(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Paul Vebber -> (3/24/2001 5:39:00 AM)
quote: Why do people keep thinging the The Infantry on the side that won ..on the side that killed or captured ten times what they lost in manpower and won the war are somehow less proficent than the very army they beat hands down in North Africa and Sicily... I don't get it ... Did you read Col Dupuy's Understanding War or M. van Creveld's "Fighting power" The former examines 50 engagements between the German Army and the US Army and the effectiveness difference was a bit over 1.5 to 1 in favor of the Germans. I guess the 5 years of fighting from 39-44 actually counted for something. The Good News was that the Allies had a better than 1.5 to one numerical advantage, so were able to fight a war of attrition that simply bled the Germans to death. Read van Creveld, he has all the facts on how screwed up the US army was compared to the Germans. We won because we had MORE LOWER quality stuff, (and a better Geo-strategic position from which to leverage it from) whether it be tanks or infantry men. The lesson to be learned is that the best operational art and tacics only prolong the inevitable if used to attain flawed strategic goals. Not that the US proficeincy was better than Germans because we won.

Nikademus -> (3/24/2001 5:53:00 AM)
Ammo: well i for one am not trying to silence anyone, but you hurt your case, and the direction of this thread when you ramble off like an engine that has slipped its govenor. And what the heck does slave labour and politics have to do with the orig poster's question?? and beware of sweeping generalities. I for one have never preposed eliminating any weapons from the OOB's so there's one generalization of yours thats gone out the window To get back to the point of the question. Should US squads cost more, and attached to it, the question of are US fire routines 'off' in favor of that nationality. Personally i think many of the point selection costs are skewed and have said so in the past. I believe that 'true economic cost' as well as availability should factor in. I believe this issue transends all the unit types, aritllery, infantry and tank. example: high production cost types such as Tiger's and Panthers should be raised. Conversely Shermans should be cheap because they were mass-produced and plentiful. The only real solution, and one btw infinately preferable to removing units from the OOB's is to establish guidelines before starting a game with another player. One cant really complain about unfair tactics, unit musters if the issue has'nt been discussed beforehand. As to US squad effectiveness, a simple question; has anybody tested the theory that the fire routines are defective with a set # of battles and with the national characteristics turned off? I hav'nt but given all this controversy i think i'm gonna because i'd like to know too. A game that does'nt have fair and historical mechanics is not nearly as much fun to play. I've always loved playing SP because of its exacting detail and ability to decently portray tactical battles. If you have a set of elite troops. (high 80's - 90's) with good leaders, its a pleasure to see em in action as you attempt to win the engagement. If you have green or inexperience troops (50's to low 60's) its also a pleasure to see em struggle as it represents a nice challenge to one's skills to try to carry the day regardless. notice that i'm not even mentioning nationalities. My concern is that the game treats a Green US squad with an exp of 50 in the same way it treats a German or Italian or whatever squad of equivilent experience. Same for veteran and elite. Of course SP is such a great game that exp and morale, important as they are, are not the only factor. There is also the firepowr question. Here we know for a fact that US squads enjoyed 3 advantages; 1) size (# of men per squad) 2) firepower (M1/BAR's/Thompson SMG's) 3)ample supply not sure how much of this has carried over from SP-1, i know in that game the level of ammunition was listed as a key US advantage Now, although firepower will make its impact known it can only do so much if the unit in question has low leader and exp levels. If i'm regularily seeing US squads with as much as a 20point defecit in experience outshooting a German squad then yes, i think there might be a problem. I have seen the US squads that i've controlled getting the hits mentioned on this thread however my results cannot be suspect as many of the squads were well experienced. Alot were also paratroopers with have a good FC rating. Lets get some hard data. I did a test for the Japanese as i once suspected that they were getting disadvantaged as i was killing even their best troops easily, even with <50 exp US troops. I later learned that it was simply bad AI tactics and once i took control of the Japanese i found they were anything "but" disadvantaged! :D :D :D

Colonel von Blitz -> (3/24/2001 6:42:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Nikademus: Lets get some hard data. I did a test for the Japanese as i once suspected that they were getting disadvantaged as i was killing even their best troops easily, even with <50 exp US troops. I later learned that it was simply bad AI tactics and once i took control of the Japanese i found they were anything "but" disadvantaged! I too made a test just a little time ago: I played two PBEM games against my rookie friend, who wanted to learn the game. I myself have been playing PBEM since SP1, so I can call myself a veteran. We agreed of a game in 1944, I was playing as american and my friend was german. Of course the result was predictable, it took less than 10 turns from me to turn his panzer columns into junk and take all Vhexes. Next we agreed to play a mirrored game, same map. Now I was playing as a german and my friend was playing as american. Now that game was hard...I mean it was very difficult to beat my friend even though he used quite 'rookie' tactics and I got several clean shots at him on several different occasions. But even so, his american forces got way better hit chances almost all the time and they almost annihilated my FJ-troops. Only my experience in SPWAW saved the situation and I managed to capture all Vhexes. After rhat, I made by myself some other small hotseat games and the conclusion was that when national characteristics is on and troop qualities are at default (XXX), american troops tend to get way better hit chances than any other nation (well, maybe except finnish ski troops, they're real nasty units ;D). What to do about this? AmmoSgt is talking about people whining about 'balancing the game for axis players'...I do not want to win as axis because the game is too balanced. But one has to ask that is it correct to have quite 'superior' american troops in the game: were american GIs that accurate shooters and was that BAR so good compared to MG42 etc? I remember reading somewhere that 2/3 of american troops landing on the beaches of Normandy were actually green troops and american troops were all green in the beginning of operation Torch...especially the last example here isn't represented in the game in any way. Do not get me wrong, I really do not want to take away the advantages the americans actually had over axis (like arty, supply etc). I just feel that there should be made some checks before releasing next version of the game. At the moment this 'superior american problem' has already rendered american troops out of any PBEM games I might play and that is a shame...I'd like to play some western europe theatre games too, where there would be american troops too, but currently it is impossible. Colonel von Blitz

johansson -> (3/24/2001 7:09:00 AM)
Is not the whole idea whit the points to create battles where the player whit the best tactic for his / hers troops takes the cake. This is not possible if you are taking factory output in regard if you do there is no idea to play Germany later in the war because they will be always be heavily outnumbered. So better troops higher prise (Even if they are US troops ammoSgt)

Nikademus -> (3/24/2001 7:35:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz: I too made a test just a little time ago: I played two PBEM games against my rookie friend, who wanted to learn the game. I myself have been playing PBEM since SP1, so I can call myself a veteran. We agreed of a game in 1944, I was playing as american and my friend was german. Of course the result was predictable, it took less than 10 turns from me to turn his panzer columns into junk and take all Vhexes. Next we agreed to play a mirrored game, same map. Now I was playing as a german and my friend was playing as american. Now that game was hard...I mean it was very difficult to beat my friend even though he used quite 'rookie' tactics and I got several clean shots at him on several different occasions. But even so, his american forces got way better hit chances almost all the time and they almost annihilated my FJ-troops. Only my experience in SPWAW saved the situation and I managed to capture all Vhexes. Colonel von Blitz hmm, you say your friend employed rookie tactics, but what where the average exp levels between the US and German forces? And did this 'to hit % advantage' manifest itself with the national characteristics turned off?

MrWhite -> (3/24/2001 8:26:00 AM)
Well, as reading in a fire up Buy units game yeah that proves to be a problem, but then again going back to this whole American Infantry versus German Infantry thing... I put it to teh test and did a simple German Platoon versus American Platoon same Experince level. Through each diffrent terrain fight and action, I could find the Germans winning every other map, seemingly a draw, now if special forces are involved, that can be diffrent, but if your here tagging along the idea of being historically correct, then your not going to find an army of 80 French SAS in jeeps driving around the country side are you... Even with the number vaule, I did about a dozen diffrent terrain and objective scenraios, short fire fights to see which group would come out victorious, it's true the Americans have advantages, but it also seemed the germans did so as well. The standard Green Grunt on both sides used thier weapons efficently, it would seem standard German Inf did well in Defending and in open field combat, close quarters combat was in-effective for the German Green Infantry, if an American Inf group got within that close quarters teh German group was sure to fail. But at range Germans seemed to time in and time out tear apart the Americans. So After doing a dozen or so test I came to a conclusion that Americans provided for a rather excellent assault force and with vehicle support can crack a German Defense by bringing the troops right into the defenders face where the SMGs and BARs can be used that more effectively. At Range when Germans were defending it would seem that time in and time out with out fast movement the Americans could be cut down with relative ease. Now after reading what a lot of people have to say about this it seems there is still a consensus to make that American infantry a bit more exspensive to counter act this diffrence. I guess I'ld have to agree for the sake that it will atleast amke it a bit more interesting in some contexts... Ohh well back to Scenraios.. MrWhite

Michael Wermelin -> (3/24/2001 1:44:00 PM)
I wonder where the high US exp/mor/lead come from in -44. Someone stated they had 70/70/65 where the germans had 70/70/70. Is that to say that six years of fighting didn't give the germans more upperhand on the US. Where does the high US values come from? Most of the men landing in Europe in -44 were rookies. The US has too high ratings. They should be much less experienced, maybe then the game would be balanced again. Drop their exp som 10 points in all stats.

Colonel von Blitz -> (3/24/2001 4:56:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Michael Wermelin: Where does the high US values come from? Most of the men landing in Europe in -44 were rookies. The US has too high ratings. They should be much less experienced, maybe then the game would be balanced again. Drop their exp som 10 points in all stats. That's what I've been wondering, seems to me that US troops have some sort of Hollywood bonus in their ratings. And where those german 65-70 experience ratings in 1944 come from? Even though germans were scraping the bottom of their pool, there were a lot of combat hardened formations in 1944 that were more than a match for US troops. Nikademus: the fight took place july 1944, so ratings are US 70/70/70 and german 65/70/65. And I used FJ troops as german whose FC and experience ratings are supposed to be higher than regular US infantry. I made only a few test just this morning whit national characteristics turned off, result was this: in tank vs. tank game tends to favor germans now, which is quite ok, since Panzers weren't cannon fodder and crew training was quite good in quality. In infantry vs. infantry US gets the upper hand, also a thing that doesn't concern me that much. BUT the problem of US getting way higher hit percentages is still there, that is a thing I do not like. MAYBE I'll consider playing axis vs. american PBEM games with characteristics turned off, not sure though... Colonel von Blitz

Mike Oshiki -> (3/24/2001 7:58:00 PM)
Just a few footnotes, Ammo. I think you meant 442d (not 332d) RCT along with the 100th Bn when talking about the "Go for Broke" - a unit composed primarily of Japanese-Americans. Regarding the STD's, while the Americans did have the invention of pennicillin, in 1943 it would have a rarity factor added to it in game terms. Mike

AmmoSgt -> (3/24/2001 11:31:00 PM)
Mike yeap i stand corrected missed the Typo .. as to the penicilin i agree the rarity factor would have to be in play , but only in 43 ..only 28 pounds were made ..in 1945 114,000 pounds were made i can't find the exact figures for 44 but somewhere in between and probably on the higher side than the lower ..it was those poor AWOL GI's in Paris that i was concerned with specifically with the Penicilin so by august maybe not even until september ( i mean how fast can guys go AWOL ) anyway those guys , not having the advantage of a Genneral Staff to round up the locals for them..have to find thier own, and negotiate their own surrenders.. Anyway back to the Infantry .. 1942 Amphibious Assault Guadacanal ..any question these guys were good ..maybe even elite ?? same home towns same basic training ?? same AIT same amphibiuos assault ... Did Normandy as well as Italy ect .. and they can't walk and chew gum ?? Doesn't make sense ... Paul I know i get accused of generalization but IMHO the US basic Infantry Rifle was superior to the Germans and more plentyful than anything that came close ..we can quibble about the MP44 ..bazzokas for sure.. Arty in genneral was more modern better and all Mech ..no oat bags ...Browning 50 cal what can touch it ?? again not exactly More LOWER quality stuff Halftracks .. even you in pervious posts have trumpeted the quality of the M4A3E8HVSS certainly not a case for more and lower ... Personally i think having turrets on Jagdpanzers would be an up grade like a Jackson or a Wolverine ..and Top the Hellcat can't do it for what it is ...all my opinion and not all the examples that come to mind .. surely one or two that calls the generalization into question As to the Books The Dupuy is the one with the "Fight for comrade" theme ?? maybe the other one ..it was years ago at any rate .I have read my fair share .. never done any primary research , but have dabbled in the Operational Art .. Granted there is a short list of weapons systems that the Germans had an edge in ..and Granted the germans had many years ..and many casualties of experience .. but the bottom line is I think the fault lies in the general concept that the casualites per unit per hour in the game is a tad high in my opinion ( opinion only) Paul in those 50 battles how many had one side anihilated ( machinegun the crews ) to the last man as so often happens in this game especially against the AI .. and in 2 hours ( 20-24 turns) .. If U S Army amphibious trained Divisions fully capable of doing a Normandy Invasion are to be considered green inexperienced troops led by amatures ..then what pray tell would the rating for the defenders be ?

johnfmonahan -> (3/24/2001 11:36:00 PM)
I would be suprized if the Americans would lose a 44 infantry firefight with the Germans. The sheer advantage of 8 rounds out of a Garand without stopping is the very definition of fire superiority. And don't forget, the 44 yearly ratings encompass the June 44 rookies with the December 44 pros who rarely lost. The American volume of spport fire and multiplicity of support weapons may also play a role. I remember reading Panzer Commander by Hans von Luck where his Norwind attack was stopped by 18 battalions of field arty.

AmmoSgt -> (3/24/2001 11:48:00 PM)
Nikademus the slave labor and politics are in my opnion germain for a couple of reasons..first off you have your High Tech WunderWeapons designed by superrace genuises..except their reliabllity sucks .. they were made by angry slaves , who might not be working right up at top speed , and Zero Deffects may not be the workers slogan .. The politics .. troops knowing that their Officers are commiting suicide and , the ones not shooting themselves are Looting every House on the block from Goering on down .. taking kick backs and bribes in the occupied countries ..try to assassinate Hitler .. Hitler offing Generals , and giving don't move armored reserves orders.. but don't retreat an inch orders in all the wrong places .. down to the troopies themselves not exactly behaving like gentlemen with the locals .. whatever ..not the glowing model of disipline and leadership .. but of corruption and a lot of other reasons ..reasons that will be good enough in SPMW to dock the US troops from about67-73 a few points of morale I'll wager ( only 5 bucks and only the first claimer ) Adolph Eichman said he invented the gas chambers because having to shoot the jews in sufficent numbers was causing sever morale problems in the SS and the suicide rate was way to high .. not exactly a indicator that suports the contention the SS is unquestionalby elite .. I got no problem with Elite German units absoultely .. but the SS .. doesn't have the indicators .. lotta politically apointed Officer.. and other problems ... sure they got the equipment .. and some , not all but some, of it is better than some Allied gear .. buit Elite?? Gurkhas are Elite ..

Kharan -> (3/24/2001 11:54:00 PM)
Out of interest, was there a post deleted from this thread? Wrong target, I say.

Warhorse -> (3/25/2001 12:41:00 AM)
Agreed, I'm just gonna not reply any more to this, doesn't matter anyway. I just don't play against Americans either.They seem fine against the AI, it's when the US player is human that the weird stuff happens!! I'm talking an ambushing tank, stationary, firing at a Sherman at 4 hexes away, MISSING, then getting KO'd by the target tank!!! Nothing weird about that, huh??! That's my piece. And don't give me horse**** about tactics, I've won playing other countries, so it isn't that :D Anyway, 5.0 will improve most of what is being argued here, so this whole discussion is pretty much a mute point anyhow.

Paul Vebber -> (3/25/2001 2:38:00 AM)
I have deleted no posts.

Mike Rothery -> (3/26/2001 8:36:00 AM)
I've been sick for a couple of days and missed this thread...wow! I think that folks have lost sight of what this thread is about. When you are playing a league game against another person each with the same points, you should be getting equal value. A tank with better armour and a better gun should cost more. An infantry squad with more guys with high firepower and better anti-tank weapon should cost more. Remember we are playing a game. The vast majority of these battles are meeting engagements, which were pretty rare in Italy in 1943. In league play we are not re-fighting historical battles, we are fighting each other in an artificial arena but with historical units. All the issues about the historical efficiency of units is essential information for designing scenarios and campaigns. In league play what I want is to face-off against opposing units of generally historical structure that have an equivalent fighting power measured in purchase points. All nations had variations in the quality of their troops. The limitations on "elite" formations is a bit unrealistic. Ideally, all players hould have the option of buying elite troops at a higher cost, and maybe this should be limited by a rarity factor or perhaps by pre-game agreement. Play-on

Pack Rat -> (3/26/2001 9:24:00 AM)
Mike, I find your post to the point. I would only add that, time permitting, a brief idea of way American Infantry is at it's current cost vs other countries would be nice. It may be fine given the circumstances (mass production) or as this thread brings out maybe something needs to be changed (still cost alot to buy from the arms makers). We don't see Pauls "spread sheet from hell", so we only can conjecture and stilted maybe our conjectures, because if you're at all like me I haven't played them all and only consider things most of the time from the oobs I play. Years ago when I did pro Archaeology I worked alot with spreadsheets of prehistoric artifacts and I'm here to tell you even the best thought out spreadsheets can become, maddening.

victorhauser -> (3/26/2001 11:19:00 AM)
The biggest problem I have with what I've read in this thread so far is that one person has made a claim about one nation's infantry prices. I am willing to bet that many nations have "bargain priced" units compared to others. I believe that simply adjusting one nation's unit prices will create more problems than it solves. We have known for many months now that the unit-pricing is an evolutionary process and is there is still much trial and error involved. It wouldn't surprise me to see unit pricing changes for as long as people are working on the game. I personally think that Soviet infantry are the most cost-effective in the game, not US infantry. Japanese infantry is also very cost effective. Rather than simply comparing prices for one nation we should be looking at all infantry prices for all nations together. Even then comparisons will prove difficult for a variety of subtle and hidden reasons. All-in-all, the only unit that I think is abusively priced is the Wuhrframen. But I'm going to hold my arguments until after I see the v5.0 unit prices.

chaos45 -> (3/26/2001 2:40:00 PM)
The reason I didnt bring russian infatry into this is because they are not as well equiped as american squads. American squads have more firepower than most other nations yet are pretty cheap. I just checked soviet units again today and at least their leadership is only 60, so it makes it harder for them to rally. Again all of these stats are 1943, one question I have is why are the soviets as good as the Germans even in 43? They really shouldnt be. Maybe by 44 but not 43. Hell in 44 it was reported in some instances of them still using human wave attacks man. Lets compare All 3 major players Russia- 70 morale 70 exp 60 leader US 70morale 70exp 65 leader Germany 70 morale 70 exp 70 leadership German squad 10 man 26pts- roughly same weapons as soviets US squad 12 man 22pts- better weapons more men Russian 9 man 19pts To me the points should be US squad 26 German squad 22 Russian squad 19 What so the rest of you guys think?

Michael Wermelin -> (3/26/2001 2:50:00 PM)
That sounds very reasonable chaos, I agree with you. Buy the way, where did the german sub-machinegun go? It shines with its absence in rifle squads. I have always thought of it as quite common.

Charles2222 -> (3/26/2001 9:26:00 PM)
Comparing German, Soviet, American infantry in '44. First of all it's a bit complicated without any data in front of me, but I thought the Russian squads were 12 as well, at least they are in '41. So it would appear the Germans have the numerical inferiority, hands down. Surely something to consider (and I think their squad maximum is 9 in '44, or maybe that's in '45). Next from what I remember of the weapons, The US has the best rifle by far, but the German MG42 is far better than the BAR. The Russians don't compare in either category if I recollect well (the rifle being short-ranged for a start). That makes the Gerries and US fairly even in performance, overall. When it comes to AT weapons, the German panzerfausts for the most part are better in penetration, but the US gun has much more distance, and I suspect batter accuracy, overall, because of that. So, in a sense, something of a toss-up again between the two. I don't recall the Russians having anything but molotovs for what little I've checked them, which, if that was it in '44, was greatly inferior. If we were talking STRICTLY performance here, with the overriding factor being the larger squads of the US, then the US should probably be the most expensive, followed by the German. I have no idea where the Brits, Japanese and others would fit in. I know the Japanese are real effective, but I do suspect that their AT weapon is limited to the 1 hex variety.

Major Tom -> (3/26/2001 9:50:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by AmmoSgt: Nikademus the slave labor and politics are in my opnion germain for a couple of reasons..first off you have your High Tech WunderWeapons designed by superrace genuises..except their reliabllity sucks .. they were made by angry slaves , who might not be working right up at top speed , and Zero Deffects may not be the workers slogan .. The politics .. troops knowing that their Officers are commiting suicide and , the ones not shooting themselves are Looting every House on the block from Goering on down .. taking kick backs and bribes in the occupied countries ..try to assassinate Hitler .. Hitler offing Generals , and giving don't move armored reserves orders.. but don't retreat an inch orders in all the wrong places .. down to the troopies themselves not exactly behaving like gentlemen with the locals .. whatever ..not the glowing model of disipline and leadership .. but of corruption and a lot of other reasons ..reasons that will be good enough in SPMW to dock the US troops from about67-73 a few points of morale I'll wager ( only 5 bucks and only the first claimer ) Adolph Eichman said he invented the gas chambers because having to shoot the jews in sufficent numbers was causing sever morale problems in the SS and the suicide rate was way to high .. not exactly a indicator that suports the contention the SS is unquestionalby elite .. I got no problem with Elite German units absoultely .. but the SS .. doesn't have the indicators .. lotta politically apointed Officer.. and other problems ... sure they got the equipment .. and some , not all but some, of it is better than some Allied gear .. buit Elite?? Gurkhas are Elite .. You seem to be confusing 'SS' and 'Waffen SS'. Waffen SS units did not serve in concentration camps, only SS units did (hence the added WAFFEN). Sure, the odd Waffen SS guy did serve in the camps, but, the vast majority of officers and men of the Waffen SS were actually just soldiers, soldiers with a political agenda. So, Waffen SS soldiers would tend to be a little more fanatical, albiet not necessarily better trained, than other German or Allied soldiers.

Joaquim -> (3/26/2001 10:14:00 PM)
The only way to end this is to make a huge league with players getting country by luck... that way we could have a clue on wich countries are favoured in points costs... and in the second round we, probably, will know wich units are too cheap/expansive.... let's say... some 5 years work and it's done!! :D Hey, but I'm ready to start!!! :)

AmmoSgt -> (3/26/2001 10:30:00 PM)
While the camps are the most agregious example, the common day to day attrocities, rapes, looting, and reprisals also factor in .. The Nuremburg Trials didn't seem to differentiate ..and the game doesn't either the game says the SS are Elite and the War Crimes Trials say the SS were criminal ..I would be happy to see the differentiation.. in the game .. As to leadership ratings et al .. the Iraqies were all combat Hardened in 91 and the US was mostly green .. and again i ask are you going to have seperate rating for US Army in the Pacfic and for in Europe ?? Europe had the Priority the US Army had Divisions of Amphib Assault and lots of them .. not all that different from Marines ..Marines with the same Training that accomplishhed the same types of Missions are considered Elite .. amphib capable troops of any nation are usually considered Elite if not in the game as a matter of "common wisdom" the US Army did not do anything in WW2 to call that assumption into question .. they conducted both Opposed and Unopposed landing with equal success, in fact with unfailing success .. The US Army was not nearly as Hampered by the involvement of Political Leaders/Tactical Idiots as the germans were Nor were the Allies hampered by the Corruption and gross disobeying of Orders as demonstrated in so many cases from NorthAfrica where Rommel in effect quit under protest to the (Non)Burning of Paris... and where they blindly followed orders no Army has ever been sold out as badly as the German Army by the High Command trying to save their butts from the "paperhanger " .. these are real considerations ...Yes german formations fought well most of the time ..so did everybody else but we don't have an espirt de corp rating .. the germans had that, despite the GHQ selling them out to protect careers .. and i think to many of us know all to well, how ,well intended troops, can be led into attrocity and can still fight well when pressed and yet have deplorable morale and criminal leadership .. remember Veitnam ask a vet .. we won most of the "battles" there as well I don't think the folks who rate troops for this game will be giving them very high ratings for all the reasons that demonstrably apply to the German Army as a whole when SPMW comes out.. By allowing for lower ratings for the germans ( not every unit , some non Elite SS some Elite Regs , and some second line units... available for purchase) and for Elite US Formations other than Airborne ( like the amphib assault Divisions ) a lot of the squad cost issues can be addressed in the direction that everybody seems to think appropiate I would have to say that the germans should have equivalent and maybe slightly higher leadership than the americans .. higher experience.. and definately lower morale .. And regular units units in both armies should have Elite Reg and 2nd line options .. again this is PBEM conciderations ..since what the game says is so matter far more for PBEM .. where individual preferences are not as easy to enact ... the main problem is how to reflect the US fire superiority ( Mg42's not withstanding.. thats another issue all together with the no move no fire for the same weapons individually but fire and move when in squads , Like The US didn't have 30 cal MG's assigned to squads ..yes it helps the base of fire model .. But i think if you check TO&E's you are going to see the Germans are double slotted with both an organic MG in squad and a supporting MG in Platoon ) and reflect the US numerical superiorty while maintaing a point structure that makes for fair play ..

JTGEN -> (3/26/2001 10:37:00 PM)
The US infartry is overly good at least in AI hands. This is not to make the Germans the superhumans, but to address the fact that they were better soldiers. In these posts the only SUPERHUMANS ARE AMERICANS atleast with the AmmoSgt points. Those points are based in handling single statistics in a way that drives me nuts. Clearly no training in handling statistics here. This is not the only post that has become the media for AmmoSgt to deliver his probaganda on American Superhumans. The nazi way of using some out of place statistics to make them look superhumans is in good use here. AmmoSgt seems to be saying that US did all the job in the war. One thing forgotten is the fact that half the Japanese troops were fighting the Chinese and a lot were deployed against possible Soviet attac. So less than half the troops were committed against not only US but Australian, British, Indian and so on. Then the tactical advantage of island hopping was on US side and it was the others who did most of the real jungle figting in Burma. So no wonder the Superhuman US Marines did all the job against the Japanese. In Europe the US really came into infartry war in '44 and had the numerical adwantage in every field and the Soviets had been draining the Germans for 3 years, but somehow the US still managed to do "all the job". This US superhuman stuff makes me sick and offends every other nation who fought on the allied side. Personally I think most of the western allies Australians, British, Canadians provided better troops than US. At least somebody brought it up but how can anybody think that BAR's bring any firepower superiority. They were outdated allready in the '41, with small magazine and heat problems(according to the US book on ww2 in my library). Have not seen any BAR's in use today but the german machineguns are still in use and in the TV the macedonian army seemed to have them in use against the albanian guerillas. Also out of the subject. I would prefer if Americans woul keep their opinions on the genosides in their head. I do not think you should have anything to say about genoside and slave labour as your country's "greatnes" is based on use of both of those. Also like US germans did not at least send the sons of those in concentracion camps to fight for the country, like those US-Japanese had to do. But this is politics and do not belong here and I do apologize even if I had to say this

victorhauser -> (3/26/2001 10:39:00 PM)
Well perhaps I am mixing apples with oranges here... I NEVER play with Historical Characteristics turned ON. I ALWAYS play with Historical Characteristics turned OFF. This makes a HUGE difference! I only play where I can set my own Troop Quality. HOW you play is as important as WHAT you play with. I believe this thread takes on a whole different meaning and unit price ratios are very different when playing with Historical Characteristics turned OFF as I do. To request pricing changes based solely on one type of play is inappropriate unreasonable and unjustifiable. I would NEVER make such a request because I would have no idea what the effects such changes would have on games where people actually do use Historical Characteristics. In addition, even if a squad of German infantry has only 9 men (an advantage BTW for riding on tanks) they get 4 squads per platoon (36 men) where the US gets 3 squads per platoon (36 men). I would always choose the greater tactical flexibility offered by the German platoon even if a one-on-one firefight might favor the US.

victorhauser -> (3/26/2001 11:50:00 PM)
I just got done doing a very quick scan of various nations' infantry. French Legionnaires, Finnish of most any kind, Chinese Dare Death, Japanese of most any kind, Soviet Paratroops, etc. are EXTREMELY cost effective (based on Encyclopedia values and assuming Historical Characteristics turned OFF). Some simple arithmetic... A German 10-man rifle squad needs 4 casualties to force surrender and 7 casualties to force dispersal. A US 12-man rifle squad needs 4 casualties to force surrender and 8 casualties to force dispersal. A Japanese 15-man Type A squad needs 15 casualties to kill (they never surrender or disperse). It seems to me that while the massive influx of SPWaW "new recruits" is generally a good thing, the downside is that in some cases these new players simply lack proficiency with tactics and the game system as a whole. It is never easy to know how expert a player is when he makes a claim that something about SPWaW is broken and needs fixing. I have played thousands of SP games from SP1 to SPWaW (I used to play several games per day, now I've cut back to several games per week) and here is the Bottom Line as I know it: A player can manipulate the settings and controls in the Preferences screen in most any way he desires to achieve most any result he desires. Quibbling and agitating over individual unit types and prices has very dangerous implications to the very foundation of the game and can affect the enjoyment of potentially thousands of players. It is better for players to fiddle with their individual preferences using the Preference settings and OOB editor than to seek to change the very fabric of the game for thousands of players.

Charles2222 -> (3/27/2001 1:34:00 AM)
victorhauser: quote: In addition, even if a squad of German infantry has only 9 men (an advantage BTW for riding on tanks) they get 4 squads per platoon (36 men) where the US gets 3 squads per platoon (36 men). I would always choose the greater tactical flexibility offered by the German platoon even if a one-on-one firefight might favor the US. I think I would prefer four nines as well, particularly if we're talking the reduced squads option being on. OTOH, every time the US unit fires, it fires 12 times if full strength, but will do so only three instead of four times. No doubt in my mind, at least as far as firing on entrenched units goes, I'd much rather fire 12 times, whereas the nines might fire forever and not make a kill. OTOH, if we're talking both sides being in the open and advancing, I'd prefer the nines.

MrWhite -> (3/27/2001 3:06:00 AM)
You want Cost Effective, go to the French SAS, I've seen some hell let loose, but thise was even more, so I think what they cost 53 for two units and two jeeps, plus there commandos to boot... My God, man what were they thinking... I just wanted to comment on the whole elite landing troops and all that, Well while Americans over all had good luck on most landings, it was just that luck.... D-Day one of the more blodier landings man for man was a pure showing of how much American landings both in the European and Pacific campaigns were. Take Guadal Canal, and Island that had somewhere near 15,000 or so more men holding it and the Marines decided to invade, the only reason Marines made it to land un opposed and with little casualties other tehn coral cuts was because, the Japanese were not expecting it, and the gunfire jsut completely set everyone literally running for the hils of the island, quickly giving up the island defense to the American Landing. The Marines here while well trained and decent, still were entering thier first active landing with nothing to really show for it other tehn some cuts and brusises from landing and from getting thier hands stepped on as they entered the landing craft. While I would say that landing troops of 44/45 were in deed rather adept to landing and were in the eltie category, Iwould also have to sat that troops of 43/42 were Green, while giving them the Marine marker does bolster a sort of confidence they were still in the mid Green area... I don't know, I guess that's my opinion of it, atleast... I mean yeah the Landing forces of the US had some good runs, but they also had thier bad ones as well. I guess it's really a manner of how the public viewed tehm landing forces like said before were always treated as elite soldiers till they lost, the Elite Jap Marine forces when landing on Wake proved to be paper tissue to the staunch out numbered defender, even though Japan won the island the Jap Marines were put over a log when it came to shear man to death ratio. American Marines while not meeting heavy engagement at every landing in 42 found that the publicists back home nailed them as being the finest fighting forces in the world for the skilled landings... All you need is a good headline and any unit could become elite... but that's jsut baddgering teh idea of elite troops... I mean with 5.0 the more eltie units should become a more rare item... So as my 80 French SAS attack on my friends won't be completely possible anymore. Just my thoughts MrWhite

Nikademus -> (3/27/2001 3:35:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by AmmoSgt: Nikademus the slave labor and politics are in my opnion germain for a couple of reasons..first off you have your High Tech WunderWeapons designed by superrace genuises..except their reliabllity sucks .. they were made by angry slaves , who might not be working right up at top speed , and Zero Deffects may not be the workers slogan .. The politics .. troops knowing that their Officers are commiting suicide and , the ones not shooting themselves are Looting every House on the block from Goering on down .. taking kick backs and bribes in the occupied countries ..try to assassinate Hitler .. Hitler offing Generals , and giving don't move armored reserves orders.. but don't retreat an inch orders in all the wrong places .. down to the troopies themselves not exactly behaving like gentlemen with the locals .. whatever ..not the glowing model of disipline and leadership .. but of corruption and a lot of other reasons ..reasons that will be good enough in SPMW to dock the US troops from about67-73 a few points of morale I'll wager ( only 5 bucks and only the first claimer ) Adolph Eichman said he invented the gas chambers because having to shoot the jews in sufficent numbers was causing sever morale problems in the SS and the suicide rate was way to high .. not exactly a indicator that suports the contention the SS is unquestionalby elite .. I got no problem with Elite German units absoultely .. but the SS .. doesn't have the indicators .. lotta politically apointed Officer.. and other problems ... sure they got the equipment .. and some , not all but some, of it is better than some Allied gear .. buit Elite?? Gurkhas are Elite .. Last time I checked Ammo, there was neither a slave labor factor nor a 'political' factor in determining 'to-hit' %'s for squad level combat so i'm afraid none of your statements above have any relevence to the thread. As to American experience levels, you quoted Guadalcanal. All fine and good. You may remember that i specifically mentioned that all nations usually have a cadre of well trained/experienced troops, even in an all-volunteer or all-Draft army. For the US the Marine Corp would definately qualify as that and the 1st Marine Division which landed at Guadalcanal was in fact very highly trained so is a poor example to use to make a statement that the US danced onto the war scene with leadership and squad ratings equal to or superior to your average German squad, the whole Wehrmacht of which has been at war since 1939. As for Normandy. You say you cant understand why you are accused of generalization well here's another example. There were alot of factors helping the Allies at Normandy, not the least of which was overwelming numbers at the invasion point, crushing air and naval superiority and in this specific case Hitler and i believe von Kluge who advocated keeping the armored reserves well to the rear vs. Rommel who wanted the Panzers up front and close so that they could be immediately on-hand to push an invasion back into the sea. Here too there were some poor quality troops on the German side as well, i believe a couple divisions that were made up of unreliable Russian 'defectors'. So as you can see it was not simply a case of American troops, who know all, see all, kick all arriving in Europe to show the Germans how to make war. But enough of that. I intend to stick to the thread. If you wish to continue debating the politcs of Nazi Germany, Hitler and slave labour, go ahead though i wish you would'nt. As an advid SP player since the days of SP:1 my concern is that game portrays battles as close to real life as it can get and as such am genuinely interested in this thread and of the experiences that other players have had, particularily with the National characteristics turned on and off.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375