Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

Templer_12 -> Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/1/2015 6:20:21 PM)

Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) are not in the game?



elmo3 -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/1/2015 7:07:44 PM)

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.



Templer_12 -> A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 7:14:26 PM)

The armored troops in the game are very important and should therefore already be represented more accurate.

A very poor design decision! [:(]



gunnergoz -> RE: A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 7:39:44 PM)

I just bought the predecessor games in the series and gave them a look-see. They clearly are much more detailed with regards to AFV types, etc. But I can see where this game is oriented more in a different direction - more on process than on content is one way to look at it. It is a bold step and one with real promise. It is hard to balance out all the demands different players have and still come up with a viable product that you want to have your name on, that does what you want it to and still brings in the income necessary to keep in business. So I don't see this as a very poor design decision given what seems to be the thrust of this game.



Templer_12 -> RE: A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 7:56:17 PM)

I could accept your words when Panzertruppen would play only a minor role in the game.
But that is not the case.

And I love the compare feature in the DC series.
But for this you need existing units to compare!



willgamer -> RE: A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 8:01:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer

The armored troops in the game are very important and should therefore already be represented more accurate.

A very poor design decision! [:(]


I find this kind of "gotcha" criticism tiring. [>:]

I can't find any foundation laid that supports the judgement of "poor design decision". Has a counter-argument been provided for the reasons for this kind of a design decision that are liberally provided in the manual (was the manual even consulted?). Has the game been played through sufficient to logically developing a game play argument for their inclusion?

Problem is, the original premise could be correct. However, the rush to judgement makes it very difficult to assesses dispassionately.

I find it difficult to understand how a judgement of this complex and innovative a product can be made in less than a weeks time (play testers excluded).

[sm=00000924.gif]



TheWombat_matrixforum -> RE: A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 8:41:03 PM)

I rather suspect that to OKH, it mattered not a rat's ass whether a division had PzKw III or 38t or moon buggies really. Hey, I love tank stuff too, but if you dig into it at the operational and above levels, tanks is tanks pretty much. Do they run? Do they have fuel? If so, who cares what kind they are? Except in the most extreme cases, in WWII it simply didn't matter. Everything else--the other types of troops, numbers, logistics, air power, weather, training, terrain, that sort of thing--had far, far more impact on who won or lost a battle than the specific type of tanks employed.

Otherwise, all those sexy Panthers and Tigers would have resulted in a Third Reich lasting a lot longer than twelve years....



ChuckBerger -> RE: A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 9:13:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

I rather suspect that to OKH, it mattered not a rat's ass whether a division had PzKw III or 38t or moon buggies really. Hey, I love tank stuff too, but if you dig into it at the operational and above levels, tanks is tanks pretty much. Do they run? Do they have fuel? If so, who cares what kind they are? Except in the most extreme cases, in WWII it simply didn't matter. Everything else--the other types of troops, numbers, logistics, air power, weather, training, terrain, that sort of thing--had far, far more impact on who won or lost a battle than the specific type of tanks employed.

Otherwise, all those sexy Panthers and Tigers would have resulted in a Third Reich lasting a lot longer than twelve years....


Hmmm, yes and no. Ask the Italians whether tank type mattered. Or even more to the point, whether every AT gun was pretty much the same. The fact that the Italians and Romanians lacked AT guns that could actually penetrate a T-34s armour did make a real operational difference... and similarly, it made a real difference whether a Russian tank brigade had T-34s or BT-7s. The former could and sometimes did stop a panzer division in its tracks, the latter was operationally nearly useless.

That said, in general in these sorts of games the combat characteristics of equipment is often given greater importance than other operational traits - how much fuel does it use? How often does it break down, and how easy is it to repair? Is it so heavy it will bog down in the rain?

Perhaps some of the criticism of the OOB and other detail aspects of DC:Barbarossa relates to the fact that it purports to represent something that is in reality fairly abstracted. In other words, it lists specific armoured vehicle types and numbers for each division, rather than just giving a single number of tanks, or a number of light/medium/heavy tanks, for instance.

Having made the design decision to list specific vehicle types, the designers shouldn't be surprised when they get criticized for inaccuracy in those lists. Even taking into account the need to consolidate the number of types down to a manageable level, it feels a bit strange that KVs and T-34s get lumped in together, and that the Pz-35/38s - the second-most common type in the Wehrmacht at the opening of Barbarossa (after PzIII) are not represented.

I feel the biggest weakness in the DC series is graphic presentation (especially the map and confusing counters) and to some degree attention to detail. Again, having made the decision to list specific types of tanks, would it have been all that hard to add another half-dozen or dozen types, to ensure all major types are shown?

OK, over to purchase the game now!






Aurelian -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/1/2015 9:18:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.


Did you notice in the stats that the KV-1 has its own entry though? :)



Aurelian -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/1/2015 9:28:43 PM)

From the manual.

The Germans fielded two types of light tanks, the
Panzer II and the Panzer 38(t). While these were
different beasts manufactured in different countries
they have been combined into a single light tank, the
Panzer Mk.II with appropriate tweaks to it’s combat
stats to reflect a hybrid of the two.

There are a couple of reasons for doing this, the main
one being the limit of the number of subformation
types that can be displayed for an individual unit.
This being eight individual types which you can see
in the unit display window, bottom right. The engine
can accommodate more but it involves an additional
mouse click to access them. Rather than do this I’ve
standardised on the one light tank and made sure
that the stats reflect a combination of them both.
Having dual light tank types present wouldn’t add
much other than historical window dressing.

Hardly a poor design decision considering what the game is designed to cover.



Templer_12 -> RE: A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 9:38:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger
...the Pz-35/38s - the second-most common type in the Wehrmacht at the opening of Barbarossa (after PzIII) are not represented.
...


Yes, it's what I thought.

Another could be argued, if we want to demonstrate the operational aspect of the campaign, then why at all represent different tank models?
Just name them 'German Panzer', represented by a gray cube, and Russian tanks, represented by a red cube.
Panzer and Tanks, that's all.



elmo3 -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/1/2015 9:42:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.


Did you notice in the stats that the KV-1 has its own entry though? :)


No, I was just using it as an example to point out that not every vehicle is, or needs to be, represented specifically in the game. No doubt there are other, probably better, examples of one type of vehicle being used to represent another.



elmo3 -> RE: A very poor design decision (12/1/2015 9:45:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer

Yes, it's what I thought.

Another could be argued, if we want to demonstrate the operational aspect of the campaign, then why at all represent different tank models?
Just name them 'German Panzer', represented by a gray cube, and Russian tanks, represented by a red cube.
Panzer and Tanks, that's all.


Now that is an excellent example of a poor design decision. [;)]



Aurelian -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/1/2015 10:08:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Pretty sure this idea is covered in other threads and the designer notes. Not every make and model of vehicle that fought on the Eastern Front is specifically represented in the game. Many are abstracted or lumped together and represented with one model such as T-34's also representing KV-1's, etc.


Did you notice in the stats that the KV-1 has its own entry though? :)


No, I was just using it as an example to point out that not every vehicle is, or needs to be, represented specifically in the game. No doubt there are other, probably better, examples of one type of vehicle being used to represent another.


True. You did make a good point.



budd -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 12:54:39 AM)

Seems like a lot of people want the game to be something its not. Would it play better if every tank was modeled, there are other games for that. I haven't played enough yet to have an opinion on what should or should not be added.



Queeg -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 1:09:46 AM)

While I absolutely understand and generally applaud the design focus of the game, another poster pointed out in another thread that the decision to standardize the units does render them a bit "cookie cutter." Perhaps a future refinement to give units a bit more "personality" would be a nice addition.



budd -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 1:58:56 AM)

for sure there cookie cutter, by design. From the perspective you play the game from not sure it matters, they put the chrome in other places. It's different for sure, a lot of moving parts with the relationships and the decisions and the fact that some of them don't catch up to you until later on during the game. It's a novel approach and i find i have to approach the game differently. I like the spread sheet games also, its probably just a matter of personal perspective and taste.



battlevonwar -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 2:26:43 AM)

I remember reading in an ole history manual with Eastern Front I believe it was from SSI, half of Germany's medium tanks came from Czech factories(and I'm not sure how much of this is accurate and at what stage in the war). 38(t) and I remember a game I played with them, it was as ideal as the Panzer III to me. WW2online, did a wonderful job a tank warfare for a shooter. I really miss my 38(t)

The 38 and the Panzer III look a lot alike to me. At least the poor graphics of that particular game. I am not sure I would even bother distinguishing the two over a more pressing matter or adjustment. I would really love Stukas XP but it's neat abstracted. More important than a 38(T) to me though XP




76mm -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 3:07:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: **budd**
for sure there cookie cutter, by design. From the perspective you play the game from not sure it matters, they put the chrome in other places...I like the spread sheet games also, its probably just a matter of personal perspective and taste.


I don't see how:
--this game's design requires cookie-cutter divisions? It seems perfectly consistent with having historically accurate OOBs;
--having accurate OOBs (for a game which claims to have them)! can be considered "chrome";
--a game can be called a "spreadsheet game" simply for having accurate OOBs; I'm sure there are plenty of board games which take into account the varying strength of Sov tank divisions--are those spreadsheet games too??

As to the absence of specific models of tanks: since the model doesn't seem to finely distinguish between similar tank models, so including them wouldn't add much other than a bit of chrome. At this level its not a big deal to me, much less so than getting the basic OOBs right.



governato -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 3:33:36 AM)

At this point I am very curious/excited to know more about the editor. 1942+ tanks were very different from the early models in terms of armor, gunnery (both better) and speed (slower). I respect and understand the designer choice to simplify tank types for Barbarossa. It does not have large consequences at the operational level and streamlining the TOE allowed them to focus on what the game does best: C&C and logistics (and uniquely! And better!).

However, the disticntion in light/medium/heavy tanks had important differences for their use at the operational level (recon/exploitation/defense). So if the editor is flexible enough a modder willing to keep the original approach my want to create a few simple tank classes (early/late and then light/medium/heavy/AT), call each class the most representative type of that period and side (Panther, Tiger, Elephant, T34-85 etc etc) for added chrome and be happy!



budd -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 3:36:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: **budd**
for sure there cookie cutter, by design. From the perspective you play the game from not sure it matters, they put the chrome in other places...I like the spread sheet games also, its probably just a matter of personal perspective and taste.


I don't see how:
--this game's design requires cookie-cutter divisions? It seems perfectly consistent with having historically accurate OOBs;
--having accurate OOBs (for a game which claims to have them)! can be considered "chrome";
--a game can be called a "spreadsheet game" simply for having accurate OOBs; I'm sure there are plenty of board games which take into account the varying strength of Sov tank divisions--are those spreadsheet games too??

As to the absence of specific models of tanks: since the model doesn't seem to finely distinguish between similar tank models, so including them wouldn't add much other than a bit of chrome. At this level its not a big deal to me, much less so than getting the basic OOBs right.


didn't say it requires cookie cutter divisions by design. Just a design choice.
It's what it all basically boils down too, design choice. Cameron explains it all very well in the manual. Hence my comment about people wanting the game to be something it's not or probably more accurate wanting it to be something different then the designers vision.



Templer_12 -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 10:46:35 AM)

The point is, at least for me:
The Panzers 35(t) and 38(t) belong to the standard repertoire of the Wehrmacht at the beginning of the Barbarossa campaign.
I have no problems when exotic armor, such as the Sturmpanzer VI for examples, is rationalized.

„…wouldn’t add much other than historical window dressing“, the manual says.
I would love such dressing…



barkhorn45 -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 2:08:19 PM)

I believe at least one pz div.was equiped exclusively with the pz38t.



morvael -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 3:05:03 PM)

From Nigel Askey's Operation Barbarossa Volume IIA, about those divs that started Barbarossa:

Number of tanks in Panzer Division TOE varied from 162 to 305. Actual number varied from 143 to 265.

6 divs had 2-battalion regiment with German tanks (1st, 9th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 16th) - authorized 162 tanks
5 divs had 3-battalion regiment with Czech tanks (6th, 8th, 12th, 19th, 20th) - authorized 239 tanks
3 divs had 3-battalion regiment with German tanks (3rd, 17th, 18th) - authorized 233 tanks
2 divs had 2-battalion regiment and two extra light tank companies with German tanks (4th, 10th) - authorized 206 tanks
1 div had 3-battalion regiment with Czech tanks and three extra light tank companies with Czech tanks (7th) - authorized 305 tanks

11 divs used Pz III as their medium tank, but only 3 divs were fully equipped with latest Pz III that had 5cm gun (1st, 10th, 17th), 1 div was mostly (87%) equipped with old Pz III (18th), and the rest had a mix of rougly 2/3 new Pz III and 1/3 old Pz III
5 divs used Pz 38 as their medium tank (7th, 8th, 12th, 19th, 20th)
1 div used Pz 35 as its medium tank (6th)

Other differences:
Most divs had just one mechanized infantry company (in halftracks), but 1st had two battalions, 10th had one battalion, while 14th, 16th and 19th had no mechanized infantry company at all
6 divs had one battery of 10cm guns replacing 15cm howitzers (3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 14th)
5 divs had one motorized engineer company replacing one mechanized engineers company (11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th)
5 divs had double the usual amount of 5cm AT guns and half the usual amount of 3.7cm AT guns in AT battalion (6th, 7th, 8th, 19th, 20th)
4 divs had sIG SP gun company (1st, 7th, 9th, 10th)
4 divs had no mechanized engineers company at all (17th, 18th, 19th, 20th)
2 divs had two armored car companies instead of one and used French Panhard armored cars (7th, 20th)
1st PzD had PzIV-based armored bridgelayers
3rd PzD had 2.8cm sPzB instead of 5cm AT guns
12th PzD had 4.7cm Czech AT guns instead of 5cm AT guns
13th PzD had more infantry squads but less MG, because its infantry was organized like in a motorized division (with the exception of mechanized infantry company)

It's interesting to look where the better divs were located (in which Panzergruppen), this may say something about German focus.

I don't think it's necessary to show all these differences in a game of DC:B scope, but I guess differentiating between smaller divs with German tanks and bigger divs with Czech tanks would be good. Special case would be 1st and 10th PzD which were really powerful (all new panzers, battalion(s) of mechanized infantry, SP guns).



Templer_12 -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 4:00:43 PM)

Thanks for this interessting list.
If I got the math right 17 Div used Panzer, 6 of them 35(t)/38(t).
So 35% of the Div. used 35(t)/38(t). DC:B none at all.



morvael -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 4:12:28 PM)

I will check numbers in Askey books. Would be interesting to compare combat power. It well may be that 162 German tanks had similar power to 239 Czech tanks, so making divs equal in DC:B would not matter that much. Of course there would be questions whether they used same amount of fuel and whether they were equally reliable, but combat power is most important.



gunnergoz -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 4:21:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I will check numbers in Askey books. Would be interesting to compare combat power. It well may be that 162 German tanks had similar power to 239 Czech tanks, so making divs equal in DC:B would not matter that much. Of course there would be questions whether they used same amount of fuel and whether they were equally reliable, but combat power is most important.


Combat power is irrelevant if the tank can't move because it is out of fuel or won't start for mechanical reasons. So yeah, all those should be factored in to some degree at any scale. The problem is that these issues become harder to differentiate the higher up you go in terms of abstraction. Here we are speaking of a game using aggregate units (divisions) and not tactical entities (homogeneous tank companies and battalions all comprised of the same type of tank.) Combat is abstracted too. Designers have to make a lot of choices and this game seems streamlined in this area so that there could be greater focus on the Big Picture. It sounds like some people want their cake and eat it too, which is not wrong, just asking a lot.



76mm -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 4:42:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz
Designers have to make a lot of choices and this game seems streamlined in this area so that there could be greater focus on the Big Picture. It sounds like some people want their cake and eat it too, which is not wrong, just asking a lot.


Maybe... I don't have a problem with just having generic light and medium tank classes rather than differentiating (with incremental effect) between various types of tanks, but getting the basic number of tanks per tank/panzer division is actually relevant, and not very difficult at all to find (and therefore include in the game).

For instance, just within the Southwest Front, the differences were enormous--the 4th Mech Corps had 460 T-34s/KV-1s, while Rokossovsky's 9th Mech Corps had none. Other fronts had similar disparities.

So I don't really understand how this is asking to have your cake and eat it too, it is not like it would take a major investment in time in include proper OOBs.




elmo3 -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 5:37:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz

Combat power is irrelevant if the tank can't move because it is out of fuel or won't start for mechanical reasons. ....


Here is an interesting footnote from Operation Barbarossa Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941 by Glantz that perfectly illustrates your point. I added the bold lettering for emphasis.

quote:

Kurkin’s 3rd Mechanized Corps, whose strength was 651 tanks, including 110 new models, threw a fright into the 6th Panzer Division, which led the XXXXI Motorized Corps’ advance. Attacking just east of Raseinai with its 2nd Tank Division, two battalions of T-34 and KV tanks crushed the 6th Panzer Division’s reconnaissance elements and drove the division to the outskirts of the town. After the Soviets failed to exploit their success, German sappers systematically destroyed the Soviet tanks with explosive charges. Later they learned that the Soviet tanks ran out of fuel and had orders to ‘ram’ the German tanks, since the T-34s and KV’s had not been bore-sighted and thus could not fire a round. Within 24 hours after the engagement, German forces bypassed, encircled and destroyed the immobile Soviet tank division.


So while I think there is value in getting the numbers right for 22 June 1941 there is only so much DC3 can do at the chosen design level to recreate the actual conditions faced by commanders during the campaign. Yes, fuel is modeled in the game but certainly not whether guns have been bore sighted or not. Given that fact for 3rd Mech Corps somebody could argue that those tanks should not even be included in the game.



76mm -> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? (12/2/2015 5:54:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3
Yes, fuel is modeled in the game but certainly not whether guns have been bore sighted or not. Given that fact for 3rd Mech Corps somebody could argue that those tanks should not even be included in the game.


Yes, you could make that argument, it would be better than simply using the same number of tanks for every unit. While I think the story quoted above might have been garbled in translation (failure to boresight a tank doesn't mean you can't fire it), other Sov tank/mech units certainly had serious issues, such as no ammunition for their main guns (!), no gunsights, etc. Not good...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.859375