Polish Bruce Lee Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 i was wondering if they were planning to and more units into the game later on, because the selection seems somewhat bland. In WWII there where motorized divisions, paratroops, and such, plus, are the tanks going to have differant abilites for the differant nations. the german tanks outclassed the american to a 3:1 ratio. i know the game units are too massive to have divisions, i just think they should have more "situation specific" units, i still LOVE the game and am not insulting, maybe i have no busniess messing with a winning formula, but anyhow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polish Bruce Lee Posted July 4, 2002 Author Share Posted July 4, 2002 i was wondering if they were planning to and more units into the game later on, because the selection seems somewhat bland. In WWII there where motorized divisions, paratroops, and such, plus, are the tanks going to have differant abilites for the differant nations. the german tanks outclassed the american to a 3:1 ratio. i know the game units are too massive to have divisions, i just think they should have more "situation specific" units, i still LOVE the game and am not insulting, maybe i have no busniess messing with a winning formula, but anyhow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 It does not appear that they will be adding any new units to SC. Maybe in SC2. No Paras :mad: . As for the Germans outclassing the Allies, well the Germans can spend points on researching before the USSR and US get into the war and the Brits don't really have enough to go around so you can eaqsily outclass other armour if you do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 It does not appear that they will be adding any new units to SC. Maybe in SC2. No Paras :mad: . As for the Germans outclassing the Allies, well the Germans can spend points on researching before the USSR and US get into the war and the Brits don't really have enough to go around so you can eaqsily outclass other armour if you do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 @commi 18 and this is simply not true!!! the german tanks , especially in the early days of war, were even worst than the tanks of other armies!! for example the french char de bataille could not be destroyed by the weak german pzIII with its 50mm kwk!! (the panzerIII was the german main battle-tank in the western campaign) on the eastern theatre, there was the t34 which had much more armour and firepower, than the pzIII and IV!!! the advantage and the superiority of the german armies was the fact, that they used the panzerwaffe as weapon, which can fight on its own... the germans had whole divisions just with tanks and motorised unf, so they could move fast and strike hard!! the allieds used their tanks as support-weapon for the inf.... in the later days of the war, the german tanks became better... the panzerV (panther) with its long 75mm gun could switch off a t34 at a range of 2000m... the panzerVI (tiger) then had an 88mm gun... this could destroy nearly every allied tank... after that, came the king tiger.... also with an 88 gun, but with more armour than the tigerI!! the main prob of the german panzerwaffe were the motorisation... in every tank-class, the motor was too weak to move the tank right!! sorry, i can`t describe this all in a better way, `cause of my english... [ July 04, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: mclong ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 4, 2002 Share Posted July 4, 2002 @commi 18 and this is simply not true!!! the german tanks , especially in the early days of war, were even worst than the tanks of other armies!! for example the french char de bataille could not be destroyed by the weak german pzIII with its 50mm kwk!! (the panzerIII was the german main battle-tank in the western campaign) on the eastern theatre, there was the t34 which had much more armour and firepower, than the pzIII and IV!!! the advantage and the superiority of the german armies was the fact, that they used the panzerwaffe as weapon, which can fight on its own... the germans had whole divisions just with tanks and motorised unf, so they could move fast and strike hard!! the allieds used their tanks as support-weapon for the inf.... in the later days of the war, the german tanks became better... the panzerV (panther) with its long 75mm gun could switch off a t34 at a range of 2000m... the panzerVI (tiger) then had an 88mm gun... this could destroy nearly every allied tank... after that, came the king tiger.... also with an 88 gun, but with more armour than the tigerI!! the main prob of the german panzerwaffe were the motorisation... in every tank-class, the motor was too weak to move the tank right!! sorry, i can`t describe this all in a better way, `cause of my english... [ July 04, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: mclong ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by mclong: @commi 18 "the german tanks , especially in the early days of war, were even worst than the tanks of other armies!!" This is not strictly true, it is believed because people tend to compare armour/gun/speed as if they are the only factors. German tanks had radios, much better cupolas, internal intercoms and far better layouts for the crew (including 3 man turrets). This means that the tanks were far better than the usual specs would indicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by mclong: @commi 18 "the german tanks , especially in the early days of war, were even worst than the tanks of other armies!!" This is not strictly true, it is believed because people tend to compare armour/gun/speed as if they are the only factors. German tanks had radios, much better cupolas, internal intercoms and far better layouts for the crew (including 3 man turrets). This means that the tanks were far better than the usual specs would indicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 What husky said. Btw this reminds me ... did you guys note, too, how some discussions tend to periodically reappear over and over again on every WW2 related board? This is one of them. Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straha Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 What husky said. Btw this reminds me ... did you guys note, too, how some discussions tend to periodically reappear over and over again on every WW2 related board? This is one of them. Straha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC- Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Same with ... "Whens this game due out. Does anyone know?" Read the other posts and one will find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC- Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Same with ... "Whens this game due out. Does anyone know?" Read the other posts and one will find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 when i asked veterans, they allways told me, that the tank-crews were more than happy, when they could drive a captured t34 for example... and if i could choose, if i wanted more armour arround me or some fine chairs.... i think the decision is clear!! but you are right when you say armour and firepower is not all.... if it were, the germans would not have marched through whole europe.... the thing that made the german panzerwaffe so strong, was the very good organisation... and that includes (as what you say) radio in every tank, the drill of the crews and of course the strategy and the tactics how these tanks were used!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 when i asked veterans, they allways told me, that the tank-crews were more than happy, when they could drive a captured t34 for example... and if i could choose, if i wanted more armour arround me or some fine chairs.... i think the decision is clear!! but you are right when you say armour and firepower is not all.... if it were, the germans would not have marched through whole europe.... the thing that made the german panzerwaffe so strong, was the very good organisation... and that includes (as what you say) radio in every tank, the drill of the crews and of course the strategy and the tactics how these tanks were used!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by mclong: when i asked veterans, they allways told me, that the tank-crews were more than happy, when they could drive a captured t34 for example...If you read some of the reports of the early T-34s in combat, you will see that they are refered to in such terms as 'blundering about the battlefield, with no idea as to what was happening around them'. The 2 man turret and lack of cupola turned an excellent basic design into a fairly incapable combat vehicle, the lack of radios just made it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 Originally posted by mclong: when i asked veterans, they allways told me, that the tank-crews were more than happy, when they could drive a captured t34 for example...If you read some of the reports of the early T-34s in combat, you will see that they are refered to in such terms as 'blundering about the battlefield, with no idea as to what was happening around them'. The 2 man turret and lack of cupola turned an excellent basic design into a fairly incapable combat vehicle, the lack of radios just made it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 i think we are discussing different terms.... if you compare the tanks in an 1 on 1 combat, the german tanks (especially in the early days of war) are worst than the russian or allied tanks.... but.... the leadership and the organisation of the germans made the german tanks nearly unbeatable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 i think we are discussing different terms.... if you compare the tanks in an 1 on 1 combat, the german tanks (especially in the early days of war) are worst than the russian or allied tanks.... but.... the leadership and the organisation of the germans made the german tanks nearly unbeatable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 leadership and the organisation ... and training and doctrine. All these factors are abstractly represented by the research levels, which simply represent who has the "advantage" and who doesn't at any particular time during the war. From this perspective, research works very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 leadership and the organisation ... and training and doctrine. All these factors are abstractly represented by the research levels, which simply represent who has the "advantage" and who doesn't at any particular time during the war. From this perspective, research works very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 yap!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclong Posted July 5, 2002 Share Posted July 5, 2002 yap!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by mclong: i think we are discussing different terms.... if you compare the tanks in an 1 on 1 combat, the german tanks (especially in the early days of war) are worst than the russian or allied tanks.... but.... the leadership and the organisation of the germans made the german tanks nearly unbeatable...The problem is that you are comparing Gun, Armour etc (as do most people), this fails to factor in the optics, the radios, the commanders cupola, the massive efficiency gain of a 3 man turret over a two man turret (in a 2 man turret usually the tank commander loads the guns, this means that he has little idea as to what is happening outside the tank in battle). With a good cupola, good optics and a specialist loader to let the tank commander get on with commanding the tank, the actual efficiency gains are huge, this was an actual hardware issue not a doctrine/training issue. IIRC it was the KV-1 that was so poorly designed that it had a 3 man turret, but the 3rd man handled a rear turret mg and so the tank was as inefficient as if it had only had a 2 man turret (internal arrangements prevented the crew from ignoring the mg and letting the comd just do his job). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 Originally posted by mclong: i think we are discussing different terms.... if you compare the tanks in an 1 on 1 combat, the german tanks (especially in the early days of war) are worst than the russian or allied tanks.... but.... the leadership and the organisation of the germans made the german tanks nearly unbeatable...The problem is that you are comparing Gun, Armour etc (as do most people), this fails to factor in the optics, the radios, the commanders cupola, the massive efficiency gain of a 3 man turret over a two man turret (in a 2 man turret usually the tank commander loads the guns, this means that he has little idea as to what is happening outside the tank in battle). With a good cupola, good optics and a specialist loader to let the tank commander get on with commanding the tank, the actual efficiency gains are huge, this was an actual hardware issue not a doctrine/training issue. IIRC it was the KV-1 that was so poorly designed that it had a 3 man turret, but the 3rd man handled a rear turret mg and so the tank was as inefficient as if it had only had a 2 man turret (internal arrangements prevented the crew from ignoring the mg and letting the comd just do his job). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welshwill Posted July 6, 2002 Share Posted July 6, 2002 I would like to see Coastal & Siege Artillery units added. Maybe the amount of units purchased could be limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts