Guest grunto Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 In my opinion, of the medium tanks in CMBO, the Panzer IV is the worst. The American 37mm (Stuart and Greyhound), and the British 40mm punch right through it. Also, the British 76mm is still an 'antitank mortar' when fired on the Panzer IV. The Panzer IV needs to be better frontally against the 37mm and 40mm, and the 76 needs to be toned down a notch. Perhaps instead the American 37mm needs to be toned down and not the Panzer IV made better. Then the Stuart could be made about 80 points on the price list; same with the M8 HMC; both were on the same chassis and have roughly the same 'combat value' - overall firepower, speed, and protection - so should be priced the same. So that to my mind is the best solution; against the Panzer IV tone down the 37mm and 40mm frontally, and the 76mm mortar against 'top armor,' and make the Stuart and the M8 HMC each 80 points apiece. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Steiner Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 I agree. The The Stewart and Greyhound seem to be way too powerful in this game. The Mk.IV's armor wasn't THAT bad. In the game it seems like it has none at all against anything bigger than 20mm.. ------------------ Ob's stürmt oder schneit, ob die Sonne uns lacht, der Tag glühend heiß oder eiskalt die Nacht, bestaubt sind die Gesichter, doch froh ist unser sinn, ja unser sinn, es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin -- Panzerlied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 by tone down do you mean change the historically accurate values? Guys, this game is based on the principles of military history and science. If the Mk IV's armor is X mm thick, then that's how thick it is. If a lump of metal traveling at 800m/s would penetrate x thickness of metal at x distance, then it does, and it did in real life. Remember, in CM you're dealing with close engagement ranges and often unusual force structures. If a 37mm could penetrate a mk 4 in CM, then it does so because it could do so in real life. Changing points is another matter, and you may have a point there. I really like hte mk 4, it's more accurate than the allied gear and nimble as well. You don't want it hit by stuff so I just use them how i use allied gear. They seem about right to me.. PeterNZ ------------------ "I can be quite pleasant, you know" - Andreas "WHERE'S THE MOAT?!" - Jon [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 12-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 I agree with Peter. you can't go changing what is technically correct. You hvae to remember, the engagement ranges we play in CM are WAY close. Put some distance >1000m, and the 37mm can't do anything agaisnt the front of the PzIV. I say it's fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 Agreed, CM's penetration values are based on physics and formulae, you cant go changing them becuase you personally dont think they *feel* right On top of that, I just had a stuart bounce 7 rounds off a Mk IV. I actually dont mind the old girls, you just need to keep they are far back as you can and where possible hull down. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 Put 10 Shermans and 10 PanzerIV's against each others from a 1000 meters distance. The Shermans are toast. By the time Panzer IV's were developed, the expected AT gun was 37mm, and the PzIII was supposed to be the main battle tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 have to disagree with Kwazy. Do NOT position them hulldown. Position them completely out of LOS, possibly outside the map edge, or as a popular saying with regard to the PzIV says: "Do not expose to sunlight." the Pz IV is crappy in CM and that is basically historically correct. Keep in mind that it was obsolete by 1944. Remember it was basically a pre-war design, and quickly earned the nickname "Rotbart der Hauchdünne" ("Redbeard the wafer-thin" as in a contemporary razor commercial) among it's crews... the jury is out on whether the PzIV's only advantages, it's good gun and superior optics, are accurately represented in CM and if so whether that is why it performs so abysmally poor in CM. Even then, there was a reason why the Pz V and IV had been developed... ------------------ "Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 The Panzer IV is really just an upgunned cardboard tank used for training in the early 30's. I have lost all respect for it. For whatever reason, other wargames I have played have never made the Pz IV as pathetic as CM does. The final insult to the Pz IV is that the Jabos will continue to mercilessly harass and kill them long after the bombs have been dropped. The Panthers and Tigers are left alone when there are Pz IVs floating around with those big red and white circles on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 IIRC the great success that the IV had in France was due to its low silhouette, and thus its ability to hide behind bocage in ambush. Therefore, it was making a great number of kills without being shot at. It was outdated in 1944, but had great success in this role, where Panthers were too large. ------------------ WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO. MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!! must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 I couldn't speak specifically to the cost issue... but I thought the prices reflected model availability, and not actual cost to produce. In many situations, the two correlate (low cost = more of them) but in some cases it didn't. THere were some cheap tanks that weren't produced in great numbers, so they end up being more expensive than similar tanks that were readily available. Or, that is how I see it... I we just need to shake the Starcraft mentality that you have x troops that cost x resources based on their effectiveness only. In real war, you don't always wind up with force numbers soley based of cost to produce. We'll have to get used to it too... because when the Russian front version is released, you'll have the costs REALLY skewed. :^) Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 I we just need to shake the Starcraft mentality that you have x troops that cost x resources based on their effectiveness only. Polar, hate to break it to you but the unit cost in CM is determined strictly by the combat value / effectiveness basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: I couldn't speak specifically to the cost issue... but I thought the prices reflected model availability, and not actual cost to produce. In many situations, the two correlate (low cost = more of them) but in some cases it didn't. THere were some cheap tanks that weren't produced in great numbers, so they end up being more expensive than similar tanks that were readily available. Or, that is how I see it... I we just need to shake the Starcraft mentality that you have x troops that cost x resources based on their effectiveness only. In real war, you don't always wind up with force numbers soley based of cost to produce. We'll have to get used to it too... because when the Russian front version is released, you'll have the costs REALLY skewed. :^) Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Joe, you may not have read this before being a newish member but BTS have stated quite clearly that the cost of any unit in CMBO is based purely & simply on its intrinsic abilities i.e. armour thickness, firepower, mobility etc. and NOT on historical availability or cost to produce. The guys at BTS have confirmed however that with CM II there will be the choice to have point values of units either based on their intrinsic worth OR on their historical availability. Just thought I would clear this up for you. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 Somewhat off topic, but I recall watching an interview with David Fletcher on the History Channel. He put forth this theory that the Germans might have been better off focusing tank production on the MkIV(presumably the f-j seires), rather than concentrating material and labor into the more complicated MkV, & MKVI. Something to due with the much greater number of MKIV’s that could have been produced relative to Panthers and Tigers. Dunno whether I agree or not, but interesting none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 M Hofbauer: "hate to break it to you but the unit cost in CM is determined strictly by the combat value / effectiveness basis." Well then, that is just silly!! Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz [This message has been edited by Polar (edited 12-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kelly Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 The PzIV still commands respect from the TacI as witnessed by me in a recent test of an operation I'm creating. The Sherman tanks (all M4A3's) encountered the German medium tank in question and immediately went into reverse. One of the hapless Shermans was knocked out before he could escape. The range was just under 2,000 meters. I would leave it alone. Cheers, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 If you have ever played First Clash At Cambes (?) as the Allies you will know the mk IV's the Germans have in that one can be absolutely LEATHAL! ( I had one NAIL a Sherm and KO it at over 1800 m with its FIRST shot!) The mk IV is may seem lightly armoured compared to some other tanks but I think it does "feel" realistic. I doubt any of the stats or data will be changed, just keep them out of range of the Allied guns and they can at least do a little "something" for you. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Somewhat off topic, but I recall watching an interview with David Fletcher on the History Channel. He put forth this theory that the Germans might have been better off focusing tank production on the MkIV(presumably the f-j seires), rather than concentrating material and labor into the more complicated MkV, & MKVI. Something to due with the much greater number of MKIV’s that could have been produced relative to Panthers and Tigers. Dunno whether I agree or not, but interesting none the less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The guy on the History Channel must have gone to the same school of military thought as Gen. McNair. Among the problems with this approach that come to mind at first glance are: 1. The Germans had enough trouble finding tank crews as it was. With a larger number of less survivable tanks this problem would have been compounded. 2. The Sherman was equal or superior to the Mark IV in most respects, and there is no way that the Germans could have made even close to the same number of Mark IVs as there were Shermans, even without the production of other tanks. So instead of a 10 to one advantage in Shermans to Panthers, there would have been a 6 to one advantage of Shermans to Mark IVs. Same result either way (Disclaimer before somebody drags out actual production figures: numbers for discussion purposed only, and not based upon any actual figures) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 I'm currently playing a PBEM game in which two PzIVh and two PzIVj ravaged eight Shermans, including a couple Firefly's. The range was just under 1000m, the German crews are vets and the Sherman crews are reg. The field is littered with seven Allied hulks, five of which are brewed. German losses, one PzIVh. It was basically a stand and shoot confrontation. Would the PzIV's perform as well in a repeat performance, who knows? But that's what makes CM so much fun. I think BTS has the PzIV about right. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 The Panzer IV is really just an upgunned cardboard tank used for training in the early 30's. Sounds like someone needs to go to www.achtungpanzer or somewhere and do a little brushing up. CMBO does indeed model the period of the war when the MkIV was in its twilight years. In the Early War, Africa, and most of the Eastern Front, it ruled (or at least competed). In France 1940, the arrival of MkIVs was akin to the cavalry showing up. Frontal armor is no substitute for generalship, as many commanders have discovered. You are expected to win with what you've got. German forces won tank and combined arms battles on three continents with the PzIV by using them correctly. Later in the war this meant avoiding close engagements when the option was available, and using them for infantry support in the counterattack. I do know that if I was going to dispute the modeling of it in CM, I would show up with a WHOLE BUNCH of facts and figgers. One of my cherished CM memories is killing rune's MkIV with a "weak spot" hit from a Stuart at 500m. I have killed lots more things with MkIVs, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 "It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop" especially if you are a PzIVj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: "It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop" especially if you are a PzIVj<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anybody here who thinks the Panzer IV is too weak should set up a scenario in which Shermans and Panzer IVs duke it out at 1,700 - 1,800m distance. To spare you the suspense, what I saw was a lot of burning Shermans and not a scratch on the Panzer IVs. The 75mm on them rocks, the optics seem eminently capable of allowing hits at that distance on 1st, 2nd or 3rd shot, and the armour defeats the US 75mm peashooter. The Panzer IV was good in Normandy when used in an ambush role. Read Ken Tout's 'Tank!' to see what happened when they were used to attack a defensive position backed up by Cromwells. IMO CM has got it right, and I am afraid to have to say that you do not have a case Grunto. Simply saying 'I think this should be done because I feel like it' does not cut a lot of ice around here, as you can see. Polar - if your comment about the CM system being silly is meant serious, I seriously suggest doing a search on 'rarity' and 'point values'. That should uncover the reasoning. ------------------ 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 12-20-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 Ah, I should have seen it coming. I should have known a grog would swoop down to take a shot at my balloon. I did not say anything was wrong with the Pz IV model. They just suck. That's why I made the comment about them being cardboard relics from the 30's. I guess I should have added a half a dozen smiley's. Hofbauer can attest to the love I used to have for the underdog Pz IV forgotten in the shadows of the Big Cats. CM spoiled the relationship. Love turns to hate. The Pz IV deserves to be ignored. And I won't be putting any Facts and Figgers to try to change the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensible Toad Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 My opinion on Mark IVs and Stuarts has swung around drastically. I am playing a scenario PBEM as the germans, and from the beginning the Stuarts and M10s decimated my armored cars, broke my Stugs gun and after 10 Stuart richocets destroyed it, and pinned all my infantry down so the US grunts could dig them out of their locations. I quicky began to loath and fear these little US tanks, and the M10s just made things worse. But then my three Mark IVs made it to the scene, and although one was lost to a zook at close range, the other two have turned the tide. One Mark IV smoked two M10s and a Stuart, and bounced numerous zook rounds off the front armor. It is like my Mark IV commanders are going beserk! I have two bridges to protect, with one Mark IV each, and they are like Cerberous at the gates of hell. My opponent is down to one Stuart mobile and one Stuart immobile, and in the next turn I plan to put his mortar carrier out of action. My infantry is down to a squad or two, and one HMG. My opponent rushed 40 or 50 infantry across one bridge last turn (it looked like the Boston Marathon) and now they are taking cover on the river bank. My defenses are paper thin, but if they rush my tank I might just break their morale and send them packing. Three cheers for the scrappy beast that is the Mark IV! -Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte99 Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Frontal armor is no substitute for generalship. You are expected to win with what you've got.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well said! A poor craftsman will always blame his tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted December 20, 2000 Share Posted December 20, 2000 Gee, is someone playing Move It or Lose It? Great scenario... Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts