Why are the PSW 234/2, 234/3, and 234/4 Armored Cars Under the Armor List?

[Chad Harrison]

For the longest time, I was wondering when the Puma and what not made it into the game and thought I just had bad dates or regions. Then I finally found it, and my other lost friend, the 234/4 under the Armor column!! Why is that? I strongly disagree for realism and for gameplay. The Germans in a QB are playing very under manned when it comes to numbers of mobile armored forces. They need something in the vehicles list that can atleast help offset that. In CMBO, that was the Puma and the 234/4 for me. But now they are under the armored forces?

Come on BFC, give the Germans a break on this one! Why did you put them there?

Chad

[Andrew H.]

It makes sense to me that the 234/2 (Puma) and the 234/4 are included under the armor category; the 50mm L/60 on the Puma and the 75mm L/48 on the 234/4 have a significant anti-armor capability.

I'm not sure about the 234/3 - IIRC, its 75mm L/24 is the same gun as the SPW 251/9 "Stummel," which is included under the "vehicle" category. Because the short 75 was generally used for anti-infantry purposes (although it did have some anti-armor shaped charge rounds), I'm not sure why it shouldn't be included under the "vehicle" category.

All of this is a gameplay issue; it doesn't have anything to do with realism.

[Michael Emrys]

It's all the fault of those gamey Germans for upgunning their blasted ACs!

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

It makes sense to me that the 234/2 (Puma) and the 234/4 are included under the armor category; the 50mm L/60 on the Puma and the 75mm L/48 on the 234/4 have a significant anti-armor capability.

I'm not sure about the 234/3 - IIRC, its 75mm L/24 is the same gun as the SPW 251/9 "Stummel," which is included under the "vehicle" category. Because the short 75 was generally used for anti-infantry purposes (although it did have some anti-armor shaped charge rounds), I'm not sure why it shouldn't be included under the "vehicle" category.

All of this is a gameplay issue; it doesn't have anything to do with realism.

Hi Andrew

Everytime I see your posts I see my name Thanks

that was the from the post about CMBO being a religion and I was the head of the optics cult or some such thing, I still chuckle about it.

but your signature line says "play green troops" I would suggest that in CMBB that does not matter anymore because almost all infantry now goes QUICKLY to ground when under fire, and MG's and HMG's work like magic (now compared to CMBO) to pin them down or neutralize their advance.

This reply has nothing to do with this thread but just a comment about CMBB.

Thanks

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread...

-tom w

[ October 20, 2002, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

It makes sense to me that the 234/2 (Puma) and the 234/4 are included under the armor category; the 50mm L/60 on the Puma and the 75mm L/48 on the 234/4 have a significant anti-armor capability.

I'm not sure about the 234/3 - IIRC, its 75mm L/24 is the same gun as the SPW 251/9 "Stummel," which is included under the "vehicle" category. Because the short 75 was generally used for anti-infantry purposes (although it did have some anti-armor shaped charge rounds), I'm not sure why it shouldn't be included under the "vehicle" category.

All of this is a gameplay issue; it doesn't have anything to do with realism.

Yes the obvious reason is that both the Puma and the upgunned 75mm L/48 armored cars could be considered 'tank killers' as much as say the Marders. But, my point is that they were included under the 'vehicle' list in CMBO, so why the change?

If atleast, I think that they should put the 234/3 back into vehicles because it only has the short barrelled 75mm gun, the same as all the halftracks. No difference there.

The reason I brought up realism is because lets say that you make the setting 'mechanized', so now you have no 'armored' forces. But, a mechanzied unit would surely have the puma and the rest just as much as they would have all the recon vehicles. But, if you make it 'mechanized', you just lost the historical mobile AT forces of these units AFAIK.

Chad

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

It's all the fault of those gamey Germans for upgunning their blasted ACs!

Michael

What were they thinking? They also make those Flak trucks and actually used them! Not even too mention the Sturmtiger

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

Yes the obvious reason is that both the Puma and the upgunned 75mm L/48 armored cars could be considered 'tank killers' as much as say the Marders. But, my point is that they were included under the 'vehicle' list in CMBO, so why the change?

I guess BTS just rethought its position on these vehicles.

The reason I brought up realism is because lets say that you make the setting 'mechanized', so now you have no 'armored' forces. But, a mechanzied unit would surely have the puma and the rest just as much as they would have all the recon vehicles. But, if you make it 'mechanized', you just lost the historical mobile AT forces of these units AFAIK.

Well, the Puma and the long 75 were pretty rare. Their representation in the mechanized forces (actually they were intended to belong to the recce battalions, weren't they) was more theoretical than real, wasn't it?

And as far as SPAT component of mech infantry goes, didn't they rely on StuGs and Marders for that? Mostly though, I think they had towed AT guns just like the vanilla infantry.

Michael

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Well, the Puma and the long 75 were pretty rare. Their representation in the mechanized forces (actually they were intended to belong to the recce battalions, weren't they) was more theoretical than real, wasn't it?

And as far as SPAT component of mech infantry goes, didn't they rely on StuGs and Marders for that? Mostly though, I think they had towed AT guns just like the vanilla infantry.

Michael

Yes they were both rare, especially more so the 75mm L/48 armored car version. But, rarity is not the issue here. The issue is do all three of the vehicles really belong in the 'armored' category or the 'vehicle' category.

IIRC, the main use for these vehicles was in recon units. As mobile anti tank weapons, and close support. They were much more maneuverable than the halftracks were. Whether the StuG's and Marders were also used in the same units, I dont know.

It just doesnt feel right to have them in the armored category. They are the only 'wheeled' vehicles there, and as I said before, they should be included in a 'mechanized' force for sure. My biggest question is why the change? I dont see a need for it. And when it comes to gameplay, I think that the Germans need the extra mobile anti armor forces.

Chad

[Jagdwyrm]

From what Ive read, all of the 234 series armored cars were relatively rare including the 20mm armed 234/1

[Maj. Battaglia]

I would have to agree with Chad here. I would also posit that when simulating recon forces in a QB, the mechanized option should be used, at least that's what I did in CMBO. To me, "mechanized" represents recon forces (such as from the recon battalion in a panzer division) or armored infantry without any attached armor (such as StuGs and SPAT, which could be an integral part of German PzGr divisions, but typically attached at a divisional level unless part of a KG, so they would not always be present).

In CMBO I would prefer a Puma over a Greyhound, but either one can certainly kill the other (as well as the 50 cal killing the German ACs & HTs). As long as the Soviets have something under "vehicle" that can kill the German ACs without too much difficulty, then perhaps Pumas should be moved back.

I don't have CMBB yet since I await a new computer. But I assume the Soviets have an AC that can deal with the Puma late in the war. Is this so?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

IIRC, the main use for these vehicles was in recon units. As mobile anti tank weapons, and close support. They were much more maneuverable than the halftracks were. Whether the StuG's and Marders were also used in the same units, I dont know.

In my earlier post I was saying that it was the mechanized infantry (of the mech inf regiments) was relying on the StuGs and Marders, not the recce battalions. Although I have seen TO&Es for recce battalions that showed organic StuG batteries, I'm not sure how reliable those were.

It just doesnt feel right to have them in the armored category. They are the only 'wheeled' vehicles there, and as I said before, they should be included in a 'mechanized' force for sure. My biggest question is why the change? I dont see a need for it. And when it comes to gameplay, I think that the Germans need the extra mobile anti armor forces.

And for my part, it wouldn't feel right for players to be using them in support of infantry, which—if CMBO is any guide—is where they would end up most of the time.

As I posted earlier, if your mech infantry needs SPAT, buy them some StuGs or Marders.

Or use the unrestricted option and buy them anything you like.

Michael

[ October 21, 2002, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

As long as the Soviets have something under "vehicle" that can kill the German ACs without too much difficulty, then perhaps Pumas should be moved back.

I don't have CMBB yet since I await a new computer. But I assume the Soviets have an AC that can deal with the Puma late in the war. Is this so?

After 4/43, the only available Sov. armored cars are armed with MGs, so there's not an armored car that can really deal with something like a Puma.

Hey Tom: I have been thinking about removing the Play Green Troops! portion of my sig; I'm very pleased with how CMBB models infantry now. I remember the thread from which the other portion of my sig came - and of course CMBB does have something for your cult of the opticians as well. (or perhaps :cool: , to reflect the optics). Are you still waiting for the game to be delivered?

[Maj. Battaglia]

Thanks for the info, Andrew. In that case, it would certainly take the wind out of the sails of the Soviet player in a recon forces meeting engagement, mano a mano. So for play balance in human vs. human QB, I agree with BTS logic.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

My personal view on the subject is that the late 234 series of armoured cars were extremely rare and possibly BFC considered this fact to reflect reality and therefore categorised them in the armoured section to prevent abuse. I can just picture the recon meeting engagement now... German Puma's and 75mm armed 234's against lowly MG armed Soviet recon forces. Yuck!

Regards

Jim R.

[Hans]

Perhaps the solution would be to put them into both catagories

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

My personal view on the subject is that the late 234 series of armoured cars were extremely rare and possibly BFC considered this fact to reflect reality and therefore categorised them in the armoured section to prevent abuse. I can just picture the recon meeting engagement now... German Puma's and 75mm armed 234's against lowly MG armed Soviet recon forces. Yuck!

Regards

Jim R.

That is true. The Americans had the Greyhound, but the Russians only have MG's. But, that doesnt even matter because you have all the OTHER armored cars that have anything from a HMG, to 20mm, to 75mm guns. The same as atleast the 234/3. So, even now if you want a mechanized battle, the Germans will have a HUGE upper hand because of all the better vehicles.

Rarity cannot be a factor here. Look at the Sturmtiger. Obviously BFC is not concerned with rarity when it came to what to ADD in the game, but it sure does determine the rarity factor.

Back to my original point, in CMBO the Germans had quite a bit fewer points for Armor than the allies, but a lot more points for Mech forces. That usually meant Puma's and 234/3's. Realism and reality aside, that allowed them to hold their own. Now in CMBB, its the same situation, but the vehicle department has nothing that can act as a mobile AT platform. They have close support halftracks, and so why not atleast the 234/3?

The obvious solution would be to just make your battles 'unrestricted', but I dont go for the armor fest battles.

Chad

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Hans:

Perhaps the solution would be to put them into both catagories

And I think that that would be the most straightforward solution.

[Warlord69]

You can play a QB with the Unrestricted option on, and win big and not buy a single tank. Sure one player could buy a 1000 points worth of armor, but that doesn't mean he can run all over the battlefield, they still can't hold terrian, and they would have a tough job finding all those Pak-fronts while thier tank commanders are dodging sniper bullets.