Resolved: Computer Select is Better

[PeterX]

Has lassitude set in with T34s and Stugs? Curious to see what a platoon of Csabas can do in Heavy Mud? Ever built a defense around flak trucks and flamethrowers? Ever wondered what a PZIIIN looks like? Then Computer Select may be for you. Except for scenarios, still resisted by most ladder adepts, CS may be the best answer to those PBEM matches with their endlessly repeating, over-used forces. (Though there is a problem, see below)

Some players enjoy putting together their own cherry-picked kampfgruppe. And I understand this desire. What I don't get is the same guys finding this technique 'more realistic', expressing impatience over the hodge-podge the computer saddles them with under 'Automatiically Selects'.

Au contraire. IMO, you get far more plauisble force mix with the computer doing the choosing.

I mean, which is more 'realistic'?

1- Major, we need you to take that hill which we suspect the enemy is using for artillery observation. All we could dig up for you was a company of pioneers, a platoon of T60s, these AA guns, and some ampulomets. It's all we can spare on short notice, do your best for the Motherland!

2- Hmmm. I'll buy this platoon of T34s and a single KV. I know he's bought a Stug or two, the gamey bastard! And a platoon of SMGs for close-in fighting in those woods on the left. Hehe. We'll skip that artillery- too slow- and those AT rifles as well. A T26E! What the hell is that?

Me, I'll vote for #1. At he command level simulated in CM, which encompasses the the responsibilities of colonels/majors, the player really should be presented with ad hoc formations, where personal input in force selection would be secondary and available choices scarce and unpredictable.

Therefore, IMO, Computer Select is the way to go. With, perhaps, a 10% boost for the offense to offset the defensive paramountcy in CMBB. But there is a caveat: the initiating player can reject the computer chosen kampfgruppe and 'reroll' the selection before his opponent sees HIS forces. Thus, currently, this option requires trust. An extra, blind, turn at the beginning would be most welcome.

[ May 02, 2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Fishu]

Random stuff is quite predictable.

[SgtMuhammed]

They are a lot of fun but sometimes the computer seems stuck in WWI. I don't know how many times it has tried to give me an assault with a battalion or more of infantry across an open map against a town.

You can get some pretty interesting stuff though. I mean when was the last time you actually bought a PI?

[Redwolf]

Unfortunately the forces that the Quickbattle generator puts together are not realistic either, especially considering that StuGs versus T34 is pretty realistic to start from.

I think most people would happily use the geneator if it was a bit better. or had an interface to an external module.

[Le Tondu]

I understand the challenge aspect that PeterX illustrates in his #1 example, but I have seen things to be far more out of balance than that.

Its just that it is really tough in a "Pure Armor" setting 1250 pt. QB when you have absolutely no AT weapons (just stinking flampanzers and SP artillery) against against a Russian opponent with AT weapons (tanks with turrets).

The force selection really does need some minor tweaking, IMHO. I have seen SP artillery & flampanzer types be picked far too many times in Pure Armor QBs.

I say all this because when I see "Pure Armor" for a QB, I think "Great! tanks vs. tanks. Cool!" But it seems to be not entirely that way.

Afterall, this is supposed to be a game. Isn't it?

[PeterX]

Redwolf posted:

Unfortunately the forces that the Quickbattle generator puts together are not realistic either, especially considering that StuGs versus T34 is pretty realistic to start from.

T34s, perhaps. But Stugs weren't all that common. In ladder matches, Stugs are the single most common unit, more than even the MKIV series. They're everywhere you want to be, like Visa cards. And the Soviets produced thousands of T26s, BT5s and T60s. Lots of tankettes, as well. Ever seen one outside of a scenario?

The generator could used some tweaking but, IMO, still creates more plausible forces. Autoselect encourages the player to scramble and think outside the box. IMO.

-Peter

[RSColonel_131st]

Another hint...use a different year.

I've been playing two 1941 quick TCP/IP games and a 1942 one yesterday.

The first, albeit ended due to problems with the setup, could have been interesting for it had Panzer IIC and Panzerjäger 1 (I didn't even know these exsisted).

The second, 1942 game ended with some PanzerIIIJ beating T-70's silly.

In the third, actually the second 1941 game, I told my opponent to get a KV, and I'd try my luck around it...ended up with a platoon of selfpropelled 150mm sIGs. Couldn't quite kill the bitch, but it was fun nonetheless.

Of course, from late 1942 onwards it's either StuG III's against T-34/76 or Panthers and PZIVH versus T-34/85. But the early war stuff is really fun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by PeterX:

T34s, perhaps. But Stugs weren't all that common.

IIRC, the Germans built more Stugs than any other AFV.

[Thermopylae]

I reccommended a change for this once upon a time.

It was a random historical battle generator.

The player could set the time, size ( but NOT points..say company, company+, etc) place, division types facing off, and even the force mix I suppose. Then the game selcts from a variety of historically accurate OOBs, (for say a common Guards Armor company in the central region in june 42), tweak it a little so nothing is cookie cutter, assign artillery and extra support, then poof tghe battle is made.

Quick note, for armor, tanks would be randomized according to their presence in the region and their doctrinal use.

Both sides would pop out with more realistic, but not consistently the same, forces.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by PeterX:

perhaps. But Stugs weren't all that common. In ladder matches, Stugs are the single most common unit, more than even the MKIV series.

Well look at it this way when Bagration opened up Army Group Center had 553 Tank/AG at it's disposal, 480 of this total were StuG III. Basicly AGC had about 80 Infantry, supported by 2-3 Arty pieces, & 1-2 StuG III, per km of its front.

Ie, 4th Army defending Orsha had 40 tanks, includeing 29 Tiger E compared to 246 StuG III. AGC had far more StuG & SP Panzerjager then tanks.

Personaly I'm a PzKpfw IV user (ask Bastables ), but one could make a case, StuG's were much, more common then tanks in the defensive fighting on the Eastren front as German Infantry memoirs etc, indicate.

While Pz. Divs were being ran all over the country side, as fire Brigades, StuG formations were slogging it out, on the front lines with the landsers.

Regards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Redwolf]

Bagration is a little extreme because the majority of actual tanks was in France at that time.

But yes, Peter, if you think that Pz IVs should be more common anywhere anytime than StuGs you are plain wrong.

In addition, tanks were used more concentrated than StuGs. So in a CM-size combined arms fight with single platoons or less you are even more likely to see StuGs than tanks. Check out avfstats.html at the Achtungpanzer site.

When I get home I will throw up the automatic selector a couple times. So far it gave outright rare forces most of the time. It randomly selects whatever is on the screen and it doesn't even seem to take rarity into account. And even then, the rarity in CMBB is not extreme enough to approach realistic mixes in a statistcal selection.

[ May 02, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Total German AFV strength on the Eastren Front as of June 1 1944, was *4,740 Tank/StuG. Also the Germans shifted more tank units to the EF after June 22 1944 as well, Ie, 1./Pz.Regt 31, 1./Pz.Regt 35, Pz.Abt(FKL)301 etc.

*See: Zaloga Steven. Bagration 1944 p.26

Westren Front Pz./Pz.Gr. Div tank Str* as of June 10 1944 was:

39 - PzKpfw III

758 - PzKpfw IV

655 - PzKpfw V

102 - PzKpfw VI

158 - StuG

179 - Beute. Pz

Total = 1,891*

*Total do not include independant StuG or PanzerJager Abt.

*See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Vol 2. p.177

Eastren Front Pz./Pz.Gr Div Tank Str* as of May 31 1944:

176 - StuG

603 - PzKpfw IV

313 - PzKpfw V

298 - PzKpfw VI

Total = 1,390*

*See: ibid. p.205

*Total do not include independant StuG or PanzerJager Abt.

The Germans concentrated their tanks, as they were being used as mobile fire brigades all over the Eastren Front, while StuG & PanzerJager formations were supporting the Inf Divs.

Soviet doctrine was not geared for tank vs tank combat, they tended to avoid Panzer concentrations chooseing to hit them when they were encountered with massed artillery & air assests, while they were forming up when possible.

The Soviets attacked the weakest part of the German lines. Pz Divs in the East in 1943 - 1945 wee concentrated to attack the flanks of Soviet penetrations, the Soviets countered these attacks by positioning large numbers of AT guns & SU's on the flanks of their penetrations, to deal with German counter attacks.

This is supported by the large number of Soviet AT gun losses in 1944 (9,300), during offensive operations, as well as an German report on tank/AG losses June - Sept 1943, Attributed Soviet artillery & tank/SU with 85% of German tank/AG losses with artillery as the leading cause, with 67.5% and tank/SU with 17.5%. As well as German Panzer Div, AARs from the time periods that state their main enemy was massed PAK fronts, not Soviet tanks. StuG, & Panzerjager, & PAK formations were bearing the brunt of Soviet armored attacks.

The rise of StuG numbers is quite evident from the below data:

German AFV Strength Westren Front Dec 15 1944*:

598 - StuG

503 - PzKpfw IV*

471 - PzKpfw V

123 - PzKpfw VI*

German AFV Strength Westren Front Dec 30 1944:

676 - StuG

550 - PzKpfw IV*

451 - PzKpfw V

116 - PzKpfw VI*

German AFV Strength Westren Front Jan 15 1945:

716 - StuG

594 - PzKpfw IV*

487 - PzKpfw V

110 - PzKpfw VI*

*includes PzIV/70, PzIV70(A), FlakPzIV, & Sturmpanzer.

*Includes Tiger E, Tiger II, & Sturmtiger.

*See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Vol 2. p.

German Pz/Pz.Gr. AFV Strength* Eastren Front March 15 1945:

545 - StuG

603 - PzKpfw IV lg

357 - PzIV/70

97 - Flakpz

776 - PzKpfw V

212 - PzKpfw VI

*See: ibid. p.247

*Totals do not include independant StuG or PanzerJager Abt.

German Pz/Pz.Gr. AFV Strength* Westren Front March 15 1945:

126 - StuG

59 - PzKpfw IVlg

77 - PzIV/70

41 - Flakpz

152 - PzKpfw V

28 - PzKpfw VI

*See: ibid. p.248

Regards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[S.Sgt. Havilandt]

There once was a random battle generator that someone made for CMBO which actually worked well in picking the parameters for fair battles.

It choose the type, weather, etc.

Really cool little device.

Haven't seen one for CMBB.

Anyway, a friend of my play small quick battles with computer pick, and I have to say that most of the time, one of us gets screwed over. The Russians always seem to get heavy/medium tanks and the Germans get halftracks. Nothing like having an ISU-2 tear up some trucks.

[PeterX]

Vanir Ausf B posted:

IIRC, the Germans built more Stugs than any other AFV.

Your memory fails you, amigo. Acutally, the Germans produced more of the IV and V series. Nevertheless, the StuG was a common vehicle, about 20% of the total AFV park at any given time:

Panzerstats

The Sturmgeschutz with its low profile and cheap, turretless production cost was a highly successful weapon; especially when upgunned. And BFC has ported their bargain price into the purchase screen. Still, 20% is significantly less than their 90% appearance rate in PBEM quickbattles.

[ May 02, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Lumbergh]

Originally posted by PeterX:

The generator could used some tweaking but, IMO, still creates more plausible forces. Autoselect encourages the player to scramble and think outside the box. IMO.

-Peter

What are you smoking? Since when is thinking "outside the box" represented by "a company of SMG infantry and 10 scout cars in open terrain against hordes of PZ-IIs"?

Plausible is not necessarially playable. You could have a plausible 1944 force mix and have a understrength German infantry battalion up against a Soviet Tank Army.

[tar]

They are a lot of fun but sometimes the computer seems stuck in WWI. I don't know how many times it has tried to give me an assault with a battalion or more of infantry across an open map against a town.

I've seen a couple things like that. I have one solitaire situation like that.

I also recently finished another interesting random solitaire setup. I was attacking with mostly an infantry force with four (shoot, can't recall the name. 37mm 2 man tanks), two 75mm AT guns and two 75mm infantry guns, an 81mm FO and two 75mm FOs. Open map, mostly wheat fields against unknown Soviets. The only saving benefit was that I lucked out and the battle was fought at night with 75m visibility.

The visibility certainly helped me advance over the open map without getting blown to bits, but it rendered most of my 75mm armament hard to use. I had no transport for moving guns, so they had to be pushed. This wasn't too bad for the infantry guns, but the AT weapons lagged behind. I also figured that it would be hard to use the FOs, so I used the 75mm ones on prepared barrages near the victory flags. I managed to cause a grand total of 5 casualties with them.

Opposing me (eventually revealed) was an infantry force with its own artillery, one of the ubiquitous armored cars backed up by an Su-76 and the inevitable T-34/76. The best part was getting the T-34 with a 75mm infantry gun. The benefits of low visibility is that even a slow velocity infantry gun with a green crew can get a first round when it opens fire at 70m.

The random setups really force me to get a bit creative and think up a plan that plays to the strengths, if any, of the forces I get.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Your memory fails you, amigo. Acutally, the Germans produced more of the IV and V series. Nevertheless, the StuG was a common vehicle, about 20% of the total AFV park at any given time:

Total PzKpfw IV production on your site was 10,019, Total Panther production was 6,315.

Total StuG III production was 9,265, Total StuG IV production was 1,139, total StuH 42 Production was 1,212.

Total StuG production = 11,616.

Total StuGs produced was greater then either PzKpfw IV production or Panther production, by it'self.

The only way PzKpfw IV production outnumbers StuG production is if you add in varients excludeing the StuG IV, Ie, PzIV/70, PzIV/70(A) FlakPzIV, Hummel, Nashorn, Jg.Pz. IV etc. PzKpfw V production even adding in the JgdPanther, & Bergpanther production doesnt aproach the PzKpfw IV or StuG production numbers.

Regards, John Waters

[Vanir Ausf B]

My memory is just fine, thank you.

I don't like computer pick and won't use it.

If you want to see less StuGs, play later war games where the StuG armor is 80mm instead of 50+30, and the Russians have 85mm guns. The StuG is not nearly as dominant then.

If you play with rarity on you will see lots of T-34s any time. With it off there are more options. Rarity on also encourages StuG fever by frequently offering them at below cost.

[PeterX]

Total PzKpfw IV production on your site was 10,019, Total Panther production was 6,315.

Correct, though I included the Jagdpanther in the 'V' series.

Total StuGs produced was greater then either PzKpfw IV production or Panther production, by it'self.

Acutally, they're nearly exactly equal, if one includes the variants - which I indicated.

The only way PzKpfw IV production outnumbers StuG production is if you add in varients

Like you added in the StuHs?

I plead guilty to some hasty math, nevertheless of the ~50,000 AFVs produced ~11,600 Stus. This yields about 23% of the total.

Cheers.

[KanaljeFätter]

Look.. we can argue from here to infinity about mathing it, but the fact of the matter is, the StuG is too common when playing armor v armor simply because they were mostly used as defensive infantry support, and scattered across the frontline. For German attacks, the various turreted Panzers should be predominant. And I hope they do something to the computer selection in CMAK

[PeterX]

And I hope they do something to the computer selection in CMAK

Amen, brother.

I have no brief against Stugs. My original point is that CMBB is a deep, rich game (thanks BFC!) but we don't get to enjoy the depth at the competitive venues due to the win-at-all-cost mentality to which the Purchase Screen panders. I'm as competitive as the next testosterone driven male. (Are there any women? Hmm....)

It's impossible to nail the pricing perfectly. As Andreas pointed out in another thread, if it weren't Stugs it would be some other unit judged underpriced. In CMBO it was SMG units; toward the end, every PBEM match was turning into wall-to-wall submachine guns. They were perceived as giving the most bang for the buck. My preference is to simply remove the Purchase Screen from the player. Voila tout.

And, yes, BFC could improve the mechanics, both in selection and the PBEM sequence.

[ May 02, 2003, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Acutally, they're nearly exactly equal, if one includes the variants - which I indicated.

I must have missed where you indicated you were includeing PzKpfw IV & PzKpfw variants vs StuG production.

Like you added in the StuHs?

Are you implying the Sturmhaubitze was not part of the Sturmgeschutz family?, because except for it's main armament it was identical to the Sturmgeschutz.

I plead guilty to some hasty math, nevertheless of the ~50,000 AFVs produced ~11,600 Stus. This yields about 23% of the total.

Cheers.

Vanir's point If I understood it was more StuGs were produced then any other single German AFV type, which the production numbers support.

Regards, John Waters

[ May 02, 2003, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[KanaljeFätter]

sorry if I'm spamming, but I'm not sure you read this:

the StuG is too common when playing armor v armor simply because they were mostly used as defensive infantry support, and scattered across the frontline. For German attacks, the various turreted Panzers should be predominant

Personally, I have no clue as to how many of one or the other was produced/available, it's more that StuGs generally were not used where Panzers were..

[Bruceov]

The problem with random battles force selection is that often one wins because the computer picks wholly inadequate forces for one side or the other. This happens to happen more often with the germans who often get a force with no afv capacity. In real life forces weren't random.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by KanaljeFätter:

Personally, I have no clue as to how many of one or the other was produced/available, it's more that StuGs generally were not used where Panzers were..

StuG's were replaceing tanks in the Panzer Div Panzer Regts, during the war this is documented Ie, 2nd Panzer Div's Pz.Regt.3 IInd Abt, as of 14.12.44 had 24 StuG, 28 PzKpfw IV(lg). 9th Panzer Div's Pz.Regt.3 1st Abt as of 14.12.44 had 28 PzKpfw IV(lg) with 14 StuG replacements en route. 116th Panzer Div's Pz.Regt.16 II. Abt as of 16.12.44 had 21 PzKpfw IV(lg) with 14 StuG replacements enroute.

2nd SS Panzer Div's SS. Pz.Regt.2 IInd Abt as of 10.12.44 had 28 StuG, & 28 PzKpfw IV(lg). 9th SS. Pz.Div's SS.Pz.Regt.9 IInd Abt as of 08.12.44 had 28 StuG, & 32 PzKpfw IV(lg) etc.

As we see StuG's as the war progressed were being used where Panzer's were operateing.

Regards, John Waters