Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 For my Allied General/CMBB campaign game, the KV-1/42 has just become available. I assume this to be the KV-1S. But wich is better? The speed of the S is much better but still not fast enough to fight a manuevre battle. And the /41 is much better armoured. Does the new design turet make up for that? Let me first explain what I'm doing with Allied General. Instead of letting the Allied General game calculate battle outcomes I use CMBB to fight the battles instead with each strength point representing one tank/gun/plane/infantry platoon. And then imputting the results back into Allied General with an editor. So far (upto May 42) I've had it all my way, my KV-1/41 are sweeping all before them, finding little opposition in the Pz38(t)s, PzIVDs and PzIIIGs. Most tanks lost have been to defending infantry and some to 105mm howitzers and the 150mm Infantry Gun(standing in for the 150mm howitzer) My core force now has tank units of various qualities. I'm finding that the veteran and better have sufficient spotting ability to survive on the battlefield. It's mostly the greens and conscripts that blunder into awaiting infantry and tankhunters. So they might benefit from improved spotting (does the cupola improve all spotting or just improve all round spotting?) But with the long 75s due to make their appearance in quantity starting from the next battle, it's just these inexperienced tankers that benefit frm the extra layer of armour. I'm open to advice. Should I change all KV-1/41 to KV-1/42? Or just the poor, medium or high quality troops? Please help! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schwarze Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Think of the KV-1S as the lighter, faster version of the KV1, many KV-1S tanks served in stalingrad, the new KV-1S tanks were built as fast heavy tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infid3l Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 I had been using PG2 for generating gamey campaigns for a while, until I lost my regular opponent. Since the game's units are battalions, we would use a 70% operational value for most units, and allow attachments from nearby units when combat would take place. There was a fair amount of bookkeeping for replacements and the rest, but it was a lot of fun. Looking for some greater functionality, I started making a small program to replace PG. If you are interested, I will take some time next weekend to get a new version together, and maybe you can help me get it going. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Schutzstaffel: Think of the KV-1S as the lighter, faster version of the KV1, many KV-1S tanks served in stalingrad, the new KV-1S tanks were built as fast heavy tanks. True. The "S" should really be an "L". You also have to look at the period the "S" came out: By 1942 the Germans were fielding the 75mm gun, which could readily take down the once invulnerable KV. When that happened, the Sovs started to take a closer look at the faults in the KV design, and the "S" was their stop-gap measure. The "S" was essentially a down-armored KV, in an attempt to remedy the mobility problem (not just speed, since the KV had a notoriously crappy trany; less weight meant less strain --- not to mention the ability to cross light bridges). Plus, by this point in the war, most KV's had been mustered into seperate infantry-support regiments --- where their thick armor would prolly be of better use, when facing only 50mm or 37mm ATG's. If I where you, I'd switch over to T34's, for the most part. Maybe keep a unit of KV's around for anti-infantry work (but swich 'em to KV-85's as soon as they come available). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by j5crash: Looking for some greater functionality, I started making a small program to replace PG. If you are interested, I will take some time next weekend to get a new version together, and maybe you can help me get it going. ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 13, 2003 Author Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by j5crash: I had been using PG2 for generating gamey campaigns for a while, until I lost my regular opponent. Since the game's units are battalions, we would use a 70% operational value for most units, and allow attachments from nearby units when combat would take place. There was a fair amount of bookkeeping for replacements and the rest, but it was a lot of fun. Looking for some greater functionality, I started making a small program to replace PG. If you are interested, I will take some time next weekend to get a new version together, and maybe you can help me get it going. :eek: :eek: !! That does sound very interesting. Tell us more, please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infid3l Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 First, a few disclaimers: I am no Grog, so many of the ideas used are not totally accurate. If there is any interest, hopefully JasonC or the rest can help out. I am not a very good artist. The last build I made uses mostly pics of miniatures for the units. A good Photoshop guy would be a godsend. I am not very skilled at programming. Things that are no-brainers for people like Charles give me fits. A real programmer could bang this out in no time. <continued> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infid3l Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 PG2 is very simple, but it is really easy to use for gamey campaigns. The main point for it are that the unit size is battalion, giving a decent size core for battles that are fought in CM. The percentage we used for the units was usually 70 or 80% of full strength, giving a somewhat realistic strength for most units. It would also make battles with large amounts of attached units more manageable. We last ran an edited version of PG2's Winter Storm with the Panzer Divisions starting full strength, and it worked okay. <cont> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infid3l Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 The use of PG2 gave me a similar feel to CC2's campaign, with the added advantage of not being linear. Now, the basics: Using a PG editor, you can change the values of any of the units in the game. The main changes were to put movement values to just a few types, like infantry, armor, etc. Supplies and the like are organized along similar lines. We changed the time scale somewhat for the battles, with each battle being 30 turns. Each combat was fought on a map made to resemble the terrain from PG2. Size would vary, usually using larger maps to give more room to manuever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infid3l Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 There are some things about it that I didn't like, so I decided to see if I could do a little better. Basically, it looks similar to the fantasy game Ogre Battle. A simple looking area map with the units moving around. When units come close enough, a popup asks if you want to attack, and you select the number/type of platoons from them and others nearby that you want. This is your list to use for a CM qb. Then you select the type of battle you want. I didn't like the idea of having to CM a battle with a depleted unit against a full strength unit with attachments, so there is a choice to use CM (manual) or a simple CRT(auto). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infid3l Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 The nice part about it is that it can keep track of the mundane parts of a campaign like supplies. Forming a KG is easy, allowing you to form one from a few nearby units(fun!). The only bad part is that you have to enter all of the combat results manually, which can get sticky when you have one half-strength squad left from a platoon. However, I guess the metacampaigns out there do the same stuff, so maybe someone can come up with something better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Blue Finn Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 back to original topic.. KV-1/41 blows up better than KV-1S and is also easier to hit with molotov cocktail! [ October 14, 2003, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: Pink Blue Finn ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 If you're fighting 50mm pop-gun PzIIIs you might want to stick with the uparmored KV-1/41. If you're fighting long barreled 75mm gun PzIVs you're going to be holed no matter which vehicle you chose. You might want to opt for the speedier KV-1S. In my humble opinion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted October 15, 2003 Author Share Posted October 15, 2003 I don't want a humble opinion. Bold arrogance is what I'm looking for! Thanks, I'll keep my KV-1/41s a while yet. I think I'll be changing to T-34 when the long 75s show up in larger numbers. 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.