led or suffered a full-platoon Hellcat charge down a flank?

I think the point value ratings should ONLY be dependant on combat values. What the Allies can currently purchase for a QB is certainly well capable of taking on what the axis can field for the same price. That's all that matters.

ianc

[Guest Big Time Software]

I urge anybody that is interested in Rarity issues to do a Search. It has all already been discussed, at length. I'd rather not repeat the discussion again as it got pretty lengthy the first time and this second time will cover the same ground as before

I'll leave you with one additional tidbit from the original discussion. There will be a random "price break" in our Rarity system. This will allow a generally outrageously priced vehicle (due to rarity issues) to become realitively inexpensive (i.e. close to base cost). We will not be doing a limited unit pool system like CC3 because it really wouldn't work for CM's way of creating battles.

Steve

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Major Tom writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You still aren't listening to the other factors involved. The Shermans can hold more ammo, their turret rotation is faster than German tanks, their reload time is quicker, and their 75mm gun is better for killing infantry. Should we just ignore this on the sole fact that it can't go 1 on 1 against a Tiger? Then we will have German commanders complaining about the inability of the Tiger tank to kill of infantry when compared to the cheap cost of the Sherman tank and demand that their tanks be cheaper...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

aka tom_w writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the point system, as currently modeled, is ONLY a problem when becomes the be all and end all of budget-like spending to create gamey force pools for QBs which are played on maps that are lacking rivers and bridges anyway, so IMHO why bother with the QB and the point allocation budget "buying" business in the first place??.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that both of these posts bring up some good points, at least as they relate to map conditions. I do like being able to purchase units for QBs, but I also tend to have weather and atmospheric conditions set to "random" in my QB. Which means that buying a KT can be somewhat risky, as it performs less will if the weather is rainy and the ground is "damp," not to mention if it is "mud." Overcast and damp were very common conditions in NW Europe; moreover, due to allied air superiority, Germans were happier to attack when it was at least overcast, as they tended to have more tanks available.

Even if it were possible to have "dynamic" point values that fluctuated based on the weather, terrain, woods, etc. -- and I'm not sure that it is, as point values have a certain imprecision, anyway -- whatever small benefit this might have would probably be outweighed by the work that it would take to do it. Once again, assuming it is even possible.

But doing quick battles on historically accurate terrain with weather that is not always "clear" and "dry" would highlight some historic weaknesses in tanks like the KT, and explain why Germans concentrated on tanks like the Panther, which has much better flotation.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I urge anybody that is interested in Rarity issues to do a Search. It has all already been discussed, at length. I'd rather not repeat the discussion again as it got pretty lengthy the first time and this second time will cover the same ground as before

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did a search, and damn, if my own name wasn't in the argument. Memory loss can be very funny sometimes.

[Olle Petersson]

I think there's a slight misconception somewhere...

If you want to compare the costs to get historical proportions of tanks in a scenario you'll also have to take the crew into consideration.

The average Tiger crew would be somewhere between Veteran and Crack. Historically, German heavies shouldn't be available at less than Veteran rating.

US tankers, OTOH, would in June be a mix of Green and Regulars (Most of them had never been in combat, but some had experience from NA and Italy). Sherman(76) were also rare.

Assuming a 1:5 ratio of tanks, compare the cost of;

One Veteran plus one Crack PzKwVIE (472 pts)

or dito Kingtigers (733 pts)

vs.

Four Green and four Regular M4A1 plus one green and one regular M4A1(76)W. (1198 pts)

Vs regular Tiger the US force is 2.5 times as expensive, vs KT it's 1.6 times as expensive.

If you try to game it out the US will win (almost) every time, so the points are about right from a game balance point of veiw.

Is the result historically correct? I've read somewhere that 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger was pretty even odds, if knocking out the Tiger while losing 4 Shermans was considered a US win...

If that last statement is correct then it's the game efficiency of Tigers and Shermans that have to be adjusted, not the algorithm for point costs.

Cheers

Olle

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

I think there's a slight misconception somewhere...

If you want to compare the costs to get historical proportions of tanks in a scenario you'll also have to take the crew into consideration.

The average Tiger crew would be somewhere between Veteran and Crack. Historically, German heavies shouldn't be available at less than Veteran rating.

US tankers, OTOH, would in June be a mix of Green and Regulars (Most of them had never been in combat, but some had experience from NA and Italy). Sherman(76) were also rare.

Assuming a 1:5 ratio of tanks, compare the cost of;

One Veteran plus one Crack PzKwVIE (472 pts)

or dito Kingtigers (733 pts)

vs.

Four Green and four Regular M4A1 plus one green and one regular M4A1(76)W. (1198 pts)

Vs regular Tiger the US force is 2.5 times as expensive, vs KT it's 1.6 times as expensive.

If you try to game it out the US will win (almost) every time, so the points are about right from a game balance point of veiw.

Is the result historically correct? I've read somewhere that 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger was pretty even odds, if knocking out the Tiger while losing 4 Shermans was considered a US win...

If that last statement is correct then it's the game efficiency of Tigers and Shermans that have to be adjusted, not the algorithm for point costs.

Cheers

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you except the 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger arguement was not based on this situation, but that 3 of the 4 crews would survive, and be in new tanks in a few days, while the German crew would never get another Tiger. Outside the scope of CM.

Your 5 Sherms can cut it close. 5x Green 75 armed Sherms may not be able to take a Veteran Tiger hull down camped on a victory location if it is supported by any sort of German ground forces.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I agree with you except the 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger arguement was not based on this situation, but that 3 of the 4 crews would survive, and be in new tanks in a few days, while the German crew would never get another Tiger. Outside the scope of CM.

Your 5 Sherms can cut it close. 5x Green 75 armed Sherms may not be able to take a Veteran Tiger hull down camped on a victory location if it is supported by any sort of German ground forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding of the 5 Shermans per Tiger was that you needed five Shermans, but you would lose 2-3 of them, not that you would lose 4.

And, as Slapdragon says, there are scads of Shermans waiting for crews.

Further, since the Allies were typically attacking, it is likely that half (if not considerably more) of the vehicles you lose will be back in action in a few weeks anyway, whereas that Tiger is literally irreplaceable.

Jeff Heidman

[Snake Eyes]

I've heard this 1 Tiger = 5 Shermans discussion for years. However, I have never found the source for this belief or statement. It's not clear to me what it means exactly. Does it mean that 4 of 5 Shermans would be lost? Does it mean it took 5 Shermans to defeat a Tiger by maneuver and suppression? The only times I have seen a Tiger worth 5 of anything is when it is in a VERY advantageous position. But any decent AFV in a favorable position is worth a lot.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Slapdragon]

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

My understanding of the 5 Shermans per Tiger was that you needed five Shermans, but you would lose 2-3 of them, not that you would lose 4.

And, as Slapdragon says, there are scads of Shermans waiting for crews.

Further, since the Allies were typically attacking, it is likely that half (if not considerably more) of the vehicles you lose will be back in action in a few weeks anyway, whereas that Tiger is literally irreplaceable.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly right, and a major issue both for returning tanks to battle, but when historians look closely at battles.

When judging success claims there are two types of claims, what I call crew claims and what I call toe kick claims. You can only have toe kick claims if you own the battle field, and if your casualty recovery teams are burying the dead and dragging away destroyed tanks.

Possession of terrain of course is not the end all of warfare, but it can ber very important if you can use it to make losses good and for intelligence purposes.

[aka_tom_w]

It would be my interpretation of the 5 Sherms to 1 Tiger ratio suggestion that that's what Allied Tankers and Allied Armoured Brass guys figured would be required to WIN the engagement if they knew a Tiger was present.

So if this is true when it comes to play balance, 5 Sherms to 1 Tiger is not a fair match, it is in fact what the Allies figured it would take to WIN against a Tiger.

Since they had lots of them and as has been posted here, they could go get a new one next week, then 5 to 1 was great odds if you kept winning consistantly, beacuse the allies had plenty of Sherms, and more arriving EVERY week at this point.

I do not think any one here can find a quote or a historical suggestion or document that says 5 Sherms are equal to 1 Tiger.

Hardly, Thats the Number the Allie's figured would insure victory if they knew there was a Tiger around the next corner.

comments?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

It would be my interpretation of the 5 Sherms to 1 Tiger ratio suggestion that that's what Allied Tankers and Allied Armoured Brass guys figured would be required to WIN the engagement if they knew a Tiger was present.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never heard of that one. The only thing I heard of was a general loss ratio of 3-4 Allied tanks to one German tank. But that did not pertain to specific engagements.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

I don't know where people heard "5 Shermans to 1 Tiger". The commonly quoted tidbit in books is actually 5 Shermans to 1 Panther. But since the Panther and Tiger 1 are fairly similar when matched against a Sherman, it is not unfair to switch the two.

However, the 5:1 ratio really means nothing. If it is meant to describe how many Shermans needed to gang up in order to assure a victory at the tactical level, I suggest that is about right if the German vehicle is on the defensive and in good spot. I also suggest that it is bunk if the German tank in question is on the move and on the attack in unfavorable (from the German perspective) terrain.

Also keep in mind that this made up number does not take into account any other sort of AT capability. For example, 5 Shermans vs. 1 Panther and 2 Pak40 AT guns is a lot different than 5 Shermans vs. a lone Panther.

In short... forget you EVER heard about this ratio thing. It is useless

Steve

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I don't know where people heard "5 Shermans to 1 Tiger". The commonly quoted tidbit in books is actually 5 Shermans to 1 Panther. But since the Panther and Tiger 1 are fairly similar when matched against a Sherman, it is not unfair to switch the two.

However, the 5:1 ratio really means nothing. If it is meant to describe how many Shermans needed to gang up in order to assure a victory at the tactical level, I suggest that is about right if the German vehicle is on the defensive and in good spot. I also suggest that it is bunk if the German tank in question is on the move and on the attack in unfavorable (from the German perspective) terrain.

Also keep in mind that this made up number does not take into account any other sort of AT capability. For example, 5 Shermans vs. 1 Panther and 2 Pak40 AT guns is a lot different than 5 Shermans vs. a lone Panther.

In short... forget you EVER heard about this ratio thing. It is useless

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heard what?

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

In short... forget you EVER heard about this ratio thing. It is useless

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I thought. But it has sure fed the myth that Tigers and Panthers were invincible.

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

You got that right Snake Eyes Having just lost 2 Tigers to M10s I can assure you that they are not invincible

It really comes down to tactics and stance. The Germans were VERY good with defensive engagements, while the US forces in particular were still learning how to attack. But if you read enough about German attack/counter attacks you can see that their generally superior tanks were quite vunlerable to the same things as Shermans and other Allied tanks. Much easier to be on the defensive

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by the invincible Cpl. Grammont:

I suggest that is about right if the German vehicle is on the defensive and in good spot. I also suggest that it is bunk if the German tank in question is on the move and on the attack in unfavorable (from the German perspective) terrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Steidl's 'Lost Batallions', on September 13th 1944 the 2nd French Armoured (by no means veterans) met the green German 111 and 112 at Epinal, when the German units were attacking to rescue the 16th ID. At the end of the day, they had lost 34 of their brand new and shiny Panthers and 26 Panzer IV, half of them to Thunderbolts, and they were decisively defeated. I don't know how many tanks the French lost, but I think that 170 would be a bit high.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-03-2000).]

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I don't think that the Allied tankers counted on losing *any* tanks with 5-1 vs. Panthers, although of course they did lose some tanks. Several years ago I read a description of Shermans fighting a Panther. I believe it was in August or September, and I also believe that the unit involved was under the command of Creighton Abrams, although he had nothing personally to do with this particular fight. Basically, some infantry units reported to the tankers that there was a Panther up ahead in hilly terrain, causing trouble, so the tankers went to fight using what they described as their typical tactics -- one tank approached from the front and fired smoke at the Panther to blind/distract it, while the other 4 circled around the flanks, two on each side, using the hills for cover. Eventually they got flank shots and took out the Panther, with no loss to themselves. I found it interesting how routine the tankers described this action.

A couple of things occurred to me when I remembered this report. One is how well these tactics work in CM, and how poorly they would work in a game where the Panther had a 95% chance of hitting on the first shot -- that would mean that the tank that came from cover, fired smoke, and retreated to cover, would never survive to get its smoke round off -- it would appear from cover and be nailed by the Panther at 1500 meters.

It also occurs to me that losing a Panther in this way may have been part of a German Tactical Victory. As Germans, like all other belligerents, typically fielded Panthers in platoons, the fact that there is a lone Panther is unusual, particularly as there appeared to be no other support for the Panther. Perhaps it was set up as a rearguard to slow advancing US troops while the bulk of German forces pulled back. That would not be inconsistent with fact that infantry units reported the Panther to the tankers, and would not be inconsistent with other German blocking actions in France, or with Allied frustration with these actions. Given that the terrain was described as hilly and somewhat wooded, it would also be reasonable to assume that a lone panther could control a key road bottleneck from a long way off; if the Panther could get under tree cover, it might even be safe from Jabos.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

It also occurs to me that losing a Panther in this way may have been part of a German Tactical Victory . As Germans, like all other belligerents, typically fielded Panthers in platoons, the fact that there is a lone Panther is unusual, particularly as there appeared to be no other support for the Panther. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is not unusual for a later engagements, during the last few weeks of the war (I realise your account is from late summer 44 - may also have been a shortage of AFVs, due to the rout after Falaise). I have read a book about the fights around Jülich on the western border of Germany in 1945 years ago, and the scratch forces often included one tank and very few guys. The Germans would probably have liked to fight with a platoon of Panthers, there just weren't any.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-04-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Good tactics can kill any tank, just as good defensive tactics, can defeat attempts to flank or make it a very costly endevor.

US SOP was to distract German tanks frontaly with 1 or 2 tanks while the rest of the Plt came in on the flanks & took it out. The Panthers tactical weakness was her side armor German SOP in defensive positions was to use AT guns or what ever was available to protect the Panther's flanks. The 5 Shermans for 1 Panther originated from plts who lost 2 - 4 tanks trying to take out a lone Panther.

German Kampfgruppe's were formed ad hoc in the end some were built around 2 tanks, some were effective out of all proprtion to their assets, while others were obliterated in their 1st operation as a Kampfgruppe, it all depended on the leader's skill.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Olle Petersson]

Hi again

Steve et al might be correct when it comes to expectations of a 5:1 battle. The situation as I understood it was one well positioned Tiger in defence vs a couple of Shermans maneouvring to get flank shots.

My emphasis in the previous posting was more meant towards crew quality though, and none of you made any reflections to this. As noted, the American tankers were still in learning, while the German crews (in heavy armour units) were hand picked after proving their combat skills in regular units. (And I don't know if this applies to Panther units, since they were only "medium".)

Cheers

Olle