Eliminating The Ubertank Problem: Selecting The Right Parameters

[Col Deadmarsh]

This subject was started in another thread but I figured it should have it's own thread so I'm taking Abbott's original comments with my response and making it more public.

What I suggest below seems like an obvious cure for what seems to be a constant complaint by players of the game. I'm interested in hearing what parameters the CM players use the most and what they do to combat the use of heavy tanks by the opposition.

I'd also like to know if anybody out there has standards they use when starting a new battle so as to eliminate the aforementioned problem and give each opponent the most options when choosing their unit selection.

Originally posted by Abbott:

...As far as anything goes play the usual I run into (used to run into) was OOB's that were Chuchill (152mm frontal armor) with a mix of British and US Airborne and Glider troops. King Tigers, JadTigers,Jadpanthers and Pershings abound as well.

...I think it's funny when someone like yourself brings up these "gamey" issues as if there is a problem with this. The way I see it, you get what you pay for. The units are very well priced in this game. There doesn't seem to be any glaring disparity between a unit's assets and it's price. Therefore, each unit will have it's strength and weakness and it's up to the opposition to exploit those weaknesses. Supposed "gamey" tactics should easily be stopped by simply choosing to play on a map that will allow for the most amount of options for each player.

Now, I can understand if you are playing on a flat map, that would limit each side's choices. That's why I never play on farmland or rural unless I'm looking for an all-out tank battle (which I hardly ever am.)

By playing the standard village, modest trees, modest hills QB you have pretty much eliminated all of the potential problems you listed above concerning Ubertank dominance. Even with only a few small hills and some decent cover using trees or houses, a player's options are wide open for what strategy they wish to use. Taking Pershings, Jumbo's, KT's, and JT's is not necessarily a good idea--in fact, it might just be a bad idea once surveying the land after purchase.

Now, maybe you feel limited by using this way of setting up a map. I myself, don't. I have come over from CC2 where we made great scenarios using the same damn map every time with only having the power to change the deploy. By simply changing where each player sets up, we made each battle a unique one.

Upon coming here, us CC players looked at this element of the game and thought we were in heaven. To have the creative freedom to make a map from scratch is almost unbelievable. So when I play a QB, and each map is different every time, I for one don't feel restrained by using the standard "Village-Modest" settings every time I play.

Back to my point though...what this provides to the recreational player is a full range of possibilities while practically eliminating the supposed problem of Ubertanks taking over a battle.

Forget about the historical accuracy of what the recreational players's unit selection would be and give me your analysis on whether or not this doesn't rid us of the "Ubertank Dominance" problem that so many people here seem to complain about.

I realize this isn't an innovative solution. It seems to be a given to me so I'm wondering why it's not used more often.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Abbott]

German heavy armor was indeed manufactured and fielded. My position is it gets a bit tiring when facing it in game after game. I like playing the full scope of Combat Mission, not just tactically maneuvering to knock out heavy armor every game. Ack, does this make me a manuverist?

Geez, Col_ has a vendetta been declared by you or what?

[Croda]

I'm not sure I agree here. Throw 2 KTs in a town with good narrow lanes of fire covering Armor AOAs and say bye-bye Allied armor. A KT in a town is a very tough nut to crack since you shouldn't see anything but that front armor. I'm not quite sure what else you were getting at here.

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

Woot! - Maximus2k

Stick around while the clown who is sick does the trick of disaster.

You are quite correct, but sniper is an easier term to use than 'Semi-regular soldier hiding out and shooting enemies unawares.' - wwb_99

The New CessPool

I AM CRODA, ENEMY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS. PETERNZ OWNS MY SIG FILE AND MY MEAGRE SOUL: ANY REASONABLE OFFER ACCEPTED

[Panzer Leader]

I have read so many threads on this subject and the whole thing escapes me. I am just as against rules like "Fionn's 76" as I am against companies of KTs rolling across the ground. Each of them is an example of one thing:

EXTREMISM

Why is it that all facets of life are quickly separated into two extremists groups? Just look at CM, we have: Attrition/Maneuver, Historical/Ahistorical, etc. But the middleground is so often silent. It is because we enjoy our game in a way opposite to the extremists. It is called:

MODERATION

Here is an example. In a game I am pbem'ing, I have US glider troops. I wanted to explore the idea of a battle in the rear during D-Day. I took a company of gliders, some Jeep MGs and a single infantry gun. That was a good usage of gliders, to me.

In another battle, I have a King Tiger, but it is surrounded by 3 IVs and the bulk of the armour is actually made up of Lynx's.

All I'm saying here is that you play the game you WANT to play. Either exploit the rules and go to the extreme's or let reason and fun prevail and play it like it was meant.

I'm sure Big Time didn't make the game thinkg "Boy just wait till we can team up those Churchills and glider troops! It will ROCK!"

[Echo]

I usualy start off with heavy strategic bombing of their Uber-tank production facilities. I quickly follow up with commando raids aimed at filling their fuel tanks with stale, overpriced German beer.

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

As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton)

[aka_tom_w]

This issue seems to be pretty "hot"

so I'm really not interested in both sides yelling at me but.....

Do the players in the top 10 at T-house ever play "Let the computer pick the units"?

In the ladder play over there at T-house would anyone in the top 10 want to play me if I wanted a game and said computer selection only, or if I said I prefer a canned scenario to play ladder game? Would anyone trust me to have never played it before? Would I be a fool to trust them to have not played it before?

I think there is a problem when cherry picking is the rule rather than the exception and heavy tanks and cheap SMG squads carry the day most of the time. (is that Actually happening?

I have only been assaulted this way only once, a KT and SMG squads in Nov 44, a leathal gamey time frame for the Axis, I got my clock cleaned as the Allies)

Now it is very important to state here that I am not suggesting I am, or anyone else should be telling other people how to play, (not at all) but I do support the idea of another ladder for a more historical OOBs. Perhaps free of the "Powergamer" mentality.

I like to play "anything goes" sometimes too, so I see that side but there should be a place to find and compete with folks that like caned scenarios and computer selected units and historical OOBs.

I think the issue here is the perhaps the ongoinh distastful notion of cherry picking amongst "powergamers".

-tom w

[Tanaka]

hmm... (this is to all my PBEM and TCPIP opponents)... Please, please bring King Tigers, JagdPhanters and JagdTiger VIB... I never, on a QB, sow any of this "terrible" beasts... I've downloaded some nice skins for them, but I never manage to see them

I'm always reading topics about, the ubertank this, the uberank that, the ubertank is "gamey"... what a hell is an ubertank anyway ?

Just don't do a "tutti-fruit" force... stay in an army branch and that's all.

I don't need any special rules in order to

be able to exactly know your force composition before going to battle, if I want to know that, I was playing chess and not CM ...

PS-Edited because of some spelling corrections

[This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

As I have always said, there is one rule when I play a QB versus an unknown opponent: Computer Buys.

Now, if I know ya, I am willing to compromise. And sometimes I do play all-armor funfests to break the monotony. But the reason I have not joined T-house is because it is dominated by Starcraft-come-CM players who do not understand the merits of a good, unoptimized, force.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest Mikey D]

Paying v1.12 Allied 76mm antitank guns have had unexpected success at knocking out King Tigers... from the front! ...with turret hits! ...from 300m! I don't mind loosing my ubertank to a good clean side shot after a well executed flanking maneuver, but loosing one to a front turret shot???!!! Not my idea of historical accuracy.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

Paying v1.12 Allied 76mm antitank guns have had unexpected success at knocking out King Tigers... from the front! ...with turret hits! ...from 300m! I don't mind loosing my ubertank to a good clean side shot after a well executed flanking maneuver, but loosing one to a front turret shot???!!! Not my idea of historical accuracy.

Some here might say that it is historically accurate that HVAP tungsten rounds Could And Did do that.

( I think)

(Frontal penetration noted, was it a weak spot penetration?)

-tom w

[Windopaene]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

As I have always said, there is one rule when I play a QB versus an unknown opponent: Computer Buys.

WWB

but what about "cheating"? It was mentioned in another thread that if your opponent hosts, and computer buy is selected, they can look at what you got before they send you the file. Not to mention the fact that there's no way to make sure the host didn't choose computer buy for you and human buy for themselves. although in the latter case, it would probably become apparent as the battle wore on...

[Commissar]

Why don't both sides simply agree not to use certain pieces of equipment? If you are sick of seeing Tiger after Tiger or Pershing after Pershing, just voluntarily agree to limit the choices. Otherwise, you can just assume the other guy is going to get the uber stuff and then get the equipment necessary to make him regret it. Just deal with it like any good historical commander.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

As I have always said, there is one rule when I play a QB versus an unknown opponent: Computer Buys...

Is this because you want the guy who makes the setup to be able to see the map,his and the other's forces before he sends the file to the other player ?

A bit unfair, isn't it ? after all one of the players does not have this kind of advantage

Originally posted by wwb_99:

...it is dominated by Starcraft-come-CM players who do not understand the merits of a good, unoptimized, force...

This is so funny... Do you know them all ?... Can you scientifically prove that ? what kind of treatment did you give to your statistical study ?

[This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 03-21-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

Originally posted by Windopaene:

but what about "cheating"? It was mentioned in another thread that if your opponent hosts, and computer buy is selected, they can look at what you got before they send you the file. Not to mention the fact that there's no way to make sure the host didn't choose computer buy for you and human buy for themselves. although in the latter case, it would probably become apparent as the battle wore on...

Well, they might know what I have, but they have little idea how I will deploy and use it.

And you point out the fallacy in letting one side computer buy then doing a gamey human buy, that it does become apparent. The CPU does not buy Churchills and US Glider squads.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Mikey D:

Paying v1.12 Allied 76mm antitank guns have had unexpected success at knocking out King Tigers... from the front! ...with turret hits! ...from 300m! I don't mind loosing my ubertank to a good clean side shot after a well executed flanking maneuver, but loosing one to a front turret shot???!!! Not my idea of historical accuracy.

If you look at the in-game stats you'll see that 76mm can easily defeat the KT turret front with Tungsten rounds at 500m. As can the 17pdr. So unless you bring some figures stating that either the KT armour is understated or the Tungsten penetration is overstated, I think you have little to whinge about. Or indeed prove in any other way that the 76mm could not defeat the KT frontally in the turret at 300m.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[grunto2]

king tigers should probably show up in groups. they were in 'a' heavy tank battalion (was there more than the 1 battalion the one commanded by otto kumm in the 1st ss panzer corps?)

i would think too that king tigers should be supported by ss. did regular heer ever get king tigers?

i like going up against heavy armor with u.s. cavalry. it is easy to lose, but so gratifying to win. that makes it worth the effort.

if you can get the king tigers on anything but dry or very dry ground, then they have problems with becoming immobilized.

heavy fog or darkness also makes the king tiger suboptimal - that's great for u.s. cav.

my experience in using heavy german armor is that, more often than not they don't end up being worth what i paid for them.

that's why when playing germans i go for the sdkfz7/1 and 7/2 halftracks, and lots of 20mm flak, 37mm flak, 75mm ig, and 75mm recoilless. these are 'high firepower' units which cost little.

so as some people get tired of ubertanks - for awhile the craze was tigers supported by fallschirmjagers (totally ahistorical) - others get tired of my own methods where i only buy cheap, high-firepower units.

the best way to get around this is to play pre-made scenarios which have been tested and are thought to be balanced, or in qbs, let the computer buy the units.

andy

[Pud]

Since there are no supply limitations (for tanks in this case) in the game, would it not be acceptable to impose your own. Perhaps something like, can only select

1 tank >200

2 tanks 150-200

3 tanks <150

or something similar, regardless of starting points. I find games that have most points spent on 1 or 2 large (expensive)tanks tend to be all or nothing games, once your tank is dead you loose. Dull. But then I only ever play games <1000 point(combined force)so I dont come across the ubertank problem.

Pud

[curih]

I think that random weather is a nice counter. It makes the big heavy stuff quite a risk.

CuriH

[Col Deadmarsh]

Croda said:

I'm not sure I agree here. Throw 2 KTs in a town with good narrow lanes of fire covering Armor AOAs and say bye-bye Allied armor. A KT in a town is a very tough nut to crack since you shouldn't see anything but that front armor. I'm not quite sure what else you were getting at here.

If your opponent has 2 KT's in a town, he will have very limited firing lanes. So, you simply go where he cannot fire. This could mean attacking the outside of the town with assault guns and moving in your infantry till you get within range of the beasts with your AT teams...or flanking the town to make your opponent split up his troops to deal with the situation whereby he'd also have to move his big tanks. After all, there'd be no reason to keep those positions if you're not gonna come that way.

Sure, your opponent might be able to grab a desirable spot where he is hull down with some nice firing lanes but the counter to this is simple: you go where he isn't. Make him move the tank by going somewhere else, even if it's not your first choice of a route to take into town.

Of course this is assuming you are playing with the parameters I described above which is at the very least: modest trees, modest hills, and a village setting. Having heavy trees or a town setting only makes it harder for big tanks because you take away their strength, which is distance between them and you.

Let's also not forget about heavy arty and smoke as weapons against Ubertanks. Let's take the worst-case scenario here:

Your opponent has heavy tanks on a hill overlooking most of the map. What do you do? Well, if you were smart, you would either A)Get rid of the tank or B)Block the tank's lines of sight.

If you have heavy arty, this is the time to use it. If you don't, you use a mortar team or some light arty to place a wall of smoke in front of it to block it's view as you move towards better cover where you can either flank it or get close enough with some armor that has a big gun so you can get a shot at close range.

I played one battle against a guy recently where we had these huge hills overlooking a valley in the center. He was Allies and conducting a probe.

I took a Panther and put it on the biggest hill I had. I could literally fire almost anywhere onto the valley below which was the only route he had to get to the flags. It seemed like a hopeless situation for him.

So, what did he do? Well, he didn't take any heavy arty but he did take a couple of 80mm off-board arty teams and by using them together, he created smoke screens in front of that Panther every time he needed it to move his men forward to the vls. I was powerless to stop him and after a few turns, he had AT teams below the ridge that my tank was on and so I had no choice but to move it so it wouldn't get killed.

He had taken what was a seemingly hopeless situation and turned it around. I had spent all these points on a big tank, had the best spot on the map to put my toy, and yet he rendered it useless.

The great thing about your opponent having superior LOS like that is that for every point on the map that his Ubertank has sight on, your arty teams have the same spots to him. At least one of those spots is sure to have some woods or a building around it where you can sneak an arty team in to order down some smoke to block the tank's view of the field. After that, it's up to you to hit the tank from it's sides/rear or avoid it completely which makes your opponent have to move it from it's favorable position to have a chance at hitting you.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

On the subject of Tigers in the Ardennes, who had them, which types, etc. The following site gives detailed info on the particular heavy tank formations.

http://chsk.com/steppenwolf/tigers.htm

In the Bulge, the 506th (Heer) had 4 companies, 3 with Tiger II and 1 with Tiger I, each 14 tanks. Plus 3 Tiger II in the HQ section. The 4th company was inherited from an old "fire brigade" formation, KG Hummel (CO of the company). Incidentally, I made a scenario named "the Fire Brigade" based on the actions of formations exactly like Hummel's; check it out at the scenario depot. The whole battalion was commanded by Major Lange until January '45, then by Hautmann Heiligenstadt.

From battle reports on the U.S. side, I believe these were heavily engaged in the fighting east and southeast of Bastogne from Christmas to mid January. Some Tiger IIs were, anyway, and these fit the bill in terms of units present. There were a number of posthumous medals associated with them.

The 501st (SS), previously the 101st, had the usual 3 companies, total 45 Tiger IIs. At least one source claims it was commanded by Osbf. Westernhagen - I don't claim to know. This was the 1st SS Pz Corps Tiger battalion and at least part was attached to Peiper's KG. They stayed in the Ardennes until late January.

They reported 13 total losses in combat, with 18 operational and 13 under repair, sometime in late December - presumably after Peiper's KG came back without their vehicles. This is consistent with 1 company KOed, another damaged or broken down, the 3rd OK. Specific U.S. reports claim 4 Tiger IIs, 8 other "heavy tanks" of unspecified type, KOed in action before Peiper's withdrawl.

It was common to assign the Tigers by company or platoon to sub-formations, and probably Peiper's KG (the armor of 1SS) had, and lost, 1/3rd of the battalion. The other Pz division in the corps would have another, with the last in reserve - is my guess.

502, previously 102, would by TOE have been with the 2nd SS Pz Corps. But in fact it was refitting in Germany, having lost all its tanks in the retreat from Falaise way back in September. They did not draw their first replacement Tiger IIs until February, and did not see action again until late March, on the eastern front.

301 (special) had 27 Tiger I, with the number operational ranging from 12 to 21 in December. They were used as control vehicles for ~60 BIV "Goliath", in Army Group B. Those are the old Pz I chassis used as remote controlled vehicles to place 1000-lb demo charges. They probably had a company of them able to support at any given time, I'd bet mainly to blow roadblocks. Why thick armor for that job? To deal with ATGs, I suspect. Older versions of these formations used StuGs.

So, overall, that means 90 Tiger II and 41 Tiger I, less than some less-detailed estimates I've seen. Many historians have probably just assumed that everywhere a Tiger battalion was "supposed" to be, organizationally, there was one and it was really there, but that is not so.

Incidentally, I can't help remarking on one comment made earlier in the thread, where one fellow expressed the opinion that a certain fad for Tigers plus FJ infantry was "gamey". Those gamey Germans. In the Bulge attack, the 3FJ division was supposed to follow up behind 1SS, and 1 company of them rode on some of the KGs tanks.

From the above and other sources, it seems those amounted to ~14+ Tiger II, ~40-50 Panther, ~40-50 Pz IV. They also had a dozen flakwagens, a battery of 105mm, a battalion of infantry in halftracks, another battalion of armored recon, and a small group of engineers. That was the forward or mobile group. Neither the wheeled Pz Gdrs of 1SS nor the leg infantry of 3FJ, managed to keep up. With no one keeping the road open behind the tanks, they were cut off, surrounded, ran out of fuel, and were abandoned after a few days.

[CRSutton]

It is my experience that quanity works well over quality. Big tanks are expensive. I like the M18 Hellcat as a counter. Relatively inexpensive and excellent in any but open terrain.

Despite its thin armor, TD crews actually liked it and preferred it over the other TDs due to its reliability and ability to shift position quickly. Mobility is the best weapon when fighting the big tanks.

Of course on a small map your options are much more limited.

[grunto2]

/*Incidentally, I can't help remarking on one comment made earlier in the thread, where one fellow expressed the opinion that a certain fad for Tigers plus FJ infantry was "gamey". Those gamey Germans. In the Bulge attack, the 3FJ division was supposed to follow up behind 1SS, and 1 company of them rode on some of the KGs tanks.*/

well i saw it as a fad for awhile. fjs with heavy tanks; anything but stugs. it didn't affect any of the battles in any way, it was just kind of 'amusing.'

andy

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Col Deadmarsh kicked us off saying -

"There doesn't seem to be any glaring disparity between a unit's assets and it's price".

Sure there are. Pure tank to tank fighting ability is cheap in CM, and many dubious benefits of other kinds are overpriced.

Does anyone think 2 Stuarts have the same fighting ability as a Tiger I? The Tiger Is gun will kill just about anything. Its armor will bounce most rounds from the front, and common types from the sides. The Stuarts need close flank shots to kill ordinary things. Why do they cost the same? 6 MGs vs. 2 MGs, perhaps. Earth-shattering benefits like that.

Or, a Pz IVs main gun is as powerful as the main gun of a Sherman 76. Neither's armor will stop common enemy AT rounds. The Sherman costs 4/3rds as much. Or, for the same price, you can get a Sherman with a much weaker gun. What do you get in return? 1 MG. A few extra HE shells. Big items like that.

A Sherman 75mm costs basically the same as a Jadgpanzer. The sloped JgdPz armor will bounce common AP rounds. Its gun will kill almost all Allied vehicle from the front. The Sherman will not bounce any common AP round. It can kill only a few types from the front, and all but a few - not from the front but - from the side. What is the return payoff? Extra MGs, more HE rounds, a turret.

Or, a Brit Firefly costs about the same as a U.S. Sherman 76. But its gun is far more powerful. The better gun you get for being British, not for paying for it.

Or, compare the upgrade even the Brits are offered, to by a Firefly. They get a gun that will kill most things. So the cost jumps dramatically, compared to a 75mm Sherman. Now, over the the German side, consider upgrading a Pz IV to a Tiger I. You get a gun that kills everything, so a similar jump is surely in order. But you also get armor that stops most common AP rounds, for not much added cost. The jumps are about the same size.

It is not just pro-German. It does have that effect, simply because the Germans have lots of tank-fighting ability "on offer", and since that is underpriced, they can buy the bargain stuff in boatloads. But the same issue is found on the other side, in the TD vs. tank match ups.

A Hellcat costs less than a Sherman 75mm. In return, it gets a much more powerful gun, likely access to T ammo that makes it a truly useful gun, and much higher speed. What is given up? A roof. Some MGs. A lot of HE shells. Those things are valued as much as the gun, actually more than the gun. It is even more extreme with the Achilles.

If the Germans are going to take 2 Panthers 2 Tiger IIs, then sure the Allies can react. Just take 4-5 tank destroyers. But if they took Shermans instead they'd toast.

Automatic weapons for infantry are similarly underpriced. If you compare infantry types, number of men, and small arms carried, you will find that SMGs cost the same as rifles. SMGs fight much better than rifles. Therefore, any infantry type with more automatic weapons will give more bag for the buck, including all sides paratroops, and special German types.

There are also glaring cases the other way, of items to avoid paying for. The Germans can be 2 halftracks and get 15mm-8mm armor and 2 MGs. Or they can buy a Pz IV with better armor, 2 MGs, and an excellent gun. What are the HTs paying for? 2 Sqd passengers instead of 1. Whoppie!

Or, for the price of 2 flamethrowers you can have 3 HMG teams. The HMGs have up to 155 fp at close range, or 465 for all three, and 50-100 at long ranges. They also have 95 ammo apiece and 18 men, with no loss of firepower until 6 are taken out. The FTs have 18 ammo (12 for the allies, for the same cost), a maximum range of 45m, and are lost altogether for losses than would not silence 1 MG. In return they get 200 blast if a team lives long enough to fire, which they usually don't.

Or, a 20mm FLAK costs 3/4ths as much as an HMG, kills better and torches light armor too. The trade-off? 4 men vs. 6 and slower.

Everybody learns about these discrepencies. Then they just buy more of the items that are bargains. Tank fighting power is cheap, so people buy a lot of it. Ability to kill infantry with tanks is overpriced, so it is not often a heavy investment. FTs may be neat, and HTs realistic too, but they will bring ruin if too many are bought, so they aren't. Vanilla Shermans and Pz IVs and StuGs are not so cheap that people willingly but them without a gentlemen's agreement beforehand, over the types with better guns or armor.

What German commander buys vanilla "rifle '44" infantry? Some prefer SMGs, and some Panzergrenadiers, SS, FJ, or Sturmkompanies - the 2 LMG per squad varieties. Nobody wants 1 LMG and 2 SMG, the rest rifles. Yet 1 LMG 2 SMG would be an improvement in small arms for an average Allied squad.

Or take the -1 minute reaction time for mortars. Comparing HE power of other artillery types, it is clear this benefit is free. Thus the preference for the 4.2" and 120mm mortars, for example.

The prices may be "close enough". But claiming there are no discrepencies between price and combat power is simply not borne out by the facts. And as long as such exist (and some will, even if you tweak these), then there will be an incentive to ignore history and cherry pick the force.

I like picking forces, because I want to see how certain weapons' mixes might work out, tactically. And if no pretence of history is desired by the other fellow, then I don't care about any of these things, nor about winning, very much.

The moral is simple that there is room for gentlemen's agreements about what forces to allow in the mix, to avoid some of the pitfalls of the patchy price system, without giving up all abililty to choose one's force to fit one's preferred tactics.

There is nothing nonsensical about it. There is a real issue, however minor it may be to you, and people have developed ways of handling it. Leave 'em alone.

[Abbott]

Here you go Col_ an AAR from two highly rated player's at Thouse (posted today).

AAR:

7 guns in a 1000 point game. Throw in an uber map and a Panther and it felt like I was playing (name blanked out). Serioulsy GUNS, Guns and more guns followed by a human wave of SMGs is the axis concoction to vic. We might need to start bidding for axis, cause I dont lose with em either. I been playing Allies alot lately against newer players. Some have crested the learning curve and realize that their is no excuse for losing with axis. (name blanked out) knows how to win with em. Winning with Axis has become like holding serve. Yet it is far harder to break em with allies then it is in Tennis. YOBO, hurry up with the new chat so we can start implementing a bid for axis to even this thing out.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by grunto2:

... Those gamey Germans. In the Bulge attack, the 3FJ division was supposed to follow up behind 1SS, and 1 company of them rode on some of the KGs tanks...

Hmm... I love when people make the exception the rule... It is, I don't know... It is so, so smart

Hmm.. lets see if I can do something equally smart or even more smart... wait... wait... I managed it... It took me a while, but I managed it...

As CM 2 is in the order of the day, I think this is a good choice... Factory technicians effectively maneuvered the Tiger Tanks into battle at the relief attempt in Stalingrad (Command by Hoot) they were stopped in Abganerov...

Now, BTS, in light of these historical occurrence, I would like to be able to command German factory technicians and of course I will mix them with the tiger tanks

One good reason for some one to stay inside an army branch is only because it is more polite. It may even look that you are a good sportsman...

Now a bit more seriously... There are dog people and cat people, maybe they shouldn't mix, who knows...