Fed up with Ubertank battles!

[BlackVoid]

Almost every game I play, especially ladder games, end up as a duel between ubertanks. I never seem to meet anything else just Hetzers, King Tigers, Sherman Jumbos and Churchills. Not only it is not correct historically, it is also boring and annoying. A large number of these battles are decided on luck instead of tactics.

Is anyone feeling the same way?

It would be nice of BTS to put in an option that excludes these heavies from play because I think they ruin the game balance.

Fionn's rules are great but not many players know them.

Check them out at: www.rugged-defense.nl

[Maximus]

Just make it to where the computer picks the forces for you (and your opponent). Then you won't get these kinds of battles.

[Guest Space Thing]

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

just Hetzers, King Tigers, Sherman Jumbos and Churchills.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, I know what you mean! They can be fun in their own right, but NOT ALL of the time. Yuk! Maybe the ladders should have the CM AI pick the forces.

[I/O Error]

Introduce your opponent to these rules:

http://www.rugged-defense.nl/cm/Fionn3.htm

Insist you play by them, makes it a LOT more fun.

[Tiger]

Well it takes two to tango. If you're always running up against heavy tanks, don't you pick heavy tanks also. The best thing to do is to take no tanks at all, just infantry and support weapons, and kick his ass.

~Tiger

ps~ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, I also buy heavies most of the time. Otherwise how would I kill those Churchills or King Tigers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Infantry are a tanks worst enemy, try it and hone your skills instead of using this lame excuse

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-17-2001).]

[BlackVoid]

The trouble is, computer picked forces are sometimes way too imbalanced. One side gets a tank and a few armored cars, the other only inf and halftracks.

Or is it balanced after 1.1?

What are your experiences with computer picked forces?

And yes, I also buy heavies most of the time. Otherwise how would I kill those Churchills or King Tigers?

[Andymann]

Maybe the prices are too generous in favour of tanks and artillery and should be upped for CM2?

[KiwiJoe]

Ladder games are about 1 thing... WINNING. No 1 is going to risk using anything but the best units in a ladder game in case they lose a rank in the process. If you don't like that, do what I did... stop playing ladder games, things will never change.

[ntg84]

Since when is a Hetzer an Ubertank?

[Juardis]

I guess you need to play me I insist on Fionn's rule of 76. Rule of 75 is fine for a change.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Stuka]

I'm just starting a game with a fellow cesspoolian (5000 pts) where we've gone all armour (Fionn's 76 rules), NO infantry and a limit on arty of 81mm only. We're going to ignore the VL's and concentrate on a 'search & destroy' type of game. We've each got 2 kublewagons/jeeps hidden somewhere as bait. Once they're dead, thats the game over.

It should prove interesting.

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

Torture you? That...That's a good idea.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Tiger : I dont think its a lame excuse at all. Only certain specific situations allow a non-armored force to stand on even ground with a combined arms approach.

Ntg: The hetzer is cheap, and pretty hard to kill. Maybe not an uber-tank, but it is an optimum FP/cost pick, making it way too common in pbem use, and pretty boring after a while...

To each his own though..

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'm not big on Ubertank battles either. Have you tried playing with heavy trees? The Ubertank's strength is taken away when it's LOS is cut short.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Mark IV]

Hetzer is extremely vulnerable to infantry, with thin side and rear armor and only 1 MG. The gun is good, but it's only a 75, after all.

It may be a great value (it is) but it is not ueberstoff.

[Tanaka]

What are you talking about here...

I've more then 50 PBEMs done, 35 of them in ladders and I never sow a KT or JgPz VIB in one of my battles. Ok...now I remember I sow a Jumbo76 once..aaghz I lost that one... well, one we lose others we win I don't play with any special rules either...

What points size have your battles ? Don't forget that the CM game system was developed for a 2000pts maximum battles... The 5000pts were put there because players asked for it.

In the CM game system 10 tanks can be given an order to go down the road... In the next 60 secs these tanks will go down the road even if the 1st tank is blown way, 2nd one too, 3rd one... and so on. In the real live I could believe the 2nd tank commander could be caught, but the 3rd !?!?

This brilliant game excels in battles between 1000 and 1500 pts.

Only my opinion, don't flame me

PS-KiwiJoe... a game ?

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Fionn's rules DEFINITELY make gaming more fun and equal. Try some recon/light armor-it's fun whipping around the map with 37mm popguns sometimes.

[Slapdragon]

You know though, the German ubers are not all that they are cracked up to be, and neither are the Pershings. I have killed Super Pershings with Chrecks, and a King Tiger with a Hellcat.

Still, it is noice not to ALWAYS face the heavies. I do like random random battles, and wish there was a way to make everything random. Make for some more excitement. Like, what the hell do I do with all these M8s?

[Tiger]

I like to use an occasional heavy tank in my games. I have yet to use anything over one Tiger I in any pbem games and don't think I've even seen a M4A3E2.

It's really the person you play with and the type of player you are. I still say it takes two to tango. If you're tired of "uber-tank" games, stop picking the heavies. I do not believe I have to follow a rule of 75 or 76 to police myself.

If I decide to take one king tiger or a jumbo some day....deal with it. The computer AI seems to have no trouble relieving me of these big tanks.

"I take ubertanks because that's the only way I can destroy other uber tanks my opponent plays with", is lame. It acknowledges that you knowingly play with people who constantly take heavies and that you're going to take them too, continuing this vicious cycle.

If you play ladder games to be on top, over the enjoyment of just playing... well there are more important things in life than a stupid ladder

~Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-17-2001).]

[Panther131]

I dont quite understand the anti-ubertank thing all that well. I mean they are in the game arent they? I mean BTS put them in there to be used right? If your sick of them, use the FIONN rule(s) or play mechs or infantry only.

Funny thing is and most probably wont believe me (my screen name) but I dont play with the panthers and tigers much. I played 1 KT once, a lone Tiger twice, 2 tigers in one pbem and no panthers in my multiplayer games so far. Thats 4 battles with ubertanks in about 20 or so multi-play games.

[Maximus]

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

And yes, I also buy heavies most of the time. Otherwise how would I kill those Churchills or King Tigers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panthers work well against Churchills, even those Churchill VIIIs.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Even Mark IV's work if you have several. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet!

[Guest Napoleon1944]

Perhaps we can post some scenarios following some guidelines (ie Fionns rules) for more balanced play. We can post them as QBs and number them and have people make random choices for the scenarios they play. All we have to do is set up the map and pick the forces, the opponents will depoly them. If eveyone followed some guidelines and submitted them to a gamemaster for review, we could post hundreds of pre generated scenarios. Anyone want to setup a new site for pregenerated QB scenarios?

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

The only enemy I fear is nature.

-Napoleon

[Guest MantaRay]

What is the big deal about Big Tanks in battles? Do you think german and Allied Commanders had the luxury of saying, "Well, it isn't fair to use this Company of Panthers, because they only have Shermans.

Usually the "Advantage" you get by having them isn't all it is cracked up to be.

King Tigers cost 249-498 (conscript to elite), PantherG's 174-345, Tiger(Late) 154-316, JPzV 174-343. Now Stug IIIG's cost 83-163.

Now with buying the StuGIIIG's, I can buy 3 to 1 compared to KT, and 2 to 1 of any other "Big" Tank out there. The numerical superiority means far more in CM than most ppl think.

True, it is easier to kill the StuG's, but they are able to kill most of the Allies Tanks if used properly. Even the Panther, which is the best tank in the game, can be killed easily by the ShermanM3A4(76) which is 156-287.

This being said, when you buy the lower quality tanks, you are also able to buy more Inf,Arty, and Inf-AT, which IMO turn as many battles as King Tigers will.

Now if you really have a problem with big tanks, that is cool, but the system in CM penalizes you for buying the big guns. Infantry is king of the battlefield, and losing a squad or a StuG or Sherman wont hurt you as much as losing a 400 point tank.

How many of you have been close to tears when you lost one in a battle that hinges on their success? I have, and I prefer to go into battle with more options than that.

Now ppl may not want to play me for saying this, but I do so love the big tanks, and no way in hell I would ever have someone "limit" my purchases because they can't hack it with the big boys. I will never complain because someone has beaten me by using units that are in the game, and were used in real life. Ironic how I would rather decimate opponents troops with StuGH42's or Priests, and deal with whatever else comes with the infantry.

Remember, the US went into the war knowing they had crappy tanks, but we won because of numbers and attrition. Wasn't equal then, and it shouldn't be in CM. That would be ahistorical.

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

Click now for shelter from the Peng thread

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Subvet]

I don't really see why people complain about this either.

1. I rarely buy the big tanks, and seem to do ok without them.

2. If you don't want to play with them, fine, make that agreement ahead of time with your opponent.

3. Big tanks aren't the best weapon in every situation anyway.

4. I see people on this forum sometimes complaining that their big tanks got beat by the little guys that whipped past them and shot them in the ass. If people complain that the big tanks are overpowered, and others complain that they are underpowered, I'm guessing they are probably just right.

[BlackVoid]

I think some people misunderstood me.

Actually, I like heavy tanks and I am not afraid of them either.

Let me put my problems straight again in a few points.

1. Heavy tanks are expensive and you can buy only a few. This especially true for the axis player with the new (and in my opinion unfair) point distribution system.

2. Against heavies like the Churchill, Jumbo and the King Tiger you do not have much chance unless you buy similarly strong equipment. It is true that you can go for At-guns, but then again your only choices are the big ones like the 17pounder or the german 88.

3. Because you have less, but better equipment in a typical battle of around 1000-1500 pts, luck often becomes a decisive factor instead of tactics. An unlucky arty hit may take out your prized few AT assets and then you are toast.

4. Using infantry to kill heavy tanks is only possible if your opponent makes a stupid mistake.

5. Using light tanks to kill heavy armor from the flank is a risky undertaking. If your opponent is smart and not a newbie, he is protecting his tank with infantry and/or light vehicles. This tacic does not work against the fast turreted and heavily armored Churchill either.

6. The use of heavy arty, although I like using it; is also unbalancing and kills tactics.

7. Of course I will suggest all my opponents to play by Fionn's rule or maybe with the computer purchasing.

8. I like playing ladder games because of the added tension, not because I want to reach the top at all costs. Playing just for fun against a complete stranger is not that much fun.

9. I included the Hetzer on the ubertank lists, because they are very hard to kill without heavy stuff. They suck as inf support weapons, but who cares? I really think they should cost more (but only if axis gets back the points!).

I challenge anyone who thinks that he can beat me without heavy equipment for a fight. Try to beat me with Stugs or infantry when i have Churchills. You will loose... Badly. Or try to beat me with Shermans when i have Tigers.

The conclusion is that the exclusive use of heavy equipment puts the emphasis on luck and gamey tactics. Playing by Fionn's rule is highly enjoyable and less frustrating. Despite all this I will not refuse to play anyone just because its a heavy tank battle. Simply put, I want to play more battles where I loose because I made a tactical mistake or because my opponent outsmarted me and not because his heavy arty took out my forces then he annihilated me with Churchills or King Tigers.

Just an example: in a recent game, on a map with very restricted LOS I was defending as the Germans. Because I knew that the map was going to be like this and I expected my enemy to bring Chuchills (which he did), I bought 3 Puppchens, a 75mm AT gun and a Tiger. The latter was a big mistake. I thought the Tiger was capable of taking out the Churchill frontally but it proved to be not the case. Because of the nature of the map I had to concentrate my forces in a small area. First he sent suicide half-squads as recon. These were decimated soon, but he got to know my position. A heavy arty barrage soon followed which took out three of my AT guns and a third of my infantry. Then he proceeded with two Churchills and a Centaur from a keyhole position at the side of the map. At this point I should have attacked with my Tiger head on, because that was my only chance to win. A very slim choice, because three tanks against one in a prolonged duel is not good. Even if they cannot kill the Tiger, they have a good chance to take out the gun or immobilize it. I was also afraid of Piat teams in the woods. He proceeded with the 3 tanks and methodically started to demolish EVERY building in the village. I withdrew out of their LOS of course, but at the price of additional infantry casualties. At this point I was waiting with the Tiger for him to move the tanks to target the remaining houses in the village. This was a mistake, because a sneaky Piat team killed it. Regardless of this mistake I never had a chance to fight back in this game and it was very frustrating. Of course next time I will bring a Panther and annihilate those Churchills, but it is not the point of the example. My opponent won by superior firepower without giving me even a slim chance to fight back.

Next time we play, we are going to play the same stuff with switched sides, because I want to have him eat his own medicine.

I like Napoleon44's idea of setting up a database of quick battles. Napoleon email me: blackvoid@jahoopa.com or look for me on ICQ: 100082586.