Fed up with Ubertank battles!

[Tanklover MD]

Wouldn't you want the biggest tanks you can get if you are playing Germans. I am knew to the game, but I was just reading a thread about quick battles, and half the people there think it is impossible to win as Germans anyway even with the big tanks. Seems like the majority position is that BTS has slanted the game against Germans and no one can fight it. So if the game is slanted against Germans so bad, why shouldn't the Germans get lots of big tanks to make up for things?

[Juju]

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

Ladder games are about 1 thing... WINNING<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all! Ladder games for me are about two things: 1: Having fun, and 2: having someone else (than me, that is) keep track of the PBEM games I played (like a game log).

Sure, winning is fun, but having fun just by playing is better. I do not aspire to become number one. And with an attitude like that I never will. And I don't care one bit!

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

I prefer an enemy who's willing to die for his country. That way both him and me have the same aim in mind.

[Pvt.Tom]

Tanklover MD, he he, good name, was Tanklover already taken? You can't believe everything you read on this board, most people are fine with the way the game is now and you can win as Axis or the Allies. Some people just have stronger feelings on that subject so they are the ones who post the most. Don't take what is in that thread to be the majority opinion on the subject.

[This message has been edited by Pvt.Tom (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Marlow]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take some of that action. PBEM Armor battle, you take Tigers, I'll take Americans, and will limit my tank purchases to a max 150 points each (i.e. no Jumbos or Pershings). You choose the points and conditions, but give me at least a little cover.

[Gremlin]

Tanklover MD, no, you definitely don't always want the biggest German tanks, because they're expensive, move slowly, and have slow turret traverse speed. That's not at all to say they're bad--far from it--just not perfect.

You can do a lot with "lesser" German armor. Mobility is one of the main assets of any armor, and even light tanks and armored cars can be vicious when used well.

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

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

--Eisenhower

[M. Bates]

Tungsten in CM 1.1 means that I will in future never buy Tigers, Panthers or KTs.

Tank destroyers all the way for me.

[Tanklover MD]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt.Tom:

Tanklover MD, he he, good name, was Tanklover already taken? You can't believe everything you read on this board, most people are fine with the way the game is now and you can win as Axis or the Allies. Some people just have stronger feelings on that subject so they are the ones who post the most. Don't take what is in that thread to be the majority opinion on the subject.

[This message has been edited by Pvt.Tom (edited 01-18-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I am a Doctor. You all should read the other stuff. I just joined, and have read some of the stuff, and I got the impression that Allied tank guns cut through German tank guns like butter, that Shermans run circles around Panthers and Tigers, that German infantry is no good, and that the Germans never win. I have always liked the Germans, although the town I grew up in had a Walker Bulldog in it that I used to crawl all over (when I get a web page I am going to post some pictures -- if I have time) and I thought they were pretty good, but if you believe what is being said then playing Germans is like playing basket ball in lead shoes. Even Mr. Bates on this list wont play Tigers and Panthers because they are out gunned by allied tanks.

[Panther131]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tungsten in CM 1.1 means that I will in future never buy Tigers, Panthers or KTs.

Tank destroyers all the way for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is off topic but would like to add to the thread. (this topic is covered in a another thread entitled CM1.1armor Points)

This is exactly why the armor point reduction in combined arms meeting engagments should be reversed back to its previous state. It is quite obvious to me that with Tungsten the advantage is swayed back to the allies, thus giving the allies more (50%) armor points only results to an even greater advantage in armor on the battlefield.

[jshandorf]

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

First off if you are using your allied armor to square off mano-a-mano with the German armor no wonder you feel screwed. You can't do this. In real life the Americans realized they could do this, so don't. Use the terrain, use support troops, use distractions, us any tactic butt head to head.

Jeff

[medlinke]

Okay, I see the point in the Short-76 rules and gentlemen's agreements, etc. But at the same time, in the Quick Battle Equipment Purchase screens there are limits on points you can spend on certain categories.

While these don't prevent you from buy 5 Uber tanks, if you follow the rules (ie, if the number below your cost for that type of equipment turns red...cut your spending) So, yeah, a player could choose to use 2 Uber Tanks and a halftrack, so what? For that same amount another player could buy a lot of smaller to medium tanks and just outmaneuver or outgun the infantry allowing units like Bazookas, and Mortars to concentrate on the super tanks, which are vulnerable.

Do I condone unrealistic purchases? Only if both sides agree to it. Do I think it's unfair when it isn't talked about beforehand? Definately.

Either follow the game limits, or follow Fionn's nice ruleset if you are going to complain about these things.

It really all comes down to a problem in communications between the PBEM / Ladder / League players.

medline

[Slapdragon]

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

First off if you are using your allied armor to square off mano-a-mano with the German armor no wonder you feel screwed. You can't do this. In real life the Americans realized they could do this, so don't. Use the terrain, use support troops, use distractions, us any tactic butt head to head.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good point Jeff, but I see the problem on both sides. The Germans never ran their tanks around like taxis in New York, they were masters of Infantry - Tank tactics and stealthy but fast attacks, especially since they had to deal with so many adhoc forces that had a little of this and a little of that (armed HTs, Stugs, MkIV, Panthers, all in one big mess) . The Allies fear German tank defenses and thus prepare very well or else they face death by Chrek and Hetzer. Gunfighting was just not common on any side historically.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

The Allies fear German tank defenses and thus prepare very well or else they face death by Chrek and Hetzer. Gunfighting was just not common on any side historically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact, it was generally considered a failure to end up putting your tanks up against the enemies tanks, since that is not really what they are for.

The result is generally both sides end up with a lot of dead tanks.

That being said, the nature of armored warfare meant that when the bad guy breaks through your lines and starts stomping around with his tanks, often the only way to catch and contain him is with your tanks, so tank on tanks fights did happen, but they were NOT the goal of either the defender or the attacker.

The attacker wishes to go kill things that do not shoot back, like supply trucks and HQs and such. Fighting other tanks inevitably results in the attacker getting banged up and unable to carry on with the real goal, exploitation.

The defender would rather defeat the armor attack with his dedicated AT assets (towed AT guns, TDs) rather than his actual tanks, that way he can save his most potent and mobile asset for something else, like attacking himself.

This is a bit of an over-generalization of course, and there certainly were cases where one or both sides sought out tank to tank fights, usually in an effort to defeat the enemies mobile forces as a prelude to something else.

Jeff Heidman

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

In fact, it was generally considered a failure to end up putting your tanks up against the enemies tanks, since that is not really what they are for.

The result is generally both sides end up with a lot of dead tanks.

That being said, the nature of armored warfare meant that when the bad guy breaks through your lines and starts stomping around with his tanks, often the only way to catch and contain him is with your tanks, so tank on tanks fights did happen, but they were NOT the goal of either the defender or the attacker.

The attacker wishes to go kill things that do not shoot back, like supply trucks and HQs and such. Fighting other tanks inevitably results in the attacker getting banged up and unable to carry on with the real goal, exploitation.

The defender would rather defeat the armor attack with his dedicated AT assets (towed AT guns, TDs) rather than his actual tanks, that way he can save his most potent and mobile asset for something else, like attacking himself.

This is a bit of an over-generalization of course, and there certainly were cases where one or both sides sought out tank to tank fights, usually in an effort to defeat the enemies mobile forces as a prelude to something else.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly right. I cannot count the number of times a German Uber tank showed up on my door stop without proper support. The death of three zooks is a small price to pay for killing one of those things.

Fionn's rule of 76 really is best to put variety in the game. Lots of tanks never get bought because of the love of the heavies. Point for point, a German heavy will kill twice its weight in allied tanks or more (allies make up for it by having better anti infantry ability) if handled well, so sometimes they get overused. Makes it less interesting if you know they will always have the same mix of big tanks.

[Trooper]

I never/rarely use 'ubertanks' myself, unless you count Churchills, but I will always make sure I have one or two little gadgets capable of dealing with any ubertanks the -enemy- may have.

Read: Tank destroyers, AT guns and a few infantry AT weapons.

I actually use the official US doctrine in my battles. (Not deliberately, it just works out that way). I'll buy Sherman 105s, Priests, Churchill VIIIs and such as tanks, and throw in a Wolverine, M36 or some such cheaper AT vehicle to play with enemy armor. I figure the important thing is to kill his infantry, and mobile howitzers are a good way of doing it. (I had a Sherman 105 with a Tiger and a King Tiger killed to its credit in PBEM so don't knock them as anti-armor either!)

This can kinda backfire though. I recall a recent PBEM game where I had an M8, M36 and Priest as armor, plus towed guns and half-tracks: the enemy, it turned out, had a Tiger, a 50mm AT gun, a 120mm spotter, and everything else was infantry. A 120mm mortar round came down the roofless M36 on turn 4 of 40 or such, the M8 got knocked out by the 50mm, and then he brings forward the Tiger. The Priest spent the rest of the game running away from the Tiger and lobbing 105mm shells at troops. Final result was a very slight victory for him, (Because I held the objective) but it went to show that just because he's got a big tank, and is cautious using it, all is not lost.

NTM

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[MikeE]

There is another way to easily limit or at least place a risk on buying a lot of heavy stuff: play in snow or rain to increase the chance of bogging. I find this works well on rural or farmland maps where roads are limited. I've played several QBs this way with no other limitations and it makes for fun games. The ground pressure of some of the big stuff doesn't disallow it, but makes it risky depending on the map you get.

Mike

[This message has been edited by MikeE (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Guest Space Thing]

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

There is another way to easily limit or at place a risk on buying a lot of heavy stuff: play in snow or rain to increase the chance of bogging. I find this works well on rural or farmland maps where roads are limited. I've played several QBs this way with no other limitations and it makes for fun games. The ground pressure of some of the big stuff doesn't disallow it, but makes it risky depending on the map you get.

Mike<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool idea MIKeE. Simple yet effective. Rain or snow. Ha! That'll make them Ubertankers pause. Get out yer rain pnchos and snow shovels boys cause yer gonna need 'em. LOL!

[BlackVoid]

Marlow I would be glad to play with you, however I only play TCP/IP. PBEM is not my cup of tea. If you do not have much time at any one time, we can play the game through several occasions, a few turns every time.

Email me at blackvoid@jahoopa.com.

Rain and snow is a really a good idea against heavy tanks! And I came up with another one. If you know your opponent likes heavies, play on gentle slopes with moderate trees and buy plenty of AT mines. Then place your infantry out of LOS from the other side of the map.

[BlackVoid]

Just trying to keep the topic alive.

[Robert Mayer]

The issue for me isn't whether ubertanks are good or bad, it's merely variety and historicity. Variety, because I hate playing the same old stuff over and over again, and historicity, because in the war you didn't get this level of heavy tank action.

Then again, I simply won't play with folks who insist on min/maxing to win at any cost