"Veteran" crews worth the price?

[Cap'n Slappy]

The two things that drive me nuts are having a tank become immobilized in mud and losing one in a duel because my gunner can't hit the other guy in 4 rounds. I know that having a crew that are "veteran" status improves gunnery and the ability to free a vehicle, but is it enough of an improvement to warrant the extra cost?

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721:

The two things that drive me nuts are having a tank become immobilized in mud and losing one in a duel because my gunner can't hit the other guy in 4 rounds. I know that having a crew that are "veteran" status improves gunnery and the ability to free a vehicle, but is it enough of an improvement to warrant the extra cost?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my personal experience, its better to save the money on the veteran vehicles for veteran infantry.

[KiwiJoe]

It really depends on the unit and how you intend to use it. If its an infantry support tank... sherman 75mm, cromwell, wespe, stuh 42 etc then reg is the better choice. But it can be a good idea to buy vet TDs and assualt tanks. In tank vs tank battles its often a case of he who hits 1st wins. Vet staus will increase the % chance to hit and rof. But then agian you might be able to buy 2 reg TDs instead.. 2 guns are always better than 1. Really its up 2 your style of play.

[Warmaker]

Personal preference for me is to get veteran status for all units. In addition to accuracy, unbogging, reload times, keep in mind that it reduces reaction times. One of the most important is finding and engaging targets when the tank is buttoned up. In engagements also, the time it takes to line up a shot is quicker also. Well, at least it feels quicker to me on my Tigers and Panthers but that's just my own observation.

My train of thought is to get guys that can shoot straight and get the kill. It does me no good if I get a bunch of expensive equipment with inexperienced crews who can't hit the broadside of a battleship at point blank range. But that's just my prefence

BTW Mike, nice quote.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Jarmo]

As far as I know, vet's arent more accurate than regulars,

they just shoot faster. Neither are they any better at

unbogging vehicles.

I've started experimenting with veteran Hetzers,

you get a bit faster ROF, and it's still a cheap tank..

[KiwiJoe]

Jarmo: the % chance to hit DOES go up with unit experience. Its usually a reasonable amount too

[JasonC]

I don't think the higher qualities are worth it for most vehicles. But for tank duels, the extra reaction speed, speed on the "draw", first round hit chance, etc, can be worth it. So I like better quality for 1-2 "shooters" or my best tank-dueler vehicles. But for every vehicle? Nah, that is a waste IMO.

[Redwolf]

Veteran has about 8-10% more of everything, hit chance, time to first shot, rate of fire etc.

If I'm not mistaken (seen it myself and there was a thread about it), in a tank duel, the veteran unit may fire later, though. This is because the regular or green unit gets a hasty first shot off while the veteran takes time to aim. If the regular's first shot is lucky, that may cause grief, of course.

Veteran AFV are also less likely to be abanoned when penetrated or immobile. How many "abadoned" not "knocked out" tanks did have lately? Some of them could be still running with veteran or better crews.

I agree that veteran clearly does not pay off for AFV that are not meant to duel with other AFV. For those who do, however, I think that veteran ist not enough, amoung the reasons is the time-to-first-shot issues describben above. I would either optimize the price of the whole force to get a tank more or otherwise build a tank hunter detachment that really does the job, crack that means.

[aka_tom_w]

Don't forget its NOT just Regs vs Vets.

There are six experience levels

Conscript

Green

Reg

Vet

Crack

Elite

If you choose to play with HIGH experience set up in the unit selection then the Vets are the cheapest units you can get.

If you play with medium then you can only buy Vets and Reg and Reg is the cheapest.

In Tank duals Vets are absolutely a little more accurate than Regs and you absolutely have a better chance of a first shot hit.I agree with the suggestion to buy Tank hunter/killer tanks (like the Allied M18 Hellcat) with the highest experience level available. In the case of the Hellcat is it VERY lightly armoured and MUST hit and Kill first to survive.

I usually play the Allies and I usually prefer MORE experience and fewer units over more units with less experience.

Try to play a few games, even just a against the AI with HIGH experience level troops and tanks, Pick a few of each from Vet, Crack and ELite and watch how they do, the Elite tanks ALMOST never miss, which means MORE first shot hits and more first shot kills which is a BIG factor in tank duals.

Tank crews with more experience are absolutely, positively, shoot more accurately when they fire their main weapon, they also benifit from a higher Rate Of Fire.

-tom w

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Jarmo]

Ok, I did an exhaustive testing on the matter.

(1 run for each of the 2 scenarios )

I set up two 1500pt quick battles.

Flat treeless terrain on a medium size map, good weather.

All the shooting took place at 1000+ meters.

I gave the allies regular M4A1(76) Shermans,

1500 points buys 9 of them.

For the first go, I gave the gremans elite PzIV H's.

You get 7 of those for 1500 bucks.

For the second go, I gave the gremans conscript PzIV H's.

You get 14 of those for 1500 bucks.

Now, the 76 is inherently more accurate, but not such a good

bang for the buck in this case.

The first test showed the elite tankers are worth their pay.

All nine Shermans were quikly destroyed, for the loss of

4 Panzers, plus one gun damaged.

The second test showed the conscripts are also worth their

lower salary. They too wasted the nine Shermans without

any serious difficulties. Eight panzers were lost.

Now what do we learn for this?

1. You get what you pay for, equal share of

Panzers was destroyed in both scenarios.

2. In scenario 2, there was a helluva lot more

HE firepower left for germans after the figt.

This doesn't neccessarily mean it's better to have a horde

of cheap tanks. It's a lot easier to launch a succesful

abmbush, for example, if it doesn't take 5 shots to hit.

[Conscript Bagger]

I was curious whether higher quality crews' increased chances to hit were actually shown in-game via the LOS/targetting line - turns out it is.

I did a quick test involving six Panthers and six MkIVs, one each for every experience level, aiming at a lone Jumbo about 790 meters away. The German tanks were lined up hub to hub so that they were all seeing virtually the same aspect of the Jumbo (front).

For both types, Panther and MkIV, Conscript crews showed a 15% chance to hit, and there was an increase of 3-5% for each step up in quality. At experience levels above Conscript, the Panther chance to hit was either equal to or 1-2% greater than the MkIV of the same experience, which is probably the effect of the higher velocity long 75. At the upper end of the scale, the Elite MkIV showed 34% chance to hit, and the Elite Panther showed 36%.

So it's only one test, under sterile conditions, but I thought it was interesting anyway.

[SenorBeef]

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

I was curious whether higher quality crews' increased chances to hit were actually shown in-game via the LOS/targetting line - turns out it is.

I did a quick test involving six Panthers and six MkIVs, one each for every experience level, aiming at a lone Jumbo about 790 meters away. The German tanks were lined up hub to hub so that they were all seeing virtually the same aspect of the Jumbo (front).

For both types, Panther and MkIV, Conscript crews showed a 15% chance to hit, and there was an increase of 3-5% for each step up in quality. At experience levels above Conscript, the Panther chance to hit was either equal to or 1-2% greater than the MkIV of the same experience, which is probably the effect of the higher velocity long 75. At the upper end of the scale, the Elite MkIV showed 34% chance to hit, and the Elite Panther showed 36%.

So it's only one test, under sterile conditions, but I thought it was interesting anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.. I would think that the difference in velocity (which is the only way CM calculates accuracy - as opposed to using optics, and such) would justify more than a 2% increase.

[Conscript Bagger]

I know what you're saying, so maybe velocity isn't the reason after all. On the other hand, the MkIV gun's velocity is fairly high to begin with, maybe to the point that additional velocity doesn't increase accuracy a great deal. I don't know enough about the physics involved to say for sure. However, I'm guessing a comparison between vastly different velocities, like that of the short 75 on a /9 halftrack and the long 88, would show a bigger difference in accuracy at range.

[Skipper]

> maybe to the point that additional

> velocity doesn't increase accuracy a great

> deal.

There are factors that make a longer barrel more accurate, but there are other factors that make it LESS accurate. A long unsupported barrel vibrates during the shot and these vibrations mean shot dispersion. The longer the barrel - the wider dispersion.

[Michael Emrys]

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

...maybe to the point that additional velocity doesn't increase accuracy a great deal....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might at longer ranges than you tested. You might try it again at 1000-1500 meters and see what differences show up.

Michael

[Conscript Bagger]

Skipper, thanks, I hadn't known that. Michael, just because it's late and I'm bored, I did that test. At 1508m, the following chances to hit the Jumbo were displayed:

Con Mk IV - 9%

Grn Mk IV - 12

Reg MK IV - 14

Vet Mk IV - 16

Crk Mk IV - 19

Eli Mk IV - 23

Con Mk V - 11%

Grn Mk V - 14

Reg Mk V - 17

Vet Mk V - 20

Crk Mk V - 23

Eli Mk V - 27

Eli Mk VIb - 29%

Eli SPW 251/9 - 7%

The Panther and MkIV numbers are again not vastly different, although the Panther's gun is more clearly at an advantage. The KT gun is ever so slightly better, and the short 75 is virtually pointless (but then, you wouldn't fight tanks with it anyway).

Not sure why I care so much about this; my tanks miss and die no matter what kind of gun they're packing.

[CombinedArms]

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

I gave the allies regular M4A1(76) Shermans,

1500 points buys 9 of them.

For the first go, I gave the gremans elite PzIV H's.

You get 7 of those for 1500 bucks.

For the second go, I gave the gremans conscript PzIV H's.

You get 14 of those for 1500 bucks.

Now, the 76 is inherently more accurate, but not such a good

bang for the buck in this case.

The first test showed the elite tankers are worth their pay.

All nine Shermans were quikly destroyed, for the loss of

4 Panzers, plus one gun damaged.

The second test showed the conscripts are also worth their

lower salary. They too wasted the nine Shermans without

any serious difficulties. Eight panzers were lost.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was curious why the 9 regular Sherm 76s lost to both the 7 elite Mark IVs and the 14 conscript Mark IVs, then I reasoned that, since the Sherm 75 will punch easily through the Mark IV, they're overgunned for the job. As Jarmo says, you get less bang for the buck. I wonder how 12 or 13 regular M4s (plain vanilla) would do against either force? What about M10s--however many that buys. My theory--untested--is that against a pure armor force, TDs may be the best buy.

[Jarmo]

76's greatest strength against german tanks is the fast turret.

But that's of not much use in a long range shootout.

I believe basic Shermans wouldn't do as well, those have really

inaccurate guns. Again, their value is in fast turret and large

HE load.

M10 would undoubtedly be the best buy in this scenario.

More accurate and powerful gun than in PzIV's, and cheaper.

In average, you can expect tank destroyers to be a good idea

when fighting tanks. That's what they're for.

[Redwolf]

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

My theory--untested--is that against a pure armor force, TDs may be the best buy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course.

If your 100mm armour tank turret is hit by a shell that penetrates 130mm, the 100m are useless, it wouldn't matter if it was 50 or 20mm instead. But the 100mm cost money or points to start with and make the tank slower. If you know that you are engaging targets that fight back with guns that penetrate your armour anyway you are of course better off getting more tanks with the same gun but without the extra armour.

If you don't need the turret because you don't use the tank to drive into possible enemy positions, but engage known tank positions or wait in ambush, a turret would be a waste of money/points and makes the tank easier to spot and hit.

You can of course invest the saved resources anywhere you like, more speed, better gun, less silhuette, just plain cheaper (read: more of these tanks). All is better than useless armour plates or useless turrets, but inly if you know that you engage that kind of targets only.

If the typical CMBO game was big enough and people would realize how valuable platoons of similar tanks are, you would see a company of Marders much more often instead of the lone Jagdpanzer IV/70.

The problem with the Hellcat is that it is so thin that it is vulnerable to 20mm guns and to smaller HE shells. Not a good choice for many typical CMBO battlefields where guns raise like flowers.

The HE capability of the U.S. 76mm gun is not that bad, BTW. Since it is more precise, it can engage single targets almost as effective as the 75mm. See the tread that ran this week (what was it's subject?).

[ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721:

... is it enough of an improvement to warrant the extra cost?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As KiwiJoe and CombinedArms point out, generally one does not need many (if any) Veterans. My rule of thumb: 1 Vet infantry platoon for attacking or holding key positions. Vehicles and guns with high ROF are good Veteran candidates; most notably light barrels 20mm-40mm. Consecutive shots become more accurate. Since high ROF weapons tend to discharge multiple rounds in a given time compared side-by-side to large weapons, the Veteran status augments first shot and consecutive round capabilities more so.

[Trooper]

I think one of the earlier posters hit the nail on the head.... I will buy infantry (For staying power) and anti-tank units the highest quality I can get. Infantry support (eg field guns) and transports like half-tracks I'll take at a lower quality since 'close enough' will do the job with a 150mm shell....

NTM