A question of quality and experience

[Mad Russian]

I have seen some pretty convincing agruements that some of the German equipment is over modeled the Stug's in particular and that some of the Russian equipment is undermodeled like the Russian 76mm AT rounds. To name a few.

That brings me to the question that often comes up concerning experience levels in scenarios of CMBB.

"I'm tired of seeing a few veteran Germans against hordes of inexperienced Russians."

You know the comments. We've all seen them.

Problem is if the equipment is overrated for the Germans and underrated for the Russians then the experience level difference is even greater than is usually shown. How else do you get a Stug that in a real life engagement kills 12 T-34's in a single engagement? How else do 3 tanks take out 25?

And maybe the game doesn't show the difference in optics as well as it might. There seems to be a lot of shells hit the target in the game. One reason for that could be the normally short engagement distances of most scenarios. If you read many incidents where they talk about engagement ranges, you will see, that they fight as far out as 2,000 meters. Of course, the closer you get, the more chances you have of hitting and killing your opponent.

The simple numbers tell of the ability of the armour vs the AP round. That is either right or wrong. What it doesn't do is tell how certain events then took place.

How does a Stug crew take out 15 T-34's if the Stug is overmodeled and the T-34 undermodeled? That makes their real life exploits even more amazing. IMHO.

Panther Commander

[stikkypixie]

Maybe in an ambush, plus the fact that in real life communication is much harder than in CM. There are more factors in real life than in CM, don't forget that CM is just a game and no way a real representation of real life fighting.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

How does a Stug crew take out 15 T-34's if the Stug is overmodeled and the T-34 undermodeled? That makes their real life exploits even more amazing. IMHO.

Panther Commander

...Which is why I read their books!

I finished reading "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius last month. I get the impression that experience was very important to success. He gives many examples of teamwork and taking advantage of the enemy's weakness in equipment, command and control, etc., in this book.

I also get the impression that when the Soviets were dug-in in prepared positions, the Germans could suffer heavy losses in the attack if not properly organized and executed.

Conversely, there are many examples of the Soviets suffering heavy losses when they were on the attack. There are several examples of heavy Soviet tank losses that are attributed to the T-34 attacking while "buttoned up" and not having a good battlefield awareness.

It also helped to have an elite gunner!

I know his examples pertain to experience in Tigers, but some of it might pertain to other weapons as well.

Good book.

Edit: I think "Borg Spotting" defeats the ability of individuals from repeating some of these successes in the game.

For what it's worth,

Ken

[ June 18, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]

[Kobal2]

Yes, I too believe Borg Spotting has a lot to do with that. IRL, just because one squad of inf. could see that keyholed German tank didn't mean you knew anything about it. You just saw Russian tank carcasses about, knew there was something fishy about it, were extra carefull... But even when you are carefull, even if you *know* it's there, walking into an ambush will get you killed...

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

How does a Stug crew take out 15 T-34's if the Stug is overmodeled and the T-34 undermodeled? That makes their real life exploits even more amazing. IMHO.

Something that is often ignored... StuG crews were elite troops. They were all volunteers even very late in the war

[Pzman]

Yes they were volunteers, but how does that make them all elite?

[Berlichtingen]

Ah! I see I have breed confusion by using Real World™ as oppossed to Game terminology. Elite troops are those with high Esprit de Corps. In game terms, that equates to Veterans-Elites. Another factor in StuG performance (not modeled in the game) is the fact that they are NOT Panzer troops... they're artillerists. Artillery places a much higher emphasis on gunnery than Panzer training

[Pzman]

Thats true, about the StuG crews. Having the superior gunny tranning would help a great deal. The StuG, inspite of being an Assualt Gun, may well have been opperated better than others due to the crews artillery training. As for the terminology I wasn't sure if you were thinking real world or in game terms, so I was just checking.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

Maybe in an ambush, plus the fact that in real life communication is much harder than in CM. There are more factors in real life than in CM, don't forget that CM is just a game and no way a real representation of real life fighting.

Ambush is one way but when you read that the tanks or Stug's were sent in to seal the breach there is little opportunity for an ambush. I agree that the game does not model real life well. But that is what the designer and the player are both looking for I believe. That is the only thing that makes sense to the thousands of posts on this forum. The comparison of the game to real life. And in that comparison I am seeing that the German's seem to have a greater experience difference than is often given or accepted in the CM world.

If you accept that some of the German vehicles are over modeled and the Russians ones under modeled then the difference in game terms has almost got to be experience.

Of course nothing in the real world is that simple.

Panther Commander

[Shmavis]

I remember first seeing a demo for CMBO back in the latter part of 2000, I think. I was totally blown away. The friend who had the demo told me the story of independent developers and programmers at BFC striking out on their own. I was impressed. I've been playing WW2 games ever since my Dad pulled out his old Panzer Blitz box, and never thought something like CM could be done. A balance has to be struck between historical accuracy and playability/fun(except for the grognards maybe) or no one will buy the game.

[YankeeDog]

In addition to the above, there's one other major factor to keep in mind when looking at the "realism" of CM combat on the East Front:

For at least the early and mid-war, one of the most serious deficiences the Red Army faced was in trained, competent mid-level officers. It is these Company and Battalion commanders that the CM player is, for the most part, taking the role of when he or she plays the game. In contrast, the training and experience of German junior officers was generally quite good.

So to "Realistically" depict East Front combat, you should really be pitting a relative CM neophyte on the Soviet Side against a seasoned Veteran playing as Germans. I can assure you that even without the advantage of impenetrable StuG frontal plates and the like, an experienced player will usually beat a newbie pretty soundly and probably achieve quite lopsided kill ratios.

Cheers,

YD

[Sycander]

As far as accuracy of fire is concerned, experience level seems to have very little effect. Frustrated at not knocking out hordes of Russian tanks w/ well-trained Nashorns in the Hornets' Nest scenario, I set up a test: five elite Nashorns hull-down in clear cold weather. Across 2000 yards of open terrain are 10 green and conscript T-34s. Running the game several times, the Nashorns are all knocked out or gun damaged by the third turn at the latest, with the T-34s losing between 2-6 tanks to knock-out, gun damage or panic.

Ok, so I know that such stationary firing is not optimal for the under-armored Nashorn, but still, I expected the elite crews to be able to out-gun the green Ivans, especially with the hull-down advantage. So crew experience in CM is, I suppose, mostly useful for faster response times to movement orders, and not so much for gunnery. Or have I extracted the wrong lessons from this test, or set up the wrong experiment?

[Shmavis]

I had read Panzer Aces before playing the Hornets' Nest scenario as Germs vs AI and have to admit surprise at the fantastically bad performance of the Nashorns. 1 KV-1 and 1 T-34 KO'd and 1 T-34 immobilized and abandoned against the loss of 3 Nashorns.

[Joachim]

There is a discussion of Hornets nest. IIRC in the Scenario forum. The scen suffers from borg spotting, lack of memory for ranges, no cover and sheer numbers. If you face 5 times as many tanks even a hit probability 5 times higher than your opponents won't help you. While not all 88 hits kill or you pound a dying T34 for another turn, most hits on a Nashorn kill or disable the crew - at least momentarily. This increases the numbers game even more.

Widen the map, place some houses on the hilltops to allow for keyholing, put some snipers ahead of the infantry, add some HMGs and 2cm AD to button the T34s and a FO to mask half of them while engaging the rest and you get a completely different scenario.

The key is to avoid the numbers game. If the Nashorns are able to reduce the fight to a string of 1:1 engagements where they have the surprise they stand a chance.

Of course you need lots of AP and almost no HE then as they might survive long enough to spend their ammo.

[pavlov]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Ah! I see I have breed confusion by using Real World™ as oppossed to Game terminology.

You may now touch my monkey. . .