Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Forcepools

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein >> Forcepools Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Forcepools - 12/5/2008 11:40:42 AM   
Maxy

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/29/2008
Status: offline 		Hi,

I'm playing the Grand Campaign as Allies. We're on the 7th day so far with my H2H - mate.

I'm wondering how is the forcepool balanced and is there a place where one could see how many tanks are allocated for Allies and for Axis?

The question has arised from seeing Panther BG:s coming all over against my BG:s with only bazookas and 57mm guns. As many of you may have noticed - in skillful hands of a human opponent, BG:s with Panthers and Jagdpanthers are almost impossible to stop without a horde of TD:s or 76mm Shermans.


I'm using the picture that Nomada Firefox showed in the tracking thread:

This picture shows that there are 17 mechanized BG:s on Axis side and only 7 on Allied side. How many of those 17 BG:s have the option of having Panthers and Tigers?

I'm asking this, because of the demoralising effect that his hordes of Panthers have had on my strategies so far. Still I'm not willing to look at the saved game and check how many Panthers he has as this would ruin the game and surprises he has still for me.

I'm just curious on what is the ratio between Shermans vs. Panthers in numbers through the whole campaign. Should I just be patient and wait until the whole campaign is over. So far it's not looking that good :)
Post #: 1
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 12:01:54 PM   
Nomada_Firefox

 

Posts: 1327
Joined: 11/12/2001
From: Spain
Status: offline 		I think that if you are speaking from the original WAR game, it can be modded. And if you are speaking from Ardennes Offensive VetBoB, it has less tanks than the original game. I´m playing a multiplayer campaign and I have not problems stoping German or American tanks. With a good tactic the Ardennes maps from game will help you.

(in reply to Maxy)
Post #: 2
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 12:46:09 PM   
Maxy

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/29/2008
Status: offline 		Thank you Nomada, but that did not answer my question at all. I'm not interested whether it can be modified - I'm interested what is the original situation.

I'm playing Vanilla CC WaR - no modding.


(in reply to Nomada_Firefox)
Post #: 3
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 2:19:44 PM   
Neil N

 

Posts: 740
Joined: 8/24/2004
Status: offline 		Numbers are tanks in forcepools are all based directly on reality....and then reduced by about 2/3(so if Peiper had 60 panthers available to him in real life...just taking a number here...you can expect around 20 in his forcepool). The only battlegroup with Tigers is Peiper  2 ro 3 of the SS battlegroups have Panthers and 2 or 3 of the Heer Battlegroups have Panthers.  I think if you ask the men who were there in 1944, they would say it was pretty demoralizing to keep seeing all of those Panthers coming out of the trees.

Your best bet, is to place those AT guns and Bazookas in good ambush positions and bleed those battlegroups as they role through you. Bleed them as best you can until the german battlegroups push through to your rear (and they will push through) and meet up with your armored battlegroups.

(in reply to Maxy)
Post #: 4
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 3:13:53 PM   
Nomada_Firefox

 

Posts: 1327
Joined: 11/12/2001
From: Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Maxy

Thank you Nomada, but that did not answer my question at all. I'm not interested whether it can be modified - I'm interested what is the original situation.

I'm playing Vanilla CC WaR - no modding.



Goog the vanilla CC War is not realistic and probably there are thousands of panther but only a few heavy tanks.

About the number of panther and tiger.....you can take a look on data with the war data workbook on excel. Looking this, I think that there is not Tiger I and only 4 or 2 Tiger II. The number of Panther by example on Peiper is over 10 command panther and 22 ss panther on some gc days. When you can use only 15 teams, 22 Panther are too.

(in reply to Maxy)
Post #: 5
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 3:15:55 PM   
Maxy

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/29/2008
Status: offline 		Thank you Neil N. This is interesting news.

I totally agree you with the demoralising effect they may've caused - Don't get me wrong; I find it great that WaR has captured the feeling of overrun attack for the first days.

Anyway, does anyone have a good link for real life composition of BG:s in Battle of bulge?

(in reply to Neil N)
Post #: 6
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 3:27:45 PM   
Neil N

 

Posts: 740
Joined: 8/24/2004
Status: offline 		Another thing, if you want the german battlegroups to have less tanks, increase the "skill" of the AI side.  The AI will have the greatest number of tanks on the "Recruit" setting, and the fewest number of tanks on the "Elite" setting.

Links, I'll have to look around again.  I do have a pdf with vehicle strength for all german battlegroups in the Bastogne Corridor

(in reply to Maxy)
Post #: 7
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 3:51:13 PM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline 		Hi Neil,

I know the 1st SS panzer had a full Abteilung of Tiger II (45 tanks and was at full complement for the start of the Ardennes offensive) but they should be spread between Peiper and some other bgs from the 1st SS.

Tiger II and Sherman jumbo should definitly be made available at line level, simply for fun and diversity. because for now, if you want to play with Hvies, you must also deal with an increaed number of panthers and mark IV which screw the GC a little IMO, expecially H2H.

Considering the 1ss had a full complement of 45 tiger II's, I think none of them at line and and a max of 4 at recruit is too few for the whole GC. A german panzer division by that time usually had 45 panther and 45 mark IV, so with the full Tiger II abteilung and appliying your rule, the 1 SS should have as many tiger II as panthers.


A way to avoid massive fiedling of 5 or more tiger IIs on day one would be to halve the forcepool at start but to allow reinforcement for all bg's including armored, so they still have the same strengh overall but can't usse all the Tiger IIs in the opening day, which would imbalance the gc. Personnaly, I would do this for all the BG's in the game.



N.B. According to this website, 21 tiger II are positively identified for participating in the ardennes offensive, mostly those knoked out and recovered by the american after the battle. surely more were used but some veteran said not all the 45 tiger II's left the assembly area. According to your rule, it should be at minimum 7 tiger II's available in the 1st ss panzer division.http://www.ss501panzer.com/Tanks_of_SS501.htm



Cheers

EDIT: according to the website, 13 tiger II were lost by Peiper between dec 18 and 26 dec during the fighting for stavelot/la gleize sector.



< Message edited by Pzt_Serk -- 12/5/2008 4:06:56 PM >

(in reply to Maxy)
Post #: 8
RE: Forcepools - 12/5/2008 4:00:17 PM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Maxy

Anyway, does anyone have a good link for real life composition of BG:s in Battle of bulge?



Get yourself a copy of the ACSDB (Ardennes Campaign Simulation Database) and all your dreams will come true!
http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=ADM001245
Comes at a price though, and getting your answers requires some intermediate SQL/DBMS knowledge...
(Note also that data is mainly at the divisional level, so you'll need to gather some additional info on the BG compositions (fi for the 1st and 2nd SS Panzer Corps, Michael Reynolds' books come highly recommended).

Cheers,

Moss

(in reply to Maxy)
Post #: 9
RE: Forcepools - 12/8/2008 8:13:54 AM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

Hi Neil,

I know the 1st SS panzer had a full Abteilung of Tiger II (45 tanks and was at full complement for the start of the Ardennes offensive) but they should be spread between Peiper and some other bgs from the 1st SS.

N.B. According to this website, 21 tiger II are positively identified for participating in the ardennes offensive, mostly those knoked out and recovered by the american after the battle. surely more were used but some veteran said not all the 45 tiger II's left the assembly area. According to your rule, it should be at minimum 7 tiger II's available in the 1st ss panzer division.http://www.ss501panzer.com/Tanks_of_SS501.htm

EDIT: according to the website, 13 tiger II were lost by Peiper between dec 18 and 26 dec during the fighting for stavelot/la gleize sector.



The attachment lists the available Tiger2s during the Ardennes Campaign.
Figures represent on hand figures at the start of that particular day. The database also confirms the losses between 18/12 and 26/12: 3 Tigers destroyed, 10 abandoned in that period (of which 8 apparently during Peiper's breakout on the 24th). So I guess you could make a case for more Tigers in the game... but it would definitely upset play balance (even more, according to some )

Cheers,
Moss




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 10
RE: Forcepools - 12/8/2008 5:31:09 PM   
TheReal_Pak40

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info on that database, I didn't know that it existed. I know SQL and Access and could make good use of it but the $80 price tag is a bit excessive.

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 11
RE: Forcepools - 12/8/2008 6:57:42 PM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline 		It is an impressive collection of data that let's you answer practically every forcepool question you might have, but I agree that the price tag is impressive as well.
There is something similar for the southern pincer of the Kursk Offensive (I don't have that one): for all the modders out there...

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)
Post #: 12
RE: Forcepools - 12/8/2008 8:19:36 PM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

So I guess you could make a case for more Tigers in the game... but it would definitely upset play balance (even more, according to some )

Cheers,
Moss



Hi Moss,

Nice information in there. I wonder where the Tiger II's in the 5th panzerarmee after december 28 come from. Do you have any idea? Maybe to represent the 1ss pz div redeployment around Bastoge?

Regarding WaR, is it really imbalanced in favour of Germans?? I'm playing a H2H GC as US vs a seasoned opponent and it seems fine. We are playing at green lvl so we can enjoy some Tiger II's and Sherman Jumbos instead of Panthers only. I killed 50% of his tiger II force for the whole GC (I.E. I got one ) in the first fight involving KG Peiper using a double team of one 57mm atg and one bazooka. Yes they are tough to crack but I'd bet the other one will be damaged by an airstrike or arty barrage and written off for spare parts

IMO fixing the Panthers (as it will be done in the upcoming patch) and reducing mortar lethality vs ATG's will do more in keeping a good game balance than adding 2 or 3 more Tiger II's over a 24 day périod

Cheers


< Message edited by Pzt_Serk -- 12/8/2008 8:20:38 PM >

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 13
RE: Forcepools - 12/9/2008 9:31:00 AM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

Hi Moss,

Nice information in there. I wonder where the Tiger II's in the 5th panzerarmee after december 28 come from. Do you have any idea? Maybe to represent the 1ss pz div redeployment around Bastoge?



According to ACSDB (I only ran a quick query, did not crosscheck yet), the 506th Hvy Pz Bn started the offensive in 6th Pz Army reserve, transferred to 5th Pz Army on 28/12 and subsequently to the 167th VG on 6/1. Almost certainly, the unit was transferred to participate in the offensive to reduce the Bastogne salient and then to defend against the Allied counterattacks on 30/12 (south) and 3/1 (north).

IMO, a couple more or less Tiger2s indeed won't be decisive. If you ask me, the Jagdpanthers in KG Kuhlman are a much tougher nut to crack... (certainly considering the fact that you have over 60 tanks in that BG at recruit setting).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

Regarding WaR, is it really imbalanced in favour of Germans?? I'm playing a H2H GC as US vs a seasoned opponent and it seems fine. We are playing at green lvl so we can enjoy some Tiger II's and Sherman Jumbos instead of Panthers only. I killed 50% of his tiger II force for the whole GC (I.E. I got one ) in the first fight involving KG Peiper using a double team of one 57mm atg and one bazooka. Yes they are tough to crack but I'd bet the other one will be damaged by an airstrike or arty barrage and written off for spare parts

IMO fixing the Panthers (as it will be done in the upcoming patch) and reducing mortar lethality vs ATG's will do more in keeping a good game balance than adding 2 or 3 more Tiger II's over a 24 day périod

Cheers



I have no definitive opinion yet on force balance in WaR, as it is too soon to tell. We have now reached the 9th turn (4th day) in our campaign (recruit vs recruit; I've attached a screenshot of the current situation). I don't think that the current result is too ahistorical, so I wouldn't say the game is imbalanced.
We did change the data of the 75mmL40 gun of the Sherman, because that was a bit too obvious. But we didn't touch fi on the 'gatling' M-36 rate of fire, or the impact of the Grille HE rounds (to name a few) because we spotted them too late. I suppose there's always room for debate/improvement on vehicle/weapons data.
Our biggest issues so far are structural: the size of the infantry teams is too small to get a decent infantry attack going (and forcepools are too big for attrition strategies), some units are sighted way too soon for our taste, AT guns are indeed very vulnerable to mortar fire, etc. But none of that is really enough to say there's a structural imbalance in the game. Besides, we always play our campaigns both sides with the same settings, so no reason to complain as you have the same advantages/disadvantages in the rematch

Cheers,
Moss





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 14
RE: Forcepools - 12/9/2008 11:22:33 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		Moss that's impressive....but scary!

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 15
RE: Forcepools - 12/9/2008 12:18:10 PM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline 		Scary? I'm not sure I follow The campaign, the comments , the database? Shoot

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 16
RE: Forcepools - 12/9/2008 4:44:27 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2614
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline 		A mod with reinforced company-sized forcepools would be awesome.

_____________________________

People shouldn't ask themselves why schools get shoot up.
They should ask themselves why people who finish schools burned out due to mobbing aren't receiving high enough compensations to not seek vengeance.

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 17
RE: Forcepools - 12/10/2008 1:02:35 AM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

IMO, a couple more or less Tiger2s indeed won't be decisive. If you ask me, the Jagdpanthers in KG Kuhlman are a much tougher nut to crack... (certainly considering the fact that you have over 60 tanks in that BG at recruit setting).



I agree that KG Kulhmann is probably the strongest BG on german side. Looks like Matrix decided to pack all the armors from the 12ss in one BG. What do Kuhlmann have? panthers, japgpanthers, jagdpanzer and mark IV... Quite impressive for a division that bogged down around Eselhorn ridge after a couple of days IRL. This is one reason why I'm advocating in favor of adding Tiger IIs and Sherman jumbo at line lvl, in order to avoid the high numbers on recruit and green lvl for all others BGs. (I know I could do it myself by modifing the forcepool but since I only play H2H the only way to make the community to adopt this would be to release a mod (and I'm not a modder) or including it in a future patch. let's see what will happen.

Regarding the GC, it seem that people forget thet Germans rolled the US over in the first few days except in the north and actually gained control of almost the whole strat map IRL before the US counterattacked. WaR should play as two GCs in one, with Germans steamrolling west and losing momentum just as US counterattack. So I don't think it is imbalanced when US can't hold on the first maps for more than a trun or two (as some people complained, looks like they expected the US to stop cold the germans on day two). I actually think that if gerry does not break the line in the first 3 days, his chance of winning are quite slim but it's too early to be sure.

In my GC as US it's day 4 and I'm on the offensive in the north towards Krinkelt and my defense is consolidating around Bastogne and Houffalize, but my opponent lost some precious time in redeploying Peiper and Kuhlman further south aound Sank-Vith.

P.S. do you play with moral on or off. I'm having a debate with some fellow Pzt member whether a GC should be played with moral on (thanks to the new force retreat option) or off. For now I'm playing with moral off and moral on would have help me at times while moral off saved my ass at some others. Looks like it goes both ways but iI'd prefer my BGs the retreat one map than disbanding and reappearing at the rear. Only time will tell I guess if the H2H community switch to moral on or stick with moral off.

Cheers


< Message edited by Pzt_Serk -- 12/10/2008 1:03:55 AM >

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 18
RE: Forcepools - 12/10/2008 7:30:20 AM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline 		We always play our campaigns with Morale off/15min, mainly to keep the battles going and to avoid the 'foreward suicide defense' to gain time (if you played Morale on against a human opponent, you know what I'm tlaking about )

But I suppose turning morale off has become more a question of habit... I like the retreat option for BGs as well, but I doubt it will be enough to offset the disadvantages of VL allocation mechanics when turning it on.

Cheers,

Roel

(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 19
RE: Forcepools - 12/12/2008 11:54:02 PM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline 		Moss,

what does your database says about the Führer Begleit Brigade durin Watch am Rhein?? Most information I have say it did not have any Panthers (as in War) but a mix of Mark IV/Stugs IIIG/jagdpanzer IV/L70.

Cheers,

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 20
RE: Forcepools - 12/13/2008 7:30:33 AM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

Moss,

what does your database says about the Führer Begleit Brigade durin Watch am Rhein?? Most information I have say it did not have any Panthers (as in War) but a mix of Mark IV/Stugs IIIG/jagdpanzer IV/L70.

Cheers,


I guess you must have sensed it : yesterday, I just finished a couple of additional queries to generate complete OOBs per unit (no, that kind of info doesn't just roll out of the DB). I'm still doing some sanity checks, but the results should be pretty accurate.
And it seems your information is correct; this is what comes out for the FBB: (see attachment)

Most of the abbreviations should be self-explanatory (if not, just ask). What you see are the totals of initial item strenght (at the day of first appearance in the campaign) + reinforcement strenght (replacements arriving at a later date). For modding purposes - there is no reinforcement button, everything is already calculated into the initial forcepool - replacements are weighted according to their day of appearance. So fi 25 Jagdpanthers arriving at the last day of the campaign only count for 1/25th of that total, ie 1. Generally however, German units have very little replacements, so the reinforcement strenght is negligible.

Cheers,
Moss





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 21
RE: Forcepools - 12/13/2008 4:41:20 PM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline 		Great info Moss Orlen!

Any chance you could post other BG comparisons? The developers might use the information to make the game more historical....

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 22
RE: Forcepools - 12/14/2008 2:44:23 PM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline 		Hi Tejszd,

Check your PM on this.

Cheers,
Moss

(in reply to Tejszd)
Post #: 23
RE: Forcepools - 12/14/2008 4:39:18 PM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline 		Indeed, some kind of historical realism mod reviewing the forcepools woud be great but unfortunatly I don't know how to mod.


(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 24
RE: Forcepools - 12/17/2008 10:36:24 AM   
Platoon_Michael


Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline 		Why doesnt the American BG at Trois Ponts have any ATGuns?
I know there was atleast one if not two that stopped Peiper.

(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 25
RE: Forcepools - 12/17/2008 11:13:06 AM   
Moss Orleni

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 11/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

Why doesnt the American BG at Trois Ponts have any ATGuns?
I know there was atleast one if not two that stopped Peiper.


IIRC, the 51st Engineer Btn (the one guarding the Trois-Ponts bridges when Peiper arrived) is not portrayed as an individual unit in the game (even with regimental BGs, you can't include everything).
The 57mm AT you're referring to was not organically part of the Btn, but it had been commandeered from the 526th AIB defending Malmedy and Stavelot at that time. As it was only part of the 51st Eng for half a day (arrived on the morning of the 18th, destroyed before noon), it's debatable whether it should be included (if you would decide to create a 51st Eng Btn BG).

Cheers,
Moss

(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 26
RE: Forcepools - 12/18/2008 11:42:35 PM   
Platoon_Michael


Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline 		Yea well from a players perspective,against the German team that occupies that Battle which includes 4 tanks and 2 HT's they could have thrown us a bone.

(in reply to Moss Orleni)
Post #: 27
RE: Forcepools - 12/19/2008 2:33:45 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		How's this FBB proposal






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 28
RE: Forcepools - 12/19/2008 3:58:24 AM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline 		Getting better,

According to Moss's database, FBB had almost as many Jagdpanzers IV (25) as panzer Mark IV (28).

Cheers,

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 29
RE: Forcepools - 12/19/2008 4:02:01 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		I can't find any references to the PzjIV's any where else


http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6141




(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein >> Forcepools Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.891