Counter techs are way too powerful.

[santabear]

Two thoughts:

1. In games against AI, it always seems to me there is a greater payback for AT (those stronger infantry units become really tough), than for heavy tanks.

2. Rabtherab's post reminded me of the (Guderian?) quote: "The most powerful weapon of the tank is its tracks, not its gun." If you wind up in positional warfare, the tank doesn't help much. Tanks, corps and air used in concert can work to keep the battle fluid enough to conduct maneuver warfare. And in that, the tank is essential.

I think that one of the things the Red Army got very good at was in developing tactics to "soak up" the Blitzkrieg's momentum. Then they got good at maneuver warfare themselves, got large numbers of great tanks and conducted some very impressive encirclements of their own. It would have been very interesting to see both armies at their best (Germans 41, Russians 43-44) vying for the Ukraine.

[pzgndr]

Tanks only increase their TANK ATTACK and TANK DEFENCE values.

Tank L5 = soft attack 4, Army L5 = soft defence 7.

That should be Tank Defense 7 for the infantry, since that's what is changing with AT research. But it does highlight a valid issue: techs and anti-techs should be relatively equal at the same level.

Strategic Bombers vs Air Fleets has received considerable complaints. Subs vs ships has also been criticized. And now Tanks vs infantry.

Some tweaking of the combat target values and the research tables is needed for SC2, I'll agree on that. All unit types and research tracks should provide equally interesting capabilities to make them all worthwhile.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Tanks only increase their TANK ATTACK and TANK DEFENCE values.

Tank L5 = soft attack 4, Army L5 = soft defence 7.

That should be Tank Defense 7 for the infantry, since that's what is changing with AT research. </font>

[KDG]

Thanks Zapp, I had always taken it to mean that tank attack was increased for all type of attacks. After rereading the tech description, I see it as only increasing tank attack, not soft attack.

This simplifies the solution for tank research. Have tech advances also increase the soft attack value for tanks. It also means I'll never research tank again until this is modified. I'm on tank research strike. I wonder why this wasn't programmed in originally, maybe an oversite?

[pzgndr]

Don't be so quick to call this an oversight. Armor demonstrated its advantages in the early war - Poland, France, Barbarossa. But as AT weapons were produced and used, armor gradually ceased to dominate the battlefield. It also provides the Allied player a means to halt the Axis advance into Russia. Getting up to L3 quickly is often key to turning the tide. Ditto for Germany on the defense when they need AT to stop those T-34s.

Despite getting no soft attack increases, tanks do have their strength increase. Combined with HQ leadership and experience bonuses, tanks can continue to dominate - UNTIL AT catches up. This makes AT a crucial tech to invest in, at least for Russia.

Should tank's soft attack increase, in addition to unit strength increase? I'm not convinced it should. This may permit tanks to continue to dominate the battlefield throughout the game, which may not be realistic. So the current game may not necessarily be "wrong." It just needs to be understood and the various strengths and weaknesses considered when you make strategy decisions.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Rabtherab:

If you employ the correct tactics, this has never been a problem with me. Frontal assults are simply idiotic, you must carefully scrutinize the enemy lines, choose a weak-point, soften it with air, followed with a massed infantry attack to open the gap, then pour your armour through it and cut off the ememy. Once the ememy units are cut off, you mop up with infantry on one side, and with your armour on the other. The tanks MOVEMENT factor is what really makes them a powerful unit. They aren't supposed to be used for frontal attacks. this is consitent with history, and has always resulted in a fast moving "fluid" game in my experience. Land-lock has never been a problem in my games.

Exactly. :cool:

FOR THIS PARTICULAR GAME DESIGN, soft-attack values for the armor do not change. Why should they?

How else would you effectively counter the already imposing Axis advantages? If you increase the soft-attack values for each level of tank research, THEN the Axis superiority would be even more pronounced, yes?

The way it works now, you have the Axis with armor advantage at the beginning... into the middle game. THEN, the Russians (... after all, WHO ELSE can, or should be able to turn back the bloody black tide?) will GRADUALLY achieve some EFFECTIVE counter.

If they can, or are able to build more tanks (... INSTEAD OF putting money into research for anti-tank weapons), then you will surely see those huge tank battles on the Eastern Front.

According to zappsweden's helpful chart, we can see that you have to reach L3 Anti-Tank in order to surpass the armor's static soft-attack value of 4.

In all the games I have played, Russia rarely gets to this point... MOSTLY due to inability to afford many research chits until later in the campaign... until mid 1943 or even later.

This seems appropriate, since we appreciate that "tank defense" also includes improved tank-destroyers, better doctrine & tactics, engineer units, as well as the task-specific small & large anti-tank weapons that become available.

The early blitzkreig was successful due to mobility, and NOT some almost magical power that tanks might possess... they couldn't ASSAULT a corps or army sized unit in the beginning, nor in the middle, and certainly not towards the end of the war.

Therefore, it MAY be appropriate that the soft-attack value WOULD NOT change over time, especially given that the tank REMAINS a basic artillery piece on wheels... sure, the gun size can be increased, and the armor improved, BUT, you still cannot blow a BIGGER hole through established corps or army sized units, can you? In a certain sense, the PzIII was EQUALLY as effective, early on... as was the Panther or Tiger later in the war. That being the case, why would the soft-attack value be increased?

NO, the intrinsic value of the armor unit would still be its mobility, and ability to attack weakened units in the rear, to include HQs and AFs (... and artillery if it was a separate piece).

Therefore, my conclusion would be: THE GAME AS DESIGNED is perfectly satisfactory AS IS. No need to fiddle with the combat values of tank versus anti-tank.

Besides, it is up to each game player to ADJUST to given parameters... AND NOT up to a game designer to necessarily respond to each suggestion... which is actually an INDIVIDUAL preference, yes?

I ALWAYS buy a certain number of tank units, no matter if I have achieved ANY tech increases. They are useful as shock units and encircling pieces... they needn't necessarily be posited as modern frontal-assault behemoths.

[zappsweden]

I agree with Bill Macon and Immer Etwas that no tank research should have increased soft attack. If they had, it would be impossible to hold a city.

In my ongoing game as Allied, the Axis got anti-tank Level 1, hence I stopped attacking corps and armies with tanks straight away. At Anti-Tank L3-L5 I agree that attacking tanks should be slaughtered but I still think the AT L1-L2 mean s too much and change the game too early and so suddenly.

[ April 04, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Bill

Your comments on anti-tank weapons is very intresting. As the war went on the Armored and Panzer divisions got stronger with less tanks against infantry. Infantry divisions could not stand up to Panzers ever during any part of the war. The real anti-tank weaponed for both the Brit's/US and the USSR from '42 and on was first fighter/bombers, and second the tank destroyer, and lastly infantry A/T weapons (6#er, 50 and 75mm AT gun, Piat and Bazooka). Example... Michael Whitmann killed by Typhoon FB, and the battle of the bulge attacking during snow and over cast skies.

Even as late as early '45 any up to strength Armed/Panzer division would cut thru any infantry division like a hot knife thru butter. Only back up support troops with Tanks and Planes or another Panzer division could stop an armor division and halt it.

But however I have found that Armor in SC does not defend very well against infantry. This is very perplexing, watching a Panzer Group with high experience being destroyed by an infantry corps or army. Has anyone else noticed this! There is not too many examples of pure infantry divisions attacking Armor Division, Arnhem maybe!

[KDG]

Very interesting.

You have people that say tanks are a waste, don't buy tech or tanks. Rambo, Liam.

You have people say AT is too effective vs tanks making tanks a waste. Zappsweden

You then have a group that says tanks are perfect as they are. Immer Etwas, Bill Macon

SeaWolf_48 counters that level 3 and level 4 tanks should cut through infantry.

The question is, why buy tank research as Axis if all it does is improve tank to tank combat vs. the Russians when Russia is going to buy anti-tank and corps you to death. Instead you buy Jet research, and this can't be countered.

Looking at the war right now, our tanks dominate the ground with help from the skys elimanating our opponents tanks, which is what Sea Wolf says.

While I want realism, I also want to see a variety of units on the playing field, as well as each research worth as much as another.

I just don't see any purpose to investing in tank research. Encirclement, and shooting through holes in lines sounds like the best idea for tank use, and tank research doesn't improve this.

Why invest in tanks? This is what the initial discussions were covering. To me you invest in something to keep it from becoming obsolete, and to gain an advantage on the battlefield. This doesn't really happen with tank research.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Maybe I am missing something. These are the values at tech level 0.

Unit.......Attk......Def.....Mvmt

Corp Soft....2........1.......4

Corp Tank....2........1.......4

Army Soft....4........2.......3

Army Tank....4........2.......3

Armor Soft...4........4.......5

Armor Tank...5........5.......5

Heavy Tank Tech will increase the Armor Tank Attk/Def values by 1 for each level.

Anti-Tank Tech will increase the Corp/Army Tank Def value by 1 for each level.

My first point was that the R&D chit you invest does not give an equal return, since the base numbers are different. Level 3 increase for Anti-Tank Corp yields a 4 value versus an Armor units 8 value. Anti-Tank gets a larger percentage increase since its initial number is much lower.

These are the attk:def ratios.

Armor vs Corp ...... 5 : 1

Armor vs Army ...... 5 : 2

Army vs Armor ...... 4 : 4

Corp vs Armor ...... 2 : 4

Investing in Anti-Tank allows the 5:1/5:2 ratios to decrease. Investing in Heavy Tank allows those ratios to increase.

Anti-Tank level 3 equals the Armor vs Army ratio, while level 4 equals the Armor vs Corp ratio.

Maybe the unequal return (ie different base numbers) is intentional to represent the fact that the anti-tank weapons neutralized the armor quicker.

Armor unit has three advantgeous. Ignores enemy zone of control, attack ratios (ie uses armor values to attack) and additional action points.

Back to the original question.

Counter techs are way too powerful........

Anti-Tank Weapons and Anti-Aircraft weapons effectively cuts down on the strategies you can choose from...........

The anti technologies are already dominating at L2, so only a moron would attack a fresh unit or resource with those kind of odds.

Investment in Heavy Tank is necessary to maintain or increase the favorable Armor attack ratios. Otherwise, once the Anti-Tech catches up, your armor losses one of its advantages.

[ April 04, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[KDG]

Shaka, it seems that tech only increases tank attack, not soft attack. Thus no matter how much you invest in tank, it won't help you in attacks vs. infantry, since they are soft attacks.

Thus there is no way to keep up in the Tank/Anti Tank research battle. Gain two levels in anti tank, and tanks are useless in battles, making them only good for surrounding and pushing through the line. Thus, why invest at all?

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

KDG and Shaka, You are wrong. Tanks only increase their TANK ATTACK and TANK DEFENCE values.

Heavy Tanks vs Anti-Tank

Tank L0 = soft attack 4, Army L0 = tank defence 2.

Tank L1 = soft attack 4, Army L1 = tank defence 3.

Tank L2 = soft attack 4, Army L2 = tank defence 4.

Tank L3 = soft attack 4, Army L3 = tank defence 5.

Tank L4 = soft attack 4, Army L4 = tank defence 6.

Tank L5 = soft attack 4, Army L5 = tank defence 7.

Add to this the entrenchment of the army and the higher cost of the tank and u will NOT attack an army with a tank if the army was at L2 Anti-tank. This is regardless of the tanks being L0 or L5 since it only gives some extra power due to larger number (15 instead of 10).

Ok, now I find myself quoting myself. Shake, read it pls. There are no improvements in tank vs infantry ratio when you research heavy tanks. Anti-tank catches up the tanks vs infantry gap, Heavy Tanks does NOT increse the gap.

ALL TANKS HAVE "SOFT ATTACK = 4".

[ April 04, 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

We just answered the same question KDG .

I regard Tanks as "Quick Moving Shields" when anti-tanks are at L2-L5.

[KDG]

Yes we did. That begs the question, do we make the tank tech a little better, or do we reduce the anti-tank tech down a bit.

I had suggested increasing soft attack in advancement of tech research, but maybe we increase the defense of the tank from soft attacks instead. This would keep them from being uberpowerful vs cities and such, but make them a more effective shield, providing strong support in areas, and actually make it worthwhile to invest in tank tech.

[ April 04, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG and Zappsweden

Neither one of you have addressed what I am saying.

When Armor attacks a Infantry (ie Corp/Army) unit, what factors does it use?

Both of you are saying it is a soft attack; Armor Soft attack versus Infantry Tank defense.

I'm saying it is the Armor Tank attack versus the Infantry Tank defense. Hence at tech level 0:

Armor vs Corp ..... 5 : 1

Armor vs Army ..... 5 : 2

As I alluded to in my other post, maybe this is the point I was missing. Not that I have spent alot of time looking for it, but I don't remember anywhere in the manual that explains when the unit type determines the type of combat.

[JerseyJohn]

santabear

Interesting points in your entry 14 postings back! speculating about the battle that might have come about between the Germans at their height and the Russians at their height. They used essentially different tactics. The early German concept was for tanks to avoid fighting enemy tanks! By the end of the war that changed totally.

The intervening 13 posts were also very interesting in a different way, getting back to specific technical points regarding armor vs different types of targets.

My own view is that infantry anti-tank weapons improved vastly during the course of the war. I don't believe there existed a 1939, 40 or even 41 form of shoulder mounted bazooka/panzerfaust. That weapon in itself helped level the odds.

Additionally, there can be no doubt that later in the war, 1942 onwards, all armies possessed a lot more weapons of reasonably high quality distributed among the infantry to afford some protection against tanks. By early 1945 about the only tanks still able to bulldoze their way through infantry was the King Tiger, and aside from being extremely slow and road dependant (they sand in mud and soft earth) they were also a rare breed, only a few hundred having been manufactured and most of those were lost in the 44/45 Ardennes Offensive.

Add to that the advances in using ground attack aircraft in specific tank busting roles. The Stuka flying Luftwaffe Major Rudel is credited with destroying something like 500 tanks. And the Sturmovicks destroyed even more tanks than the JU-87s!

Link to an interesting aricle on tank busting pilot Hans Rudel

[ April 04, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

Shaka, per the manual, tanks have two types of attack:

Tank attack (vs other tanks), and soft attack(vs ground units). Infantry have two types of defense, tank defense(vs tanks), and soft defense(vs ground units).

Thus our problem in the tank(increases tank attack) tech vs anti-tank(increases tank defense) tech.

Hope that clears things up.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

Then something is wrong somewhere.

Since we don't have access to the internals, we can only assume. And what you say does agree more with the odds the computer shows than with what I believed they should be.

But it is not logical.

I don't have the time to figure it out now, but it makes no sense that SC does not give an increase in combat power to a Pz I/II compared to a Pz IV/V.

[jon_j_rambo]

Bottom Line: Don't put any chits on Heavy-Tanks. Anti-Tank (Armies/Corps) are much better in combat. Also (not significant), Armies are cheaper to reinforce, operand, buy, etc.

[zappsweden]

In mid-late game I mainly use tanks to defend important cities because they have the best soft defence. Also, they are harder to attack with air. As Russia, I try to build few units but have them all attached to HQ's. I avoid having corps in vulnerable positions and near enemy air forces.

[pzgndr]

You then have a group that says tanks are perfect as they are.

Perfect? No. My previous point was to caution against simply allowing soft attack to increase with heavy tank tech level. That "fix" would likely make tanks the uber-weapon in the game and that wouldn't be right either. IMO, tanks are fine as they are. Perhaps the soft attack could be increased by 1 to provide a slightly better advantage at the beginning and making AT a bit harder to catch up, or some way to fractionally increase soft attack with each level. These are things to think about.

I disagree that tanks are not worth researching at all. Getting up to L3 while your opponents still have L0 AT does provide advantage, plus you have strength increases to 13 and the experience you gain by stomping around. Russia needs AT to survive, and historically they had 85mm AT guns and other assault guns to do this. So those big armor battles tapered off around 1943. Then the Germans started getting stomped and had to develop AT weapons. Previously they were researching offensive weapons like subs and rockets and jets, but now it's time to switch. Those heavy panzers were still effective against the western Allies initially, since their tanks and AT are weak (the cut-through-butter argument). The US and UK are usually busy researching jets, bombers and long range aircraft, but also need to switch to AT to deal with those panzers.

There's an ebb and flow to all this, and sometimes you have the advantage and sometimes you don't. That's what makes research decisions and their random outcomes in the game so interesting. There are tradeoffs, pros and cons, that need to be understood. But to say that certain techs are worthless misses the a bigger point. It all depends on the situation, and what your opponent does and when. Come up with some sure-fire strategy to win and somebody's going to eventually figure out a counter-strategy to beat you. So be flexible.

[Liam]

Bill:

Your point is actually pretty close. We want to have tech give an advantage to one unit. It's definitely a nice thing to have for free, tank technology. Though you're not going to last 5 seconds with any of the top 10 players with extreme tank tech spending. They're just not worth the money for the returns! They'll use jets and superior corps to annihilate your armor.

German's were known for great tanks. Not heavy, but fast and maneuverable that made a big difference vs the slower, and more armoured tanks in Battle of France '40.

They were a big part of the battlefield as aircraft, artillery, halftracks, armored cars, trucks...Which was vital for all WW2 armies to truly kick butt! Perhaps what we really need to do is make the firepower of a tank really worthwhile in the early years and then later as anti-tank artillery, handheld, and dive-bombers improve via research let them take second seat instead of what they do now. Get put on Minor mop up duties and encirclements<that corps are cheaper and almost as suitable for...perhaps lowering the movement of corps would put a little more reliance on armor!> That or add in Motorized Infantry units...with an increased cost and less firepower as a slow moving massed Army...

[Liam]

John:

Rudel is one of those truly talented pilots and not just. Despite his association to the Nazi Party seems like that was a one man Airforce! A battleship and a Cruiser, 500 tanks independantly!!!

He probably killed 3-4 thousand Russians with a Stuka!!! Eat ya hart ouwt Audi Murphee!

[JerseyJohn]

Liam, also 800 other military vehicles. And they only moved him up to major!

[Liam]

John: I'm cetian this was by his own request, you acquire to much rank in the Luftwaffe you don't get to fly on the front anymore. Thanxs for scenario, let's play it together sometime!