Fionn Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Xerxes, " No, all armor is not good at close range. A nashorn engaging at 200m loses it's advantages and maximizes it's weaknesses. A fast turret, fast moving afv is quite effective in close. A slow turret, heavy frontal armor, excellent optics tank is better suited to engaging at range. But you already knew all this. " Well I think it is fairly obvious that I was talking about MBTs (main battle tanks) and was assuming we were having a discussion where certain extreme basics ( don't take thin-skinned, high-silhouette, non-turreted vehicles into a 50 m knifefight) could be assumed to be understood. Seanachai, WTF? I also think that the forum admins have publicly stated that Peng stuff should be kept to Peng threads... although, to be fair, asking for non-selective implementation of the rules seems to be an impossibility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgias Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 Well, well, well i like this I´m reading the different replies and i´ve concluded the following..... 1st Russians fasters and better in bad terrain and close quarters 2nd Germans best in rest of "tactics" And now i think.... are u really sure?? Are no good the germans in close fights???!!!! Well sure if u use a tiger or a ferdinand u loose ur advantage but... it´s not the Pz IIIj (my favourite german unit) or Pz IVh an EXCELENT tank fighting close!!!??? My experience tell me that they are equal or better than any soviet tank in that task (what´s ur opinion?). Fasters??? Yes the soviets are more "mobile" but is this so important in 2x2 km scenaries?? Maybe in real war where move long distances is essencial but in short distances is this really an advantage?? In the other hand are the russians "cheaper" than germans reflecting that "operational superiority" the soviets have like i´ve read?? Example: 2/43, rarity standard, regular troops. 1 tiger same valour than 2 T-34 m43 (main soviet tank)...... well Really do u think this is equilibrate?? I mean same close than long range... Can only 2 T-34 really threaten to a tiger?? With a lot of luck maybe..... Example: 9/43 (operation citadel German loose) rarity standard regular german vs veteran soviets I purchase: Germans: 6 StuG, 2 Tigers, 2 Pz V (10 very good units) Soviets: 9 T-34 m43, 2 SU 152 (really one of the worse TD in the game I think) and 3 T-70 Cost both armies very very similar.... Well i wait for ur prediction....Who win?? every terrain, every circunstances...... See u 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Bit of a pointless example that really does not tell you anything. Try this one: Germans tanks as you described Soviets 16 76.2 divisional guns 8 45mm guns 25 trenches Some snipers Some Tank hunter teams Germans attack 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeoWolf Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Russian IS-2 = ownage Though its awful slow and doesn't have a rotating turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by BeoWolf: Russian IS-2 = ownage Though its awful slow and doesn't have a rotating turret. :confused: Doesnt the Is-2's turret roate? Hmm.. must be something wrong with my version then... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUSSIEJEFF Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BeoWolf: Russian IS-2 = ownage Though its awful slow and doesn't have a rotating turret. :confused: Doesnt the Is-2's turret roate? Hmm.. must be something wrong with my version then... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUSSIEJEFF Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Bit of a pointless example that really does not tell you anything. Try this one: Germans tanks as you described Soviets 16 76.2 divisional guns 8 45mm guns 25 trenches Some snipers Some Tank hunter teams Germans attack Add one Regular or Vet Russkie SMG Company in those defiladed trenches and it will be murder for the Axis up close! I've seen it often enough (fortunately with me on the Russian side!) AJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BeoWolf: Russian IS-2 = ownage Though its awful slow and doesn't have a rotating turret. :confused: Doesnt the Is-2's turret roate? Hmm.. must be something wrong with my version then... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 I play the Russians 95% of the time. I wax the German side the great majority of the time, and they usually suffer way more casualties than I do. Many players who lose badly playing the Russians usually do so because they are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. German advantages allow a greater degree of flexibility that you don't have as the Soviet player (at least not until very late war). This is especially true with armor. Think of it this way: If your tank force is your armored fist, then German training allows them to spread out their "fingers" to effectively cover more area and deny it to the enemy. The Soviets need to keep their "fingers" close together as an actual fist that smashes into these individual German "fingers". It's not just a matter of outnumbering your opponent. If you merely count on numbers than you're probably in for a rude shock especially against a skilled German player. Plenty has already been written on how to be an effective and winning Soviet player. Do a search. You shouldn't find it too hard to find. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 I must say I don't recognize some of the comments here. The Russians have different strengths and weaknesses from the Germans, and I fight them very differently. Some are specific period, specific unit, and specific scenario type issues. I particularly notice that the Russian infantry is superior throughout the war. While the German artillery is more effective, not less. In 1941, KV-1s rock, to the point of being gamey. The Russian lights suck. The T-34s are solid, as good as the Germans at least. In infantry, the Russians are way ahead as usual - big squads with better armament and good ammo levels. If low quality you have to use them somewhat differently (more patience and attention to rally), but that is all. In the late war, the German long suit is heavy armor, Tigers and Panthers. In the mid war period before 85s are out, StuGs do about the same thing, cheaper - though Tigers are even harder than KVs in 41 the other way. Attacking against multiple superior front AFVs is basically suicidal, I find. Defending against them is possible (much easier to get flanks - Tiger Is are still hard because even flanking them isn't enough). And if the defenders only have a single thick front AFV, you can deal with them by the usual flanking measures. The QB points are such, that these combine to mean the Germans rock in armor force type battles, and are tough in meeting engagements, late. On defense with combined arms or less, or an infantry division force type, they aren't nearly so well off. Attackers have problems regardless, even if not facing numerous thick front AFVs. They have to penetrate the enemy heavy weapons net, of hidden PAK and HMGs. That requires good tank-infantry cooperation, which I find the most important skill with the Russians. Their tanks are very good at fighting enemy infantry and gun forces. The German infantry is inferior, and if the heavy weapons grid is smashed and any Russian armor remains, the Russian infantry can defeat them easily. As for the artillery, the issue is responsiveness and caliber. Defenders are heavily favored, even with single modules, because TRPs are so effective. Defenders also have better cover, making low rariety, rapid response light modules ineffective against them. High caliber modules are expensive and unresponsive on the Russian side. The German 150 module is easily the most useful in the game, overall. If the Russians take a "low" force quality with random rariety, they can sometimes use artillery seriously. You look for the lowest rarity, larger caliber module available. Then buy them as conscripts and use them for pre-planned fire. You need very heavy calibers to do anything, and good map analysis to hit defenders. But you can reduce defending infantry numbers seriously this way, without busting the point budget. You need infantry depth to outlast the remaining defense, but that isn't hard with green unit costs. You still have to deal with thick fronted AFVs if any are around, though, so it is not a magic approach. Works best against infantry type defenders, obviously. Another weakness of the Russians, I find, is the quality and mobility of their heavy weapons. The team stuff, HMGs and towed guns etc. The HMGs are weak compared to the German ones, firepower wise, and they don't fit on the backs of tanks. The ATGs lack hitting power at range and usually need flank shots - although the 57mm is effective when it is available. By comparison, the Germans with HMG-34s and 42s, and 75mm PAK, are much better off in this category. As for the Russian infantry, if you take sensible types it is all around better. The SMGers are very effective in terrain. The squad types with 2-3 SMGs and 1 LMG per squad are also powerful, because they are large squads and have plenty of ammo, in addition to good firepower at most ranges. By comparison, the German squads tend to have not enough ammo (e.g. Panzer type), or not enough firepower. Low ammo matters more for squads trying to fire at range than for SMGs, who can just set short arcs. The absence of something like the schreck is the only serious weakness of the late war Russian infantry. What I find results from all of the above, is that the Russians are better at the infantry war, while the Germans have to win and win big in the other "suits" to succeed. Best use of one heavy arty module, winning the armor war lopsidedly, perfect use of well planned heavy weapons network - those have to go well or the Germans lose. Obviously it is easiest for the Germans to succeed at all of that in armor heavy engagements (except "KV-land" in 1941), and on defense. Smaller engagements, point-wise, also favor the Russians - it is harder for the Germans to afford whole platoons of thick AFVs. When the Germans have to attack, Tigers are a mid war terror but that is about it. Avoiding flank shots is much harder on the advance, especially when the infantry needs lots of help. Incidentally, on the use of flanking tactics against superior armor, I find it much harder in CMBB than it was for Americans in CMBO. The reason is primarily tank "cower" behavior. When a tank gets LOS to a superior AFV, even from an excellent angle and range, it tends to react poorly. I've had T-34s with APCR get the jump on a Tiger I, to the point of an ass shot at 100m, and have the crew blow it. They break LOS instead of killing the thing. By the time it is re-established, it has turned its turret, etc. Against thin sided tanks like Panthers and StuGs the behavior is a little better, but cower is still a serious problem. One tank you can handle, a whole platoon of them you should hide and defend with planned cross-fires, not attack. One man's impressions... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robohn Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 I play PBEMs and TCP/IP games against a good friend of mine. I am always the Russians and he is always the Germans. I don't mind at all, and we have both beat eachother to a pulp on many occasions. Robohn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Originally posted by JasonC: The prodigal son returneth. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeoWolf Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Right, right, the IS-2 does rotate. I was indeed thinking of the ISU. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 SU-152 rules! Slaughtered 10 Panther D with mainly 3 SU-152 yesterday in "von Lauchert"....the SU-122 & 152 had a hard time in reaching the ravine, getting hit several times with one SU-152 knocked out on the way...Lt Alvaseret's SU-152 got a serious hit in the front killing one crewman while running across dangerous open ground, later he killed 3 Panther D in 5 minutes.. ...the SU-122 battery reached the ravine intact and held the right flank against german infantry, taking many prisoners.... http://www.battlefield.ru/su152.html MFG; Trommelfeuer [ March 16, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgias Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 Well Jason I agree a lot with everything u say but i still think that the russian armor must be "cheaper" than german. Really it was so.... the soviets got a tank in battlefield easier than germans especially on year 43 and forward. I agree too about "cover armor" problem the another day i had 3!!! T-34 pointing to Tiger´s rear and the 3!!! reverse without shoot it!!! when i could engage it again its turret was pointing me..... well i dont want remember it i´ve nightmares yet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 I don't think the armor "cower" problem is due to covered armor orders. I think the unrealistic part is that cower behavior does not take into account the facing of the "scary" enemy tank (hull for SP, turret for turreted tanks). If they cowered just like they do now, if and only if the enemy's main gun was within 30 degrees of facing them, that would be fine. That is the sort of fix I'd like to see. (I think it may now go by targeting - but targeting before correctly facing to shoot should not matter). Then if you did get up on the side of the enemy, your guys would try to take their shots. As the enemy turned toward you and so threatened you, your guys would get scared and try to break contact. If they were close to getting away, they might have time to succeed at that, in the time it took the enemy to turn the remaining 30 degrees. If not, they are at least trying to get away as he turns and fires. But, before he is, or when you've elaborately arranged for 2-3 tanks to approach from multiple angles at the same time, the tanks that he -isn't- threatening wouldn't "choke" and run away the moment they get LOS. It would still require sound tactics to set up flank shots on superior tanks. But when the player does all the work of actually getting one, the Tac AI wouldn't ridiculously and unrealistically take it away from him. As for the issue of Russian armor vs. German armor, players have all the control over that question they could possibly want. You can put Russian armor force type against German combined arms, or Russian combined arms with a mechanized division types against German combined arms, or Russian infantry division type combined arms against a German infantry division type, or against a German infantry force type. Use whatever level of armor point budgets for each side you like. The budgets allowed are quite realistic for the different forces, and quite limited for the Germans unless they have an "armor" force type. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgias Posted March 18, 2003 Author Share Posted March 18, 2003 Sorry a lot i dont mean "cover armor" that wasnt the question.... i would mean "cower armor" I.e. when the russian armor evade the fight and "reverse" scared without shoot the enemy when it is with its rear or sides pointing u..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorgias Posted March 26, 2003 Author Share Posted March 26, 2003 Today quickbattle: april 43 hills and forest moderate. Me german: 4 vet. tigers and 1 inf company IA soviets: 18 reg. T34 m43 5 vet. Stuarts 1 company reg inf. 1 company reg pioneer. Result Total victory for germans NO TIGERS killed 18 T34 Knock out + 4 Stuart destroyed 1 inmovilized....... It was a ME no a defend. I hadnt to use any elaborated tactic only put the tigers on top the hills and i advanced frontally Well is this normal?? Maybe this is the usual or i had a lot of luck.... Sorry a lot but playing germans is bored and too easy and playing russians....... well i wont repeat again I prefer to play CMBO i think it is a very enjoyable game..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 You were playing the AI... Against the AI a crowd of drunken girl scouts armed only with shanks made from the underwire in their bras could rout Elite SS divisions. Against a good opponent you'd have been screwed. P.s. There's no intention to insult re: the example given. That's just a bit of fun. The basic gist is true though. Why not try it as the Soviets in the same situation and see how you do? [ March 25, 2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poor Old Spike Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 For what its worth,of the 40 Rugged Defense cmbb ladder games I've played so far, I've been Russian 20 times and won 12, and I've been German 20 times and won 12. Therefore in my book there's nothing to choose between the sides,as they both have their strengths and weaknesses in equal proportion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.