One Sherman as good as another in battle?

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by REVS:

Out there on the CMAK etc "football field" of the gamer's typical battlefield, you never see the Sherman's real virtues in action, because the Germans, miraculously, have managed yet again to turn out some of their best tanks, full of ammo, with all spares installed, ready for battle.

You can always convince your opponent to play a scenario that has limited German armor or a QB with some combined arms Allied troops attacking some mechanized/infantry Axis defenders.

I love CMAK etc as a game, but as soon as its developers come up with some way of recognising the fact that its main limitation is that it's a game, the sooner they will improve it as a game.

The developers have always said that CM is a "tactical wargame", so don't blame them for not having delivered a perfect simulation.

Dschugaschwili

[Cueball]

What might be interesting for CMX2 would be a "reliability to battlefield" percentage beside each vehicle. You buy a company of Tigers, and you might only get two of them. You buy a company of Shermans on the other hand, and 97% of the time all of them would be there. Then the Sherman's true asset, reliability, would shine.

[Sergei]

Then the reliability would have to be given a point price, thus discounting the King Tigers... QB's are about balance, after all.

[Holman]

REVS says:

Out there on the CMAK etc "football field" of the gamer's typical battlefield, you never see the Sherman's real virtues in action, because the Germans, miraculously, have managed yet again to turn out some of their best tanks, full of ammo, with all spares installed, ready for battle.

It all depends on how you play CM. The above description fits most QB's, to be sure, but scenarios are a different kind of match-up. There the degree of gaminess or realism all depends on the scenario designer. I'd say that well-designed scenarios at least approach the ideal of "simulator" over "game" (borg spotting notwithstanding) that you're looking for.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

You can always convince your opponent to play a scenario that has limited German armor or a QB with some combined arms Allied troops attacking some mechanized/infantry Axis defenders.

Or even plain Axis infantry. That happened often enough. So did Axis armor attacking plain Allied infantry. Armor vs. armor was not the norm, even if it wasn't exactly rare either.

Michael

[walpurgis nacht]

Everyone has their own style and there are many ways to approach a win in this game. That said I've always thought of the old Stalin, "quantity is a quality of it's own" concept as the way to go in CM.

Forget about the 76 upgrade, it is next to worthless unless we're talking firefly calibur.

The reinforced turret might help you shrug an extra hit at medium/long range, but it's nothing to get excited about.

I go for the cheapest platoon.

[Flenser]

As much as it offends me to say so, Walpurgis is correct. The 76 will let you kill a tiger via a side shot for a little further away than the 75 and kill it outright from the front at 200m or so... but you're stuck playing the carrot/stick game regardless. Go cheap.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Flenser:

As much as it offends me to say so, Walpurgis is correct. The 76 will let you kill a tiger via a side shot for a little further away than the 75 and kill it outright from the front at 200m or so... but you're stuck playing the carrot/stick game regardless. Go cheap.

Well of course I'm correct. You're just offended because it takes me 12 hours to play a 1000 point TCP game. Ahem . . . as if you had better things to do.

[Flenser]

12 hours.... for the SETUP. Empires have risen and fallen in a shorter span than a game takes with you.

Monkey.

Back to the subject at hand: For QBs, go cheap, maybe bring a M-10 or a hellcat if you want a 76. You're far more likely to run into paks and stugs, with which the vanilla sherman can deal. If your opponent goes for a kitty or two, then it's at the cost of something else (infantry, support, etc), which ultimately reduces their flexibilty, which you can use to your advantage.

All this goes out the window for scenarios, of course.

[ December 10, 2004, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Flenser ]

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Flenser:

For QBs, go cheap, maybe bring a M-10 or a hellcat if you want a 76.

Hey, I said this 25 posts back!

I guess it proves that great minds think alike...or does it?

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Flenser:

12 hours.... for the SETUP. Empires have risen and fallen in a shorter span than a game takes with you.

Well according to Paco in the opponent finder forum, "It´s 01:47 AM here local time, and I must work tomo.. that´s it, today.

Can´t continue -not at this pace-."

So it would appear that you're not exactly a natural Ben Johnson yourself.

Now back on topic. M10 or Hellcat as a cheap 76 substitute. Sure thing. Just keep in mind that the better your opponent, the less useful those open-tops are. Arty or mortars + open top vehicle = dead Flenser vehicle.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

Now back on topic. M10 or Hellcat as a cheap 76 substitute. Sure thing. Just keep in mind that the better your opponent, the less useful those open-tops are. Arty or mortars + open top vehicle = dead Flenser vehicle.

If you are going to use the Hellcat, you might as well take advantage of it greatest asset, its speed. Shoot and get the hell out. Move to another ambush position and wait for the enemy to come to you. Repeat as required.

Michael

[Dave H]

I think the only way the QB afficionados are going to find true "balance" in CMX2 is to allow both players to use the same nationality. Otherwise you're in a never-ending search for perfect unit-by-unit matching between nations which had different organizations, tactics, and philosophies. You want Combat Mission to be a better game? Then take on his Tigers with your own Tigers.

For me the lack of perfect unit-by-unit matches between units makes the era much more interesting. Of course, I have to admit I'm a big fan of highly unbalanced scenarios, too. As Donald Rumsfeld said so eloquently the other day, "You go to war with the army you have".

[Flenser]

Well according to Paco in the opponent finder forum, "It´s 01:47 AM here local time, and I must work tomo.. that´s it, today.

Can´t continue -not at this pace-."

So it would appear that you're not exactly a natural Ben Johnson yourself.

Was having technical difficulties, the game was crashing every 10 min or so.

Appologies to CA for restating the obvious, I'm lucky if I can remember the content of the previous 2 posts. As for this "great minds" business... I don't think, I react.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by REVS:

I love CMAK etc as a game, but as soon as its developers come up with some way of recognising the fact that its main limitation is that it's a game, the sooner they will improve it as a game.

The huge advantages of the Sherman are on a strategic scale. On an operational scale the advantage still exists. But on the tactical scale the big cats rule. And CM is a tactical game. On a tactical scale, the Sherman's advantages won't show.

It was the strategic and tactical scale that ensured most battles were not as even as in CM.

Do you want the attacker ratio in a QB to be a more historical 3:1 instead of a meager 1.7:1? Guess it would get boring soon.

Think the Allies won every battle because they won the war? For every Bastogne there is a Monte Cassino. During '44 the average casualty ratio in land battles was in favor of the Germans. The war was won/lost on a strategic scale.

CM allows a weapon if it was available in the theater (maybe some exceptions). If you don't like to play vs Tigers and Panthers, just make up some additional rules (Fionn Kelly made some, IIRC "Panther vs Sherman76" is another set).

Gruß

Joachim

[Brent Pollock]

[Ahem]

Folks searching for such balance might want to check out my battle, "WBRP - Company Town" at the Proving Grounds:

HtH

vs Allied AI

vs Axis AI

As I state in the design notes (or somewhere close to that), this was partially an exercise at designing OBs with balance; both sides get exactly the same AFV components via the blatant use of captured AFVs. The editor was used to give them all the same array of leaders and ammo. The only assymetry is in the map and minor components of the infantry OBs (each side essentially gets a cavalry battalion).

Originally posted by Dave H:

I think the only way the QB afficionados are going to find true "balance" in CMX2 is to allow both players to use the same nationality. Otherwise you're in a never-ending search for perfect unit-by-unit matching between nations which had different organizations, tactics, and philosophies. You want Combat Mission to be a better game? Then take on his Tigers with your own Tigers.

For me the lack of perfect unit-by-unit matches between units makes the era much more interesting. Of course, I have to admit I'm a big fan of highly unbalanced scenarios, too. As Donald Rumsfeld said so eloquently the other day, "You go to war with the army you have".

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Dave H:

I think the only way the QB afficionados are going to find true "balance" in CMX2 is to allow both players to use the same nationality. Otherwise you're in a never-ending search for perfect unit-by-unit matching between nations which had different organizations, tactics, and philosophies. You want Combat Mission to be a better game? Then take on his Tigers with your own Tigers.

For me the lack of perfect unit-by-unit matches between units makes the era much more interesting. Of course, I have to admit I'm a big fan of highly unbalanced scenarios, too. As Donald Rumsfeld said so eloquently the other day, "You go to war with the army you have".

Very true. I am sure that the QBers would prefer a 'kitty hunt kitty' game of chess if they could get it.

Only one minor disagreement: 'You go to war with the Secretary of Defense you have'. A better man once put a sign on his desk saying 'the buck stops here'; but honesty is unfashionable in our days: more's the pity.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Determinant:

(snip)

Only one minor disagreement: 'You go to war with the Secretary of Defense you have'. A better man once put a sign on his desk saying 'the buck stops here'; but honesty is unfashionable in our days: more's the pity.

Since BFC has made it plain that all political comments are unwelcome, I stuck that quote in without any context or elaboration, as it says so much. It seemed like a good opportunity!

Back to the subject at hand, the cheapest Sherman is the best for me so I can have as many as possible. Of course, for anti-infantry work you also have to consider the Stuart and its wonderful firepower from massed machine guns. Fast, tough, and cheap! That way a single AT mine or stray artillery round (usually friendly fire!) doesn't ruin a whole attack, too.

This web page roughly computed a 50:1 ratio between Shermans and Tigers on the Western Front. Panthers have it much better, at "only" a 20:1 ratio. That's without even taking into account the availability of trained Allied crews and the Sherman's greater reliability vs. the largest German tanks.

[sand digger]

This constant praise of alleged Sherman reliability/durability compared with German tanks!!! Where is the real support for that contention???

For one they didn't last long on the battlefield anyway. Then in the later stages of the war the German support system was crumbling and inefficient, so proper maintenance was not done and they had to drive on their own tracks to their destination. Finally the proper records (Belton Cooper is a guide) show that the Sherman was not that great even if combat damage is ignored anyway.

There are some remarkedly impressive facts in the Sherman Story, but in imporatant ways it was very ordinary, particulary as the war went on and others improved. The German IV for one has a far better record.