Allied Armor

[SeaMonkey]

OK this has gone on long enough. 3 Allied armored corps grossly under represents the actual armored formations the Allies deployed in WW2.

Yes I know we have the editor, but this is not representative in the default Fall Weiss that we all use for tournament play.

The one scenario that is supposedly balanced.

My opinion is 4 armored corps for USA.

2 armored corps for UK and one for Canada.

Now what are we going to do about the 2 French armored divisions and the Polish 1st?

CRAP!!!! I want some Allied armor.

WTH the Axis formations in the west don't even need to have AT upgrades.

I charge you betas and HC with the responsibility to get this right.

[jon_j_rambo]

I'm with you all the way brother! This was noted 5 years ago that Patton & company come in weak. Buntas get too much experience & credit for waxing weak countries. Experience should be changed.

[ August 24, 2007, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[arado234]

SeaMonkey if this were done there would be no point to the game.Germany couldnt win or even have a hope of winning.If you are going to do that then you should also put allied war production in its historical settings.Im thinking its this way because of play balance.

Rambo as far as experience goes the axis elite formations were the best.How else do you think the axis held as long as they did against ridiculus odds.Their best formations had been fighting for 4 and 5 years.You tend to learn a few things.I say leave experience the way it is.

As far as patton goes,his army had NO experience when it first came in.Remember kasserine(i know he wasnt there right away).

Like the saying goes:You cant teach experience.

Doesnt matter who they fought.The more fighting you do(especially as a unit)the better you get.All your combat skills will improve.Shooting accuracy,decision making, etc etc.Face it rambo your enemy the buntas were the best(L.O.L.)

[SeaMonkey]

Crap!!! A234, tell that elite formation crap to the Screaming Eagles occupying Bastogne in the winter of 44.

Ever heard of "Those Devils in Baggy Pants"? And we're not talking about that crap these headbangers wear with their underwear exposed.

Take away an army or two. Change the victory conditions. I don't care, there were tons of Allied AFVs.

I want what was! That's IWWW, and this argument has got some teeth!

[Colin I]

Tend to think Arado is right. Bastoigne was really the end of things - not enough fuel and an offensive that the German generals thought was foolish. The performance of German armour in the face of allied air superiority and weight of numbers was extraordinary.

The British got their ground experience in North Africa - it wasn't appropriate in Normandy. Tank commanders fought with open turrets, fine in the desert where a lot of combat was long range. Disaster in Normandy (bocage) where snipers killed tank commanders.

I would add more US and UK armour. Give the Germans an extra HQ and let experience matter a little more both for HQ and armour. Think it could work out fine. You need to simulate the resilience and excellent leadership of the Germans when balancing against Allied resources.

[arado234]

SeaMonkey the Screaming eagles wernot exactly greenhorns.They had seen quite a bit of combat. Again veteran unit(the 101)vs the germans(lack of fuel,ammo, most of their troops WERE green).Look what happened when the skies cleared.Goodbye krauts.

I agree with you about allied afv numbers but do you think germany would have a chance in this game?

[Moonslayer]

The 1939 scenario IS balanced, hence it should not be changed. You want lots of US tanks pouring over France? Use the editor.

I appreciate that you guys are proud of your country and want to see it in it's full glory in this game. The problem is that this IS a game and national pride has no place in this situation. The game needs to be balanced to make it playable for PvP. You want a 'bunta-bash' then make a mod and post it for you guys to have your fun.

The basic scenario doesn't need the change.

[jon_j_rambo]

WHAT? Germany didn't have a hope of winning? They & the Japs had a 5 years start, element of surprise, home court advantage, plenty of friends, industry, name it. Do you know the condition of the USA in the 1930's? Shantytowns, dudes selling apples to make a living, etc.

Give me a break. All we ever hear about is Bunta this, Russia that...oh, the USA just had industry. Get your a$$ on a landing craft at Normandy. Put yourself in a destroyer in the Pacific or Atlantic.

We fought the Japs & the Buntas. Oh, we didn't have any leadership, desire, or righteousness...we're tired of hearing the just use the editor crap. All these threads about only if Hitler wasn't the kingpin.

"We're not going to take it" --- Twisted Sister

-Legend

[Guest Mike]

The war wasn't fought in the 30's John - I'm surprised you didn't know that.

america had been gearing up for war since mid 1040 thanks to British and French military orders, so its industry was far from unprepared in December 1941. The "Arsenal of democracy" speech ewas 29 December 1940 - almost a year before Pearl Harbour.

With America in the war Germany hever stood a chance - there are no ifs, buts or maybes about it - the US out produced Germany and Japan combined in every field except submarines and coal.

And it's manpower certainly helped plenty too - I have no idea why you think that anyone thinks US manpower was unimportant - at its peak the US had about 12,300,000 people in uniform - only the USSR had more, at about 12,500,000. Certainly more of hte Sov's were at the sharp end, but all those US REMF's made the allies smaller sharp end a lot sharper than hte Sov's one....

[Blashy]

As I have said before, the goal of the default scenario is to make it 50/50. To do this you can't give USA its proper historical production because it just takes that away.

AND there is a reason for 50/50... mass appeal. Not many players would want to play Axis knowing that to achieve victory is not by defeating your opponent but by resisting his onslaught by a certain date (I use Aug 31st 1945 in my historical production mod). Most people don't see the fun challenge in achieving a victory through a peace treaty or armistice by Axis.

[jon_j_rambo]

@blashy --- Actually, you're the one who always says,"if it wasn't for Hitler, then the Bunta Generals would have". Well, that's contrary to your anti-USA historical.

[SeaMonkey]

Whoa! How in the H-ll did this thread get turned into a total deflection of what was intended???

OK, I apologize, I poked a little fun at A234, Sorry A234.

This is not about production, or national pride, or such and such's fighting or leadership abilities.

It is about the number of Allied Tank Groups available in the build Q. OK.

It can be balanced. Take away a couple of corps or armies from the force mix and give the Allies some additional TGs, that's all.

I want balance....I need balance, but there are a number of ways to accomplish this. I also want an accurate force mix as provided for by the build limits.

I love "What if", but I like some historical premise to that and we all know SC is exceedingly generous in providing for that type of balance...... also.

The victory conditions can be changed to adjust balance also, as tournament players we could get points for levels of victory depending on a number of parameters qualifying a Minor, Major, or intermediary result.

Now about "buntas", JJR.....how about we go with "Hogans Heroes" emanation of the Germans.

You know, the French guy.....what term did he use...."The Bausch"?????

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Do you know the condition of the USA in the 1930's? Shantytowns, dudes selling apples to make a living, etc.

Same for Germany, add to this the versailles treaty / the lost first world war and you get the picture.

There was a reason why people thought "gee, the Kaiser and democracy sucked completly up, well, why not try this new Hitler guy who has such a fresh approach to everything"

Quote:

"Give me four years, and you won't recognize Germany any more"

[ August 25, 2007, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

You know, the French guy.....what term did he use...."The Bausch"?????

That would be "the Boches ".

[Blashy]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@blashy --- Actually, you're the one who always says,"if it wasn't for Hitler, then the Bunta Generals would have". Well, that's contrary to your anti-USA historical.

You really do not have any good memory at all do you?

Ask anyone else around here or use the search button and you will see my constant statement that Germany had no chance to win the war, but had Hitler not been there from the start in military decisions I do think they could have maybe manage a peace treaty on equal terms if they would have held on much better.

I am the one who comes out with a historical mpp mod for USA so they get proper representation

[SeaMonkey]

Take it easy Blashmon. We all recognize your stance and we do enjoy your mods.

By the way, when do we get try them???? :confused:

Ohhh and Blashmon, I believe you should deliver a different set of victory conditions for you mod and enter it into the campaign description.

[targul]

I firmly believe you can have historical forces while still maintaining balance. You need to adjust the effectiveness of the units to accomplish this but it can be and should be done.

Victory conditions should probably be worked on also but I have never come up with any that I really care for other then the obvious be alive at end of what was real war.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Take it easy Blashmon. We all recognize your stance and we do enjoy your mods.

By the way, when do we get try them???? :confused:

Ohhh and Blashmon, I believe you should deliver a different set of victory conditions for you mod and enter it into the campaign description.

cmmods has my mods for SC2.

I'll have my mods out some weeks after the game. Even if they are ready I think it is only fair to let people discover the game through Hubert's default scenario.

[arado234]

SeaMonkey,no need to apologise.I liked being poked at.

I agree with you on allied A.F.V.numbers but i thought the game testers set the game up for balance?

[arado234]

Targul if you put the game at full historical numbers,goodbye germany.The allies just ovewhelm them like they did.

[targul]

True if you ignore what I said in my post. You need to make the effiency of the units accurate. If you just do numbers without making those units correct the result would be as you state arado234.

Germany was successful from 39-42. That indicates there units where in the beginning much more powerful then the Allies. 1942 German's still more powerful but beginning to wane. 43 German are feeling the overwhelming force of the allies but remained strong. 44 Germany army was collapsing. The overwhelming firepower along with troops becoming more and more war wary are taking there toll. 45 Germany troops are rabble and will certainly collapse soon.

Allies gained and lost with time also. 39 Poland was simply no match. Poor tactics along with lack of critical elements for a modern war. 40 France had the elements but lacked the will and leadership. etc etc etc

[Blashy]

It is quite easy to make it historical. You give USA its proper industrial maximum capacity BUT you have it start making 0 mpps, with 0 mpps until it gets its first IT hit (they start with 1 chit in IT). Worked out great in my mod, some games it is a little faster, some it is a little slower or pretty much along historical guidelines. In the end it creates some difference throughout games played and makes it interesting.

As for the amount of forces being built, it is pretty historical when you count how many of those units were used elsewhere (pacific).

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by targul:

I firmly believe you can have historical forces while still maintaining balance. You need to adjust the effectiveness of the units to accomplish this but it can be and should be done.

If you tweak effectiveness so muchtthat Germany has a chance with "historical forces" then IMO you no longer have historical forces!!

As for allied tank groups - well IMO this is showing the limitations of the simplistic 10-point single-type unit system that has been copied from PG.

Historical units were not all tank or infantry by hte time the allies came back to Europe. They were invariably a mix....but this system just doesn't let you do that - you just can't make an army with a mix of units and have it operate together with both.

And that's never going to change with this game.

[targul]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by targul:

I firmly believe you can have historical forces while still maintaining balance. You need to adjust the effectiveness of the units to accomplish this but it can be and should be done.

If you tweak effectiveness so muchtthat Germany has a chance with "historical forces" then IMO you no longer have historical forces!!

As for allied tank groups - well IMO this is showing the limitations of the simplistic 10-point single-type unit system that has been copied from PG.

Historical units were not all tank or infantry by hte time the allies came back to Europe. They were invariably a mix....but this system just doesn't let you do that - you just can't make an army with a mix of units and have it operate together with both.

And that's never going to change with this game. </font>

[ebitt]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist

Historical units were not all tank or infantry by hte time the allies came back to Europe. They were invariably a mix....

Good Point! The US produced 86,000 tanks but only fielded 16 Armor Divisions. The majority of the tanks were in seperate tank battalions at Army and Corps level which were attached to the Infantry/Airborne Divisions. As you pointed out, raising the Tank Attack and Tank Defense value for a US Corps from 1 to 2 might be overkill, but a raise from 1 to 1.2 might be appropriate.