killmore Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 I wonder how many of you are using pupchen now. It is cheaper then shreck (10 vs 15) and seems to me just as effective against tanks. You cannot position it in the houses and it moves quite slowly. But yesterday I bought 9 of them + some infantry and that was enough to rip Tanks to shreads. Infantry took care of the rest of the problems. It is the cheapest and surest way to kill tank at 150 meters or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 The price for the Püpchen is lower because of the deployment limitations as you mentioned. They are only good on the defense, and really only if you expect to hold your line. Otherwise the Panzerschreck is the way to go. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: I wonder how many of you are using pupchen now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Does anyone have an URL with some info about the Püppchen? Cheers, Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 I am curious how a weapon that has more pentration power than a schreck, 5 times as much ammo, and twice the range, costs 66% of the schreck. I know movement is limited, but this weapon is a super-cheap AT gun with HE capability. The only thing that is different is the limited range. And plus how common was this weapon. Seems that commonality should be figured in to the pts. Seems to throw the balance of ladder games way off. Especially when the Germans defend. You could buy ten of these and need absolutely no other AT assets what-so-ever. Just seems that the calculation of the points value is a bunch off. I think that this weapon would be about 30-40pts. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffen Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm not sure if its there but if it isnt these fellows are great just e.mail them and they may know where you can get info cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by waffen: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm not sure if its there but if it isnt these fellows are great just e.mail them and they may know where you can get info cheers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, now does anyone have the official designation of the weapon? ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 8,8 cm R-Werfer 43 When the production was stopped in February 1944 there was 4302 available. It was discontinued as the Panzerschreck was so much lighter and cheaper, while delivering "comparable" range and penetration. Looking forward to see it in action. Definitely an area that sees a lot of conflicting sources though. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...how common was this weapon. Seems that commonality should be figured in to the pts. Seems to throw<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe it was pretty rare compared to the panzerschreck. I don't have my books with me, if no one answers with more detail I can post later tonight. (ed...it appears someone has provided the numbers ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seems to throw the balance of ladder games way off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! LOL! Oh, please stop! Ahh, you weren't serious where you? You have never played on a ladder before have you? Balance is the LAST thing a good portion of people want when they play a ladder game. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talenn Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 I dont have the full version yet (still waiting... ; ), so I have a quick question: Is there any form of 'rarity' restriction on purchases in CM? I know CC had it and it was integral to ASL DYOs as well. I cant see how you can really allow player purchases for a competitive game without something like that in place. Its just begging for people to purchase 'cheeseball' forces and to throw TO&E out the window. Maybe an add-on will add 'historical restrictions' to force purchasing? Thanx, Talenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Personally I think that the Puppchen is an inferior AT platform to the schreck. It is limited to defensive deployment, can't re-deploy at all and has a large "footprint" thus making it vulnerable to incoming fire. Its HE potential is miniscule. All in all it is ONLY a good last-ditch defensive weapon when integrated into a solid defensive plan mixing long-range and short-range tank killers. OTOH once they are used well they are deadly BUT isn't every weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: 8,8 cm R-Werfer 43 When the production was stopped in February 1944 there was 4302 available. It was discontinued as the Panzerschreck was so much lighter and cheaper, while delivering "comparable" range and penetration. Looking forward to see it in action. Definitely an area that sees a lot of conflicting sources though. M.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Mathias - Copernic99 turned this one up: www.waffen-ss.com/equipment/small_arms/heavy_rocket_launcher.html Not a lot of info though. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 "LOL! LOL! Oh, please stop! Ahh, you weren't serious where you? You have never played on a ladder before have you? Balance is the LAST thing a good portion of people want when they play a ladder game." Well actually I have played huge amounts of ladder games in CC2(was actually ranked in the top ten for awhile). First game in CM though, against propbably the best player: Fionn. There has to be force balance for anyone who isn't a complete idiot to play the lower of the two sides. Most people try to find an advantage and exploit it, but if it is so large then no one with any playing ability will play against that advantage. I for one will not play an offensive battle as the US later that January 1945. Hell if I am German on the defense, I would buy 10 of these if not more. By the way they are not that bad as Anti-personnel weapons either, as I am now finding out. Just need to protect them with some infantry and you have a killer defense for cheap. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toad Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dano6: I am curious how a weapon that has more pentration power than a schreck, 5 times as much ammo, and twice the range, costs 66% of the schreck. I know movement is limited, but this weapon is a super-cheap AT gun with HE capability. The only thing that is different is the limited range. And plus how common was this weapon. Seems that commonality should be figured in to the pts. Seems to throw the balance of ladder games way off. Especially when the Germans defend. You could buy ten of these and need absolutely no other AT assets what-so-ever. Just seems that the calculation of the points value is a bunch off. I think that this weapon would be about 30-40pts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with Dano6 that the point value of an item should be affected by it's historical commonality. Only as an option, however. A "Point Values Adjusted To Reflect History?" on/off option would be ideal. ------------------ -- Toad Ontario, Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Talenn: I cant see how you can really allow player purchases for a competitive game without something like that in place. Its just begging for people to purchase 'cheeseball' forces and to throw TO&E out the window.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just find players who are more interested in creating historical scenarios rather than fielding mega-smash super forces. You will enjoy playing them much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 What do you do with ten of them if your opponent has no armour, or, worse, holds his armour back and tears into you on foot, with lots of artillery to back them up? As Fionn said, they are not small, and that causes it's own troubles (I'm thinking of the sIG 33 as I write this- fearsome weapon, but big as a house...) I think one of the most interesting aspects of CM is the interplay between armour and AT weapons- armour can be an incredible force multiplier, but it is also very fragile in an environment where almost every "leg" present has the ability to destroy a tank or AC single-handed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted June 27, 2000 Author Share Posted June 27, 2000 If there is no armour - the money is wasted. But then again it is only 100 points - the price of a single tank is about 100 points too. Rest of the money you can spend on the infantry. - You don't need anything else really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Killmore you have just put your finger right on the problem. With this cheap AT weaponry there is no need for anymore. And as I have found out the weapon does not have all that bad of HE capability. Plus it has a high ROF. Oh to answer the question, if placed in cover, it is just as invisible as a small AT gun and very survivable. Especially against 81mm mortars. If you place them in cover and add some infantry support you have a perfect defense structure that cost almost nothing and is very hard to crack. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 Yes, as the movie of the game I'm playing against Dano6 will show my defence is pretty tough. My left flank defence consisted of 3 Puppchen and a platoon of infantry backed by a Hetzer. Against this Dano6 eventually committeda Sherman Jumbo 76, a Sherman 76+ and 4 platoons of infantry ( with one platoon supporting from the right flank). Anyways his Jumbo took out my Hetzer with its first shot even though my Hetzer was hull-down ( I now hate Hetzers due to this and other PBEM games ).. A Puppchen returned fire and killed the Jumbo... For the past ten turns my Puppchen and infantry platoon have held off 4 platoons of infantry while under SEVERE arty fire ( 2 separate batteries of arty). Dano6 has eventually cleared the position but in so doing he has lost the platoon which was supporting his assault on the right and the Sherman 76+ since one of my PAW600s took it out from long range.. He has also lost about 2 full platoons in front of my Puppchen positions. In total I'd figure that my Puppchen and infantry platoon have accounted for 2 platoons of infantry and disorganised another 2 severely. Why did I buy this force? Well, I felt like playing around and so bought a force based around about 9 Puppchen and 3 or 4 PAW600s. I wanted to use a non-conventional AT defence. It has worked very well although, if I was Dano6 I would simply have rushed the Puppchen immediately. I have seen some of his squads reduced to half strength due SOLELY to the direct fire from my Puppchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 A discussion from December about the Puppchen - http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001950.html Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 I have to agree with Fionn, since I am playing him. His estimates are a little high but pretty close. While the rush tactic might have worked, I knew that he had infantry supporting the pupchens and my rushing men would have been slaughtered. So I waited for arty support which had little if any effect on the pupchens. So I learned my lesson, no pupchens in my ladder DYOs while I am attacking(use date limitations). They are the bargain basement highly effective closer range AT and HE guns that cost nothing. What is funny is I guessed correct right from the start how many Fionn had. Must have caught him off guard a little, and I think I saw it in one of his responses. Hell I would take ten everytime and wreak havoc on an attacking force. Anyways the game isn't over yet. It is too bad that Fionn felt it necessary to give away some of his force stregnth in this post. I never once attacked Fionn's moves or choices in this game, just the basis on which the points are attached to units in this game. Hell if I knew this from the start, I would have played a much different game. But lessons learned by mistakes are what mistakes are for. Fionn I will come back and play you again, without the mistakes I have made in this game, but this game isn't over yet. I still have some fight left in me. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonicc Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 disregard. did not think to change the date and look at the units ------------------ Teutonicc The MEMBER Formerly Known as Teutonic [This message has been edited by Teutonicc (edited 06-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 From the sound of them they shoould be worth 20-25 a piece. Gees if u can get 9 for 100ish u have an awesome AT defense for the cost of around 1 AT gun. I know wot i'd rather have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Personally I think that the Puppchen is an inferior AT platform to the schreck. It is limited to defensive deployment, can't re-deploy at all and has a large "footprint" thus making it vulnerable to incoming fire. Its HE potential is miniscule. All in all it is ONLY a good last-ditch defensive weapon when integrated into a solid defensive plan mixing long-range and short-range tank killers. OTOH once they are used well they are deadly BUT isn't every weapon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't get over how incredible this thing is. 10 points for one? Good lord. I had two of these account for 5 Sherman kills. From LONG RANGE. I can't get over how effective they are. Sure seems to be a supergun so far from what I have seen in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I had two of these account for 5 Sherman kills. From LONG RANGE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps THIS is the problem and not the point value. From what I have read these were NOT that accurate at long range. Like most recoilless weapons in WW2 their accuracy dropped quickly as the range increased. I have yet to 'play' with this one, maybe tonight... ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: 8,8 cm R-Werfer 43 It was discontinued as the Panzerschreck was so much lighter and cheaper, while delivering "comparable" range and penetration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From this I'd say it definitely should be more expensive than Schreck, no? Am I right in assuming the price of equipment is related to it's BTS's approximated effectiveness, instead of "real world" cost? Like the Jeep costing more without MG that with it. I think this should be the other way around. Or be user selectable method of prizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts