So Who's Tougher?

[Predator]

After yet another grueling battle, I wish to ask everyone this question. In your time in playing CM, which side do you find to be the most difficult to defeat? Are the Germans and their superior tanks impossible to overcome or do the Allies hold some trump card?

Myself, I find the the Germans are an infinetly harder to defeat force, especially with their Infantry and Tank purchasing power. But, maybe there's something the Allies have which makes them the tougher force to beat. Opinions?

[Lorak]

Umm

I find that I like the germans because I really like the shreck. Thier tanks are a little harder to take out, but with some room and knowhow they are not that difficult.

Personaly I find the american infantry to be harder to deal with than the german. They have greater firepower at range. So they can sit back a little further and cause some damage. Also thier 12 man squads give them an advantage in that they don't lose as much firepower per casualty.

Just my .02

Lorak

[Maximus]

Pretty much what Lorak said.

German infantry has an advantage in anti-tank firepower. While Allied infantry have a greater range and generally more men per squad than German infantry.

As far as tanks, yes German tanks are generally better armored, but the Allied tanks are generally faster and have fast turrets. The Allies seem to have a bit more variety in light tank vehicles as well. Stuarts, Greyhounds, Daimlers, etc. I've had a Greyhound on a last desperate attempt to take out a Panther and it succeeded as it drove parallel to the Panther and popped it in the side and the Panther didn't even see it.

[aka_tom_w]

I have said this before and I still beleive it.

It is EASIER to win with the Germans.

And it is harder to win with the Allies.

Understanding how to use the Allied units effectively is more difficult than buying VG SMG infantry and BIG German tanks.

Sure there are advantages and disadvantages to either side, but I suspect most inexperienced players find it easier to defeat the Allied AI with the Germans than to defeat the German AI while playing the Allies.

just my two cents worth

-tom w

[Stalins Organ]

It's harder to win with whatever I'm using, and easier with whatever he's using!

[lcm1947]

I agree with Aka, the german's seem harder to beat to me. The main reason is the tanks that they have. Sure I know, but the German tank has the range on the American tanks and nobody can tell me different. I have played time after time trying to be able to sit on top of a hill and just shoot the crap out of the German tanks like they do me and it don't work out too good if you are using America tanks. You can with the German tanks. Then once the American tanks are taken out they've got the game in the bag. Because unless the map is heavy trees then it's just a matter of protecting your tanks with infantry and mopping the GI's up. So I firmly believe German's are tougher. Another thing is why are the German's cheaper? Mainly, talking again about the tanks. Their better but cheaper. What's up with that? :mad:

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

I agree with Aka, the german's seem harder to beat to me. The main reason is the tanks that they have. Sure I know, but the German tank has the range on the American tanks and nobody can tell me different. I have played time after time trying to be able to sit on top of a hill and just shoot the crap out of the German tanks like they do me and it don't work out too good if you are using America tanks. You can with the German tanks. Then once the American tanks are taken out they've got the game in the bag. Because unless the map is heavy trees then it's just a matter of protecting your tanks with infantry and mopping the GI's up. So I firmly believe German's are tougher. Another thing is why are the German's cheaper? Mainly, talking again about the tanks. Their better but cheaper. What's up with that? :mad:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germans Tanks cheaper? Could you provide some figures as you see them, that prove this? If you're implying that superior german tanks are cheaper than 'inferior' allied tanks you're playing a new version of CM which I've never seen.

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[lcm1947]

I will be glad to provide proof but let me start the game to get the prices. Be right back.

[lcm1947]

OK Bastables here are the prices I was talking about.

Panzer IVG- $119, Jagpanzer IV-$120, Panther Pz VA - $195, Panther Pz VG- $199, Kingtiger - $286, Tiger(late) -$178 now for the Americans - M4 - $118, M4 (105) - $142, M4A3(75W)- $146, M4A!(76W) - $163, M4A3 (76)W+ - $193, Sherman (Jumbo) $176, Sherman (jumbo 76) - $ 211, Jackson M36B1 - 139, Pershing - $275, Pershing Super - $261. So that will give you an idea what I,m talking about. You never noticed this? Let's take the Panzer ( any of them ) against it's main foe the Sherman. Now true the M4 is only $118 against the Panzer's $119 but look at the difference between the two. Which one would you rather be in in a shooting war? Now let's look at the Panther - the Panther for crying out loud - $195 against the Jumbo 76 of $211. Which would you bet on? How about the Jagpanzer of $120. It's a tough little vehicle for only $120.00. I can't think of an American tank that's that cheap. Maybe the Greyhound but it's not even a tank and is certainly no match for the Jagpanzer. I could go on and on but I think you can see my point if not agree with it. So yeah I think the German Tanks are too low priced for what they are. And if you don't agree try playing someone that is your level and let them play the German's and buy say $1000.00 worth of tanks and you talk the Allied's and buy the same amount of tanks. Bet the kill you .

[Stalins Organ]

lcm - why do you think that tank costs should be based solely on their anti-tank capability? Surely their anti-infantry ability is important also?

[Gen-x87]

the Panther for crying out loud - $195 against the Jumbo 76 of $211. Which would you bet on? "

Well I can attest that tonight predators Jumbo won the match

Maybe next time my Panthers can shoot straight!

Gen

[lcm1947]

Yeah, well anybody can get lucky but I certainly wouldn't go head to head with a Panther if I was in a Jumbo. At least not twice.

[KiwiJoe]

I think the allies are tougher. American rifle 45 with 12 men rock... they can take a real beating and have excellent all round firepower. American artillery is also powerfull. You get more points to spend on it and its generally more timely than the german stuff. The british 3 inch mortar is 1 of the best support weapons in the game. Cheap, tons of ammo and the best firepower of any onboard mortar by a long way. Also their 6 pounder AT gun is a great buy. Inexpensive, accurate, fast rof, and almost always has a reasonable amount of deadly T rounds. Also the 17 pounder is the most powerful allied gun (vs AFVs) in the game. It will punch a hole threw the front turret of a Panther at any range. (penetrates 120mm@2000m).

As far as armour goes you just have to play smart. Generally try to use AT guns and artillery to knock out enemy tanks and let yours provide infantry support. If you want to go tank hunting buy numbers of. 3 Jacksons hunting and reversing over a ridge line together will fry a lonely Panther pretty quickly. Same holds true for 3 archilles.

[lcm1947]

. If you want to go tank hunting buy numbers of. 3 Jacksons hunting and reversing over a ridge line together will fry a lonely Panther pretty quickly. Same holds true for 3 archilles.

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

OK, I've just got to ask. Do you really mean Reversing over a hill, like in going backwards? Please explain as I have no idea what you mean unless you really mean reversing. And is so what does that do? I guess I don't get it and knowing how good of a player you are I would love to learn something. Sorry about the last sentence KiwiJoe but ever since the post where you challeged everybody in the world to a game I just had to say that. No meanness intended. I actually thought you handled yourself extremely well thur the whole thing.

[KiwiJoe]

Find a nice hill that has good los over the map. Place your 3 Jacksons on the reverse slope of that hill out of LOS. Give them all the hunt order forward over the ridge of the hill plus a reverse command back to where they were. During the turn they will move forward seeking enemy units. If they find none they will reverse back to their start point by the end of the turn and not be sitting there like ducks in a barrel for AT guns next turn. If they find a target they will stop (usually in a nice hulldown postion) and blow it away quickly 9/10 times. 3 Jaksons all firing on 1 target is a hell of a lot of firepower. Then they will reverse back and be safe from AT guns next turn. The idea is most people have there AT guns hiding and only unhide them and target your AFVs in the planing stage. Using this tactic your tanks should rarely be in LOS of any enemy unit during the planning stage. Plus it often leaves gives your tanks hulldown postions making them harder to hit. Plus if your enemy has his AT guns unhidden they will only get off maybe 1 shot before your tanks either reverse to safety or get raped by 2-3 main guns plus mg fire.

It works well with any tanks depending on what your trying to achieve.

[chrisl]

I think Elvis is tougher to beat than jd, and Peng and Seanachai are pretty even. PeterNZer isn't quite as tough as Elvis, but tougher than the other two. Jake is a little lower down the food chain, and doesn't play CM quite as well either.

Translation: I think it depends more on your opponent than the units.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

. Now true the M4 is only $118 against the Panzer's $119 but look at the difference between the two. Which one would you rather be in in a shooting war? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M4 is 117pts.

But yes lets look at the the little buggers eh? The PIVG and H have face hardened armour that is less effective vs the capped AP shells fired by the little M4. The PIV has paper thin armour all round and is actully less well protected vs the M4, the turret armour of the PIV even falls victim to the puny 3.7cm gun.

It should be noted that many Germans felt that the PIII was still a better combat veh because its spaced 7cm armour was fitted to both the turret and hull.

The M4 has a gyro and a fast turret enabling it to shoot and hit on the move. The M4 also sports a better anti-infantry 7,5cm gun and a 50 cal that shreds the German Armoured cars and Half tracks. The Sherman with its shoot and move capability makes it a winner in 'knife' fights. The PIV has the advantage in the 800m + shooting due to a high velocity gun although any hits by the Allies short 7,5cm or even 3,7cm on the turret turns it into an instant fireball.

The Sherman also carts around 190 bursts for its two 30cal mgs vs 120 bursts held by the two MG 34s in the PIV. You know in service the Germans called the PIV Red beard the thin skined.

Sorry to burst your bubble mate but I've been playing this game since the Beta demo. My 'side' is the British whose Shermans suffer from lack of applique armour which the USA can field. These British Shermans of mine have defeated German players since the release of the full game. Playing as the allies has not hurt my win loss ratio one bit. Also since the days of the beta demo many have felt that the german armour was too weak in game when their Tigers met the M18s, which could knock out the German heavy with ease and for only 115pts, quite comparable to the JPIV even if its pros are asymetric.

A poor work man always blames his tools.

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Gen-x87]

Yeah, well anybody can get lucky but I certainly wouldn't go head to head with a Panther if I was in a Jumbo. At least not twice. "

Actually our game had all sorts of fun.

In the first couple of turns I took out a M38 with a 250/9. Then lost it and its sister to 1 .50 caliber gun.

My then two panthers literally took 9 shots between them to hit another M38. By that time one of the panthers took a tung round in the chin.

I placed an 88 flak gun perfect on the backside of a hill.. Except I forgot the 88 flak gun needs a closer distance to be effective than 500 meters. Whoops. Deflected a shot off a side faced Jumbo at 700 meters!

Why cant they shoot at the hull when it sees it is Jumob?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? That went bye bye to a mortar crew a few turns later

Ahh lessons learned.

Gen

[Warmaker]

For me it feels easier to win with the Germans. Why? Because I play them alot and know the strengths and weaknesses of my men and equipment.

In facing the Allies, I feel there's no one "toughest" of them all, but I give more respect to the U.S. and U.K. formations for some reason.

As far as panzer costs go the Jagdpanzers and other such German AT vehicles do seem a good deal and way cheap but these come at a cost. First of all, no turret. Secondly, they tend to have smaller ammunition loadoats to panzers. Bad enough, but MG ammunition is quite low too. The Jagdpanzers average 25 I believe while the Tiger IE is at 100+ for MG ammunition. Thirdly, they tend to be less efficient against infantry (except the Jagdtiger and Jagdpanther but they may be limited due to ammo loadout despite their powerful blasts) and some soft targets. The focus of these vehicles, like their Allied counterparts is TANK DESTROYING.

In the full fledged panzers (turreted) they tend to have slower turrets than the Allies (Panthers having the better compromise of the Big Cats). Also, the panzers' guns on the don't need fancy, schmancy tungsten to pop a soda can open. It also helps that most Allied armor is paper thin to begin with.

Also try this but keep in mind that I think that when most people play a QB, they tend to not use "unrestricted" force selections. For my example I will use a meeting engagement with no pt. bonuses to anyside with combined arms force selections. The Germans get 200 pts for armor selections whereas the Allies get 300 pts. This is in a 1000 pt game. Now, in a 2000 pt game the Germans get 400 whoppin' points. The Allies in contrast get 600 points. A 2000 pt game is somewhat large and with only 400 points and the "slightly pricier" Big Cats a German player can at best hope to field 2 whole friggin' regular panzers, i.e. 2 Panther G Lates with regular crews. An Allied player get can 5 M18 TDs for 550 pts at 110 pts apiece.

Now, let's look at the bigger picture in costs in a combined arms force selection (1000 pt meeting engagement, no pt. bonuses)

German: 620 inf. 248 supp. 250 vehicle. 200 armor. 150 artillery.

Allied: 560 inf. 252 supp. 200 vehicle. 300 armor. 187 artillery.

Now here's with a 3000 pt meeting engagement, no pt. bonuses still:

German: 1860 inf. 744 supp. 750 vehicle. 600 armor. 450 artillery.

Allied: 1680 inf. 756 supp. 600 vehicle. 900 armor. 562 artillery.

Notice that the Germans increasingly rely on other arms such as support and vehicles in particular. The infantry bear the brunt more also for the Germans. In contrast also, the Allies get more points for tanks. In a 3k point game 900 points can get you alot for the Allies. The Germans get 600 but you don't get that much in quantity considering the prices of the Big Cats and especially if higher experienced crews are selected. 3 regular Panthers are the best you get. With 900 points and with regular crews an American force can get 5 M4A1(76)W (156 pts apiece) and 1 M36 Jackson TD (117 pts)... all in the default Nov.'44 setting.

There's more in the points system than the face value of the tanks in CMBO since the force types start to play a big role. In very small games, I admit that an Allied player may have a harder time dealing with a Big Cat since he has fewer resources to expend in dispatching one. In big games however the lower costs of the Allied tanks in combination of their larger tank points availability really does add up, esp. their TDs if the only thing you ever worry about is the panzers.

Another long post by me, and not many uses of the "soda can" in it to boot!

[Knaust]

As I pointed out in a previous post of mine, I think that in an Allied attacking QB 2000 points, Allies are strongly favoured.

Here my statistics of 23 games in the RD ladder:

as Allies I won 10, draw 1 lost 1

as Axis I won 3, draw 3 lost 5

I think these statistics are self-explanatory :cool:

[Jarmo]

My stats from RD ladder:

Axis: won 15, draw 2, lost 7

Allies: 6, draw 1, lost 4

It does seem I win a bit better with Axis forces.

Could be I'm just suckier with allied stuff though,

not necessarily a conspiracy.

My own opinion is, the germans are easier to use.

But the Allies might well be more effective in the hands

of a commander who knows how to use them.

(meaning pro commander vs pro commander)

[KiwiJoe]

I'm actually amazed that the game is so balanced. :eek:

[Olle Petersson]

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

In your time in playing CM, which side do you find to be the most difficult to defeat?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The opposing side!

No, seriously speaking, I find the Germans usually have the best equipment for each specific task, while the Allies (and most notably the US) have better general purpose stuff.

So if I know what the opponent has, I can pick a perfect German counterforce that will eat them for breakfast, but be almost useless against any other enemy force.

If I'm clueless about the opposition, I can pick a US force to counter anything and fail at nothing.

Cheers

Olle

[Marlow]

In well balanced scenarios, the sides should be equal. In QBs, the Germans do, in my opinion, have an advantage over the Allies. I base this on my experience against both the AI and human opponents.

I tend to play Allies (particularly American) more often than Axis, and thus am more familiar with use of Allied units. Nevertheless, my record as Axis is significantly better than that as the Allies. Against the AI, the closest QBs have almost always been when I am playing Allies, and against humans my record is:

Allies W-6, L-6, D-1

Axis W-5, L-0, D-0

This record does not reflect use of any German "system" as I try to the best of my ability to purchase somewhat realistic orders of battle for QBs.

What should be done about this? On a whole, nothing. In armor, the superiority of many German tanks in the anti-armor role is historical fact, and as players of an accurate historical simulation, we have to deal with it much like out real world predecessors (of course without the real world consequences). I would like to see some reevaluation of infantry (rifle and SMG) firepower and cost, as well as the availability of expanded informal TOE for allied infantry squads to balance the huge number of available German infantry types, but even these concerns are not that great in my book.

[Snake Eyes]

In long scenarios (30+ turns), I find that the US has more staying power. Shermans have better flotation and don't bog/immobilize as often as the German heavies. Also, the large US squads last longer and in the end it's the infantry that wins the game.

In shorter scenarios the Germans are tougher. Their hitting power is supreme, but they are brittle and lose their edge as the game goes on.