Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What they said. smile.gif

In any QB the russian AI will have more tanks (if tanks are allowed at all) unless you buy the lower order of cheap german vehicles - and if you play an allied attack or allied assault the AI will get approx. four times the points you get for armour (IIRC one allied attack battle I played, I got 600 pts of armour and the russian AI got 2100). So stock up on anti-tank firepower (AT guns, 75 mm bunkers and anti-tank mines + the tanks you buy).

To check the actual values just set that the human will buy forces for both sides - then cancel and let the AI buy (if that's the way you prefer it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Der Kunstler:

Well it seems like even in a meeting engagement if I'm the Germans, I'll be able to buy say 2 decent tanks and then the Reds will come with 3-4 T-34s. I'm doing a QB now (ME) where I bought a tiger and 2 stugs and he came out with 4 IS2s and 2 T34s.

The IS-2, while a decent tank, has a very slow ROF and slow turret. It also has a tendency of backing away from Tigers, even if it has numbers on its side. The T34 (I am assuming the 76 version) have a 2-man turret and weak gun.

On the other hand, the Tiger is more than capable of taking on any of his tanks. The Stugs require a little more care in getting them into the fight, but again are up to the task.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, once again it all comes down to tanks.

I mean, I like tanks as much as the next man, or more likely a fair bit more, but the world doesn't revolve around them.

The Soviets do get a armour bonus, so for a given amount of points will always get more tanks, but this means they have less points to spend on other things like infantry and artillery. The presumption that every battle has to include tanks is just silly, as on certain fronts in certain periods you were more likely to have a freshly laid field of rocking-horse dung protecting your position than any sort of AFV behind it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, once again it all comes down to tanks.
Well, the AI certainly uses up its tank points, so you really have to prepare for it. And if you're playing a human adversary he'll probably do the same - and since it's no fun getting your infantry mauled by his T-34's after he's finished with your sub-par tank counter you'd better think about how you buy your forces.

The example with the Tiger above was not optimal though, a Tiger played right will kill all six of those barring an unfortunate tracks or gun hit that puts it out of comission (I just finished a battle against AI with 4 Tigers and 8 Pzkpfw. III (inspired by original doctrine) against 48 russian tanks, AP ammo - not longevity - is a concern when you field a Tiger (esp. in 42-43)).

A more fair challenge is sticking to Pzkpfw. III/IV and Marders against an armoured allied assault (the setting "Armoured", not "Pure Armour") - at 2000 pts the AI gets about 18-25 T-34 and IS's, while you get 2-4 III's and a handful of Marder's + 3-4 75 mm AT guns.

... then once you replay and pick a Tiger instead of the III's it's a breeze. smile.gif

[ April 09, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you are all just deeply confused about what the "combined arms" setting means. The parent unit type and armor force level for each side determine the armor points allowed - and there is no requirement, anywhere, that you alway use "combined arms", for either side let alone for both.

If the German player has an armor force type and panzer division parent unit, he is going to have more armor. If the German player has an infantry division parent unit type, he is going to have only 1-2 self propelled guns if you give him combined arms, and none at all if you give him infantry only. Etc.

If you have the idea that combined arms is somehow supposed to be the "normal" or "correct" level of armor support, you just have to let that idea go, because it is flat wrong, no basis in reality, nothing to do with history, nothing to do with CM QB settings either. If you impose it you will get silliness because you deliberately imposed silliness. Don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JasonC:

Sorry, you are all just deeply confused about what the "combined arms" setting means. The parent unit type and armor force level for each side determine the armor points allowed - and there is no requirement, anywhere, that you alway use "combined arms", for either side let alone for both.

If the German player has an armor force type and panzer division parent unit, he is going to have more armor. If the German player has an infantry division parent unit type, he is going to have only 1-2 self propelled guns if you give him combined arms, and none at all if you give him infantry only. Etc.

If you have the idea that combined arms is somehow supposed to be the "normal" or "correct" level of armor support, you just have to let that idea go, because it is flat wrong, no basis in reality, nothing to do with history, nothing to do with CM QB settings either. If you impose it you will get silliness because you deliberately imposed silliness. Don't.

Combined Arms seems a hell of a lot more realistic to me than some of the bull**** you have to deal with when more open ended force mix options are on the table.

I don't care to hear some elaborate mathmatical lecture on why you somehow think the krauts should have the same amount of armor available to them and how that is somehow more historical. As you might say----horsefeathers. The Russians had an overwhelming armor advantage, numerically speaking, and the combined arms setting reflects this nicely IMO.

That said no matter how you slice it the Russians have the edge in BB, and every seasoned CM player knows it. . . . combined arms or not.

I think newer players prefer Germans because they have tougher single tanks available to them . . . which are naturally easier to use. Coupled with the fact that Russian armor takes a great deal more skill to use, they find success with kraut armor early on. But, once you learn how to use armor well there's no debate to be had anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What silliness - you don't pick one setting people, and always play the same thing over and over again. You do a German armor force type from a Panzer division assaulting a Russian infantry force type with infantry only. And a Russian armor force type with mech parent division type assaulting a German infantry force type with infantry division parent. And a Russian combined arms with infantry division parent against German infantry-infantry. And a meeting engagement between Russian infantry division with combined arms against German armor force type, panzer division parent. And...

You aren't playing one game, once. You play as often as you like, you simulate all the real match ups. When the Germans sent armor they sent it in bulk, half the points in the force. Or they had dribbles of assault guns, only. Or they had pure infantry. The Russians also had pure infantry, a lot. And armor as 2/3rd to 3/4ths of the force with a mech division force mix. And armor as a quarter of the force when an independent armor regiment or brigade supported an infantry division attack. Armor did not always fight armor, nor did the number of tanks divided by the number of fights appear in each fight uniformly. Stop playing the same thing, stop taking the same tanks, variety is the only thing that is realistic in CM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any? Even March 1943, rariety standard, quality unrestricted, armored force types, SS mechanized vs. Guards mechanized, meeting engagement, 1500 points?

And the original question was about how much armor people get, which only makes sense for combined arms, because other settings either don't give you any armor or let you take as much of it as you can afford.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JasonC:

Any? Even March 1943, rariety standard, quality unrestricted, armored force types, SS mechanized vs. Guards mechanized, meeting engagement, 1500 points?

Dunno why I bothered but yes. With that setting I get:

12 t34s + 2 COs of Mech smg squads

vs

9 stugs + 1 CO of riflemen + 2 pzii to fill out the points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of the T-34 platoons is green. And none of them have radios. (if you want the late model with radios you will have only equal numbers to the Germans). Oh and the Germans have a 4th platoon and a heavy weapons platoon with 4 HMG and 2 mortars, not Pz IIs. The infantry manpower is equal. Germans have 4 HMGs and 24 LMGs from 12 panzer rifle squads. If the Russians get to 60m sure they are strong, if they are out at 150m they aren't. Do you think 9 StuGs with impenetrable fronts will have any serious trouble from 12 radioless T-34s? You might kill 3 of them, and dump some HE before the surviving T-34s are reduced to skulking in corners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In practice the Russians will usually have more tanks from mid-1942 on.

The reason is that for the Russians it makes no sense to try to have enough armor thickness to resist German guns. In CMBB the 75mm L43-L48 shreds everything Russian except the IS-3 but including the IS-2. It also makes more sense to take green tanks because you lose hit probablity contents anyway and because the CMBB TacAI makes you tanks retreat even in favorable situations no matter whether they are green or regular. Also, the better speed of the T-34 comes pretty much without a price tag so even if you want fast you get cheap (try that when buying a Panther).

For the Germans on the other hand it usually makes sense to try to get thick enough armor to hold a hit from expected Russian guns. Thin armor is absolutely not an option for the Germans in CMBB because absolute spotting will ensure that a hailstorm of Russian projectiles comes flying the moment you try to pick one Russian AFV off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Redwolf, I violently disagree with your statement that "thin armor is not an option for Germans" etc. It is a crutch and German tankers just need to learn how to drive, a tenth as well as Allied tankers always have to. The Pz IV is superior to every Russian vehicle in 1943 for example, yet too many German players wrinkle their noses at it as unplayable. That doesn't help their game or history or CM, it just deliberately stresses the weakest points in BB modeling (30+50 StuG front vs. 76mm etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by securityguard:

I don't know if anyone noticed or not, but it seems russians get extra points in the armor section of their purchase menu and germans get extra points in their vehicle section. I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the year or whatever, but thats how it is on combined arms battles.

The Germans also get extra points in the infantry section. And this imbalance is there in all versions of Combat Mission, not just CMBB.

Dschugaschwili

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jason said - it depends on the setting. Unrestricted will allow both sides to spent what they want in each section (except arty. IIRC the Allies get more in this section).

IIRC:

"Armor only" sees both sides budget in all sections equal.

"Armor" and "Combined arms" - with the same division type - see more allied armor but more axis vehicles.

"Mech" should have more vehicles for the Germans (no tanks)

"Inf" is the same for all.

It depends on your selection.

If you complain about them being different - use "unrestricted".

Gruß

Joachim

Link to post
Share on other sites

"thats how it is on combined arms battles"

Only. And the actual point categories depend on the parent unit type, the engagement type, and whether the force is attacking or defending.

A German panzer division force fighting armor heavy requires a mech division parent unit type and an armored force type. A KG built around a panzer regiment would look like that. Tanks can be half the points, up to all of them.

A German panzer division force fighting infantry heavy requires mech division parent unit type and a combined arms force type. A KG built around a PzGdr regiment would look like that. This is a much lower level of armor, and heavy on the vehicles. A quarter tanks, more than half as tanks or light armor if desired.

Only the Panzer divisions. Only the Germans. Other forces did things differently.

German infantry division parent unit type with combined arms force type, means a modest level of support from divisional panzerjaegers or attached StuG formations. The total points for armored vehicles top out at a third of the force instead of more than half. And they are split 60-40 in favor of light armor - thus only about 1/7th armor. Slightly larger support and infantry budgets limits.

Understand, often an infantry division parent unit would have an infantry only force type, not combined arms - no armor at all, just towed guns and infantry. But when they have armor, it is limited and light, enough for an assault gun or two and a few halftracks etc. Typically half the force is infantry, with the rest split between support, arty, and vehicles.

Defending in assaults is different for infantry. There is a giant fortifications lump and everything else is smaller. The vehicle budget is about half what it is in an ME.

In MEs, arty is different for all forces - half as large as in most fights.

With the Russians, the armor and combined arms force levels mean different things for different parent unit types. A Russian *infantry division* parent type with combined arms, fights about the same way in level of armor support as a German *mech division* parent type with combined arms. But without the big light armor component. The armor budget of Russian infantry - combined arms is basically the same size as German mech - combined arms, but the combined armor and vehicles budget is only 2/3rds as large.

Russian mech parent unit would often fight as an armor force type, with 75% armor or more. Those are the tank formations. The combined arms level for them represents forces formed around their attached motorized infantry formations instead of their tank formations. Which are still very armor heavy - 10% more than German mech division types in armor plus vehicles, and weighted much more heavily toward armor - 75-25 rather than 44-55, armor-vehicle split.

If you just want an armor-even combined arms fight, use Russian infantry division combined arms against German mech division combined arms. The Germans will have more vehicle points, the Russians a larger support budget and somewhat larger infantry budget, but one so big they are unlikely to actually use the difference.

Know what the forces are you are actually simulating. They did not use only one level of armor support, and the sides did not vary them in the same way. When the Germans wanted to send tactically meaningful amounts of armor, the parent unit was uniformly a PD.

That is simply not true on the Russian side. Their non-divisional tank arm was much larger - independent armor brigades and regiments paired with a local infantry division to make an attack.

This does not mean the Russian infantry always had more armor - far from it. The usual case with a Russian infantry division parent unit would be infantry force type, no armor at all, not combined arms. But when it is combined arms, it can be a meaningful amount of armor, even with an ID parent.

When the Russians send a mech parent unit, armor is always in the drivers seat, the main portion of the force. Even the motor rifle brigades work with lots of tanks. They don't ride in armored vehicles, they get to battle on trucks or ride the tanks. Hence, low vehicle point budgets, big armor point budgets. When a Russian wants a force that isn't armor heavy, he sends an ID, not a mech formation.

This isn't so on the German side. Every PD can have tank heavy group built around its panzer regiment, but can also have mixed KGs built around their Pz Gdr regiments. The ratios are quite different - 1 tank regiment to 2 motorized infantry, where a Russian tank corps is 3 tank brigades to 1 motor rifle. The Germans regularly use a middling level of armor, within the panzer arm (aka parent unit "mechanized" in CM terms).

The low level of armor the Germans have for IDs when any is available, is comparatively rare on the Russian side. German ID with combined arms against Russian ID with infantry only would be quite common. That is very modest amounts of armor against none at all.

You will see very modest amounts on either side in a German ID assault against Russian ID with combined arms, too. The Germans may have 3 times the armored vehicle points and twice the pure armor points, but small as a portion of each sides forces.

The thing to just get completely out of you head is the idea there is one and only one standard setting or that it has to be the same for both sides. That will never produce realism because the two sides tasked different portions of their force differently.

Those differences straddle the CM categories "parent unit type" and "force type". Setting each of those "the same for both" does not give the same forces - except at the armor force type, mech division type or infantry only force type, infantry division type ends of the spectrum.

The moral is really just to live a little and take difference parent units and force types, that are not the same for both sides. Do not always take combined arms. Do not always set the armor support level the same for both sides. Do not always take the same parent unit type, or the same one for both sides. You will get only a narrow and quite unrealistic view of the war that way.

You won't get balance, either. The system is designed to allow the historical mixes of weapons for the various arms (admittedly, with arty turned down compared to historical levels). Not to produce "parallel" forces. They didn't fight the same ways (except at ends of the spectrum which are forced to be the same by definition etc), so parallel is not realistic to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Whatever some people say, in MOST cases (terrain, date, etc) the russians will have the upper hand in a QB."

What NO one ever does is talk about the size of battle, size of battlefield, and terrain. These three things are the vital parts of force selection and tactics.

If we argue from the standpoint of these factors you can easily deduce the likely usefulness of various units.

For instance : we fight in the woods of Finland, we fight on the the southern steppes. Immediately you realise that in heavy woods the superior range and optics of the german armour is wasted compared to its value on the steppes ..... in daylight : )

If the terrain is boggy and the weather wet it should favour Russian armour over German.

If the map is huge the chances are that the Russiand will be able to envelope flanks as they, normall, can buy more numbers.If the map is very small the chances of being shot in flank armour drops dramatically. Open topped vehicles become a little more likely to expire early in the battle without doing much : )

The more I think about it the more I think people should look at the various sizes , terrains maps possible and consider what they would buy and do in each terrain so as to get a feel for the possibilitiies that exist.

Terrain, size of map and weather together are far more important factors in determining your force selection than anything else. The fact that the Russians have more of this and that is nowhere near as important.

Rant over : )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...