Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they?

 
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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/2/2015 6:16:38 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		No wonder 6th was afraid of T-34 and KV-1, they had the worst tank model of all divisions...

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 31
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/2/2015 7:55:31 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		From the Barbarossa books: assuming a Pz III with 5cm gun to have a "combat power" score of 1.0, a Pz III with 3.7cm gun has a score of 0.79, a Pz 38 a score of 0.56, and a Pz 35 a score of 0.32. The system takes many physical parameters into account, and I think it's quite accurate when comparing elements of the same class and role.

155 Pz 35 tanks from 6th Panzer were worth just 50 Pz III with 5cm gun, so its medium tank component had just 47% of 17th Panzer's combat power (it had 106 Pz III with 5cm gun).

On the other hand supply demand factor (I admit it may be less accurate than combat power factor) is calculated at 0.82 for Pz III with 3.7cm gun, 0.47 for Pz 38 and 0.46 for Pz 35.

Continuing the example, 155 Pz 35 tanks from 6th Panzer were using (on average) 67% of supply that 17th Panzer's 106 Pz III with 5cm gun.

Comparing that to combat power it can be seen that 6th Panzer was much weaker than 17th Panzer, yet it was using more supplies per point of "combat power".

So on one hand the cookie cutter design may be OK for a game that isn't that much into detail at unit level, on the other hand relative strengths of divisions (and the forces opposing them, especially Mechanized Corps with their T-34/KV-1s ones vs T-26 and BT-7 ones) should be somehow represented, because they differed vastly (one value being double of other value is not something to be ignored).

I want to repeat once more that I'm not judging this game for its simplified unit TOEs, this game focuses on other aspects and IMHO they were more important. If the game is balanced as is, I'd say let the matter rest.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 32
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/2/2015 8:56:18 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

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.

Glantz himself in "When titans clashed" (I'm quoting from the expanded and revised edition recently published) says, referring to the above mentioned actions, that:
quote:


This halted the 6th for two days even though the Soviet tanks had run out of gas and become immobile pillboxes on the river's western bank.

This to underline that it wasn't exactly a walkover for the Germans. This is also confirmed by what is reported in another book, edited by Glantz, i.e. "The initial period of war on the Eastern Front", a collection of the proceedings of a symposium held by the US Army War College focused on discussing the operations at the start of Barbarossa using archive material and the recollections of German veterans that were speaking guests at the symposium itself.

The actions that involved the 6. Panzerdivision at the start of Barbarossa were described with abundance of details in the aforementioned book by General Johann von Kielmansegg and Oberst Helmut Ritgen, respectively the senior staff officer in the HQ of the 6th Panzer, and an adjutant in the second battalion of the armoured regiment of the same division. So, if one wants to know what was the German perspective on what happened when the czech tanks of the 6th Panzer met the KVs of the 2nd Tank Division, well, I dare to say that it's impossible to get better info than this.

After a brief description of the internal organization of the 6th Panzer, including the fact that the division was equipped with 105 PzKpfw 35(t), von Kielmansegg chimes in declaring that:

quote:


6th Panzer division was the only division in the German Army which had such equipement. That compelled us, from the very beginning to fight only in mixed combat groups. That was the rule at this time.


So, it seems that, after all, how the single divisions were actually equipped was a concern for German officers.

Colonel Ritgen describes the action on the 24th of June:

quote:

On 24 June, at first light, Soviet tanks in great numbers crossed the Dubyssa River supported by artillery. Some of our riflemen were cut off by the assault. These hiterto unknown Soviet tanks created a crisis in Battle Group Seckendorff, since apparently no weapon of the division was able to penetrate their armor.
[...]
I suppose the Soviet tank crews had no time to familarize themselves with the guns of their tanks or zero them in, since their fire was very inaccurate. Furthermore the Soviets were poorly led. Nevertheless the appearance of these heavy tanks was dramatic.

This explains that the supposed absence of zeroing-in was, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from poor training. So, it can be simulated in the game giving a poor experience rating to the unit considered.

In the end, the Germans were victorious but the 6th Panzer was stopped for two days (that is half a move, in game terms) and suffered a numbers of casualties (especially in the 114th Motorized Infantry Regiment). This, probably wouldn't have occurred if the confrontation were between two different equipped divisions.

The game already has all what is needed to simulate this.

I'm not asking the designers to rethink their base assumptions and decision, just to be always consistent with what they themselves said.

If they said that the inferior czech tanks are considered, in game terms, more comparable to the light Panzer II rather than to the medium Panzer III, that's totally fine with me. But why, then, do not represent these tanks with the Pz II?

If they decided to include the KV in the game because they deemed opportune to differentiate it from the T-34, that's good, so why not give it to the divisions that were actually equipped with that tank?

The argument that the 51 KVs of the 2nd Tank Division were, in the end, dispatched, so they could also be not included at all in the game is not convincing, in my opinion. If this is the case, the entire first two echelons of the Red Army could be not included in the game, since they didn't manage to stop the German advance or to inflict crippling casualties to the Axis troops.

The point is not whether the Red Army can stop cold the German in the border battles, it cannot. The point is: did German advance rates and casualties depend on how well equipped and led were the Soviet divisions they were facing? My answer is a resounding yes.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 33
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/2/2015 9:19:08 PM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		I find it funny that the people who are advocating more realism in the OOBs, want less realism in the decisions. Obviously if you first increase the complexity of the OOBs, the decisions will become more complex. I.e. do we re-equip this or that division with new tanks, of perhaps a similar class, or do you mix and match. And if you do mix and match, then it becomes, more complex getting the right parts to the right divisions... I can imagine the logistics nightmare quite vividly.

Honestly a game has two decisions it needs to overcome: Is this a game, or a simulation. Finding the sweet spot is not easy. If you lean towards simulation, you have to give less choices to the player, or the simulation would not become that at all. If you lean towards game, then you have to have some inaccuracies, like players being able to do something that is not supposed to happen, and then you have to "guess" what the appropriate reaction would be.

So the game doesn't have Pz 38(t)s. Nor any of the other czech types. I am sure that it doesn't have a complete list of the men that participated in each division either, nor does it account for how many handgrenades this division had pr. man, compared to any other division. Some things need to be simplified, because realism is simply too complex. It is the designers choice to decide what is important and what is not. What can be approximated, and what can not. In the end what really matters is:

1). Is it playable
2). Does the game achieve what it has tried to

In this case you have a game that is centered around command decisions. Not OOBs. If that is not your taste, leave some kind words, and a suggestion to make an improvement. Don't say, oh this is bad because it omitted the type of toothpaste the germans used (did they use any btw).

It is always easy to find a mistake, if you really want to. It is harder to convey that mistake in a way not sounding like you are overly critical, and demanding something of a game it doesn't focus on bringing. This game will never be WITE, and that is actually good. You won't be buying the same game two times then. It tries to do something different. Which is applaudable. Did it succeed: try finding out. Also there is the obvious copyright infringement if it actually was WITE.

Enough said. Had to say it at some point i guess.






(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 34
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/2/2015 9:35:14 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

I find it funny that the people who are advocating more realism in the OOBs, want less realism in the decisions. Obviously if you first increase the complexity of the OOBs, the decisions will become more complex. I.e. do we re-equip this or that division with new tanks, of perhaps a similar class, or do you mix and match. And if you do mix and match, then it becomes, more complex getting the right parts to the right divisions... I can imagine the logistics nightmare quite vividly.

Honestly a game has two decisions it needs to overcome: Is this a game, or a simulation. Finding the sweet spot is not easy. If you lean towards simulation, you have to give less choices to the player, or the simulation would not become that at all. If you lean towards game, then you have to have some inaccuracies, like players being able to do something that is not supposed to happen, and then you have to "guess" what the appropriate reaction would be.

So the game doesn't have Pz 38(t)s. Nor any of the other czech types. I am sure that it doesn't have a complete list of the men that participated in each division either, nor does it account for how many handgrenades this division had pr. man, compared to any other division. Some things need to be simplified, because realism is simply too complex. It is the designers choice to decide what is important and what is not. What can be approximated, and what can not. In the end what really matters is:

1). Is it playable
2). Does the game achieve what it has tried to

In this case you have a game that is centered around command decisions. Not OOBs. If that is not your taste, leave some kind words, and a suggestion to make an improvement. Don't say, oh this is bad because it omitted the type of toothpaste the germans used (did they use any btw).

It is always easy to find a mistake, if you really want to. It is harder to convey that mistake in a way not sounding like you are overly critical, and demanding something of a game it doesn't focus on bringing. This game will never be WITE, and that is actually good. You won't be buying the same game two times then. It tries to do something different. Which is applaudable. Did it succeed: try finding out. Also there is the obvious copyright infringement if it actually was WITE.

Enough said. Had to say it at some point i guess.








This. ^^^


_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 35
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/2/2015 9:47:56 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline 		Well said ernieschwitz. And of course the Germans used toothpaste. If the game doesn't use this brand then it must be crap!

Edit - "German toothpaste advertisement found in Nazi Germany wartime magazine Wehrmacht from 1943.". So it's from '43 but close enough.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by elmo3 -- 12/2/2015 10:49:56 PM >

_____________________________

We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 36
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/2/2015 11:38:33 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline 		I am not so concerned about types as long as they are roughly the same. But I do think the numbers in each unit should be close to historical.

_____________________________


(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 37
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/3/2015 2:01:03 AM   
etsadler

 

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline 		To start with I really like the game. I think it does a fantastic job hitting what it is trying to be.

My only suggestion regarding the OOB is that IRL these differences in composition, be it tanks, half tracks, number of troops, etc. had an impact on the capabilities of the individual divisions. One of the things I would think would fit extremely well into the idea of Operational Command is the Fire Brigade concept. Any top commander would know which of his units was could be relied upon to complete the task above the others. The 1st Panzer had more stuff, it would be a stronger division. Which ever Panzer had all the Czech tanks might well be weaker. If you wanted a division to break the enemy line you would likely choose the 1st Panzer, if to plug a hole, maybe the 6th would do, etc. And please, you can disagree but I know that the above is a simplification and does not include aspects like experience, morale, leader skill etc.

I think it would add to the Operational Command aspect of the game to have more of the real like variations in the units so that there would be another level of decisions that needed to be made.

(in reply to Templer_12)
Post #: 38
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/3/2015 8:46:06 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline 		In deciding what is important and what is not, are designers also free to decide to be not consistent with their own choices?

Did someone miss the fact that the designers clearly stated in the manual what was their stance regarding the issue discussed in this threat?

As it was already said, the manual reads:
quote:


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 its combat stats to reflect an hybrid of the two.


Yet, in the game, PzKpfw 38(t) tanks are not modelled by this Mk. II hybrid.

As you see, there's an evident contradiction between the stated intent and the actual implementation.

Of course the designers are free to say: well, we eventually realized that it wan't worth bothering with this, regardless of our previous intent. Or to say: well, thanks for pointing out this, we forgot to give 6th Panzer a unique TOE to reflect what we stated in the manual, we'll eventually correct this in a future patch.

But pointing out this issue and asking for a clarification is hardly to be considered as a cheap shot or a useless attempt at nit-picking. Considering this stance on par with an absurd request of toothpaste modelling seems a little ungenerous to me.

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 39
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/3/2015 8:51:11 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		The quoted text is not accurate, Pz 38(t) was used as Pz III equivalent, not Pz II (so as medium not light tank) it those divisions that had Czech tanks.
Anyway, I just wanted to show some data, I'm not nit-picking, I love the game as is.

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 40
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 2:04:30 AM   
lancer

 

Posts: 2963
Joined: 10/18/2005
Status: offline 		Hi amaatteucci,

One of the reasons the number of different tank models were kept to a workable number was the amount of data that's tracked for each Division.

There are around 50 different datapoints that are recorded for each and the fast divisions require additional data for two types of mileage. The mechanical failure routines are pretty detailed and they operate on a matrix of individual tank types and accumulated mileages.

Ramping up the number of tank models portrayed in the game isn't just a case of adding a few extra models into the libraries and TO&E's, it'd also involve expanding the code base to accommodate the new types.

In the end the effort involved in doing this didn't justify a change that, on the scale of the game, is largely cosmetic. I understand that this isn't to everybody's liking.

It's a trade-off. One one hand there are a few near-equivalent tank types that got left on the reserve bench but on the other there is a very detailed model that lets you explore the non-combat limitations of how far you can push your Panzer Divisions.

I haven't played WiTE but if you took a Panzer unit and moved it across an empty map to Moscow what would happen?

Cheers,
Cameron

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 41
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 1:16:28 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		It is often argued in the way, that you do not have to use each cartridge caliber in an operational scale.
I would agree.

But about the Pz 35 (t) and Pz 38 (t) issue I stay dissatisfied.
These tanks count about 35% of all types of tanks of the Wehrmacht when they attacked the Soviet Union
Operative scale, different caliber cartridges, custom shoe sizes, all well and good. But I still say, cutting more than 33% of a TOE from a game is a bad decision.
15 - 20% is a 'number' I could accept.

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 42
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 2:27:35 PM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Honestly, how do you KNOW that toothpaste wasn't the reason the Germans didn't get to Moscow. Might as well have been the deciding factor. Similarily how do you KNOW that the inclusion of Pz 38(t) would make this game better, compared to have them part of some other formation type. To be completely honest, you don't KNOW.

(in reply to Templer_12)
Post #: 43
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 2:42:49 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		That's why there are proponents of counting every screw, nail, boot, lamp etc to achieve "historical" results (because omission of even one factor can end with ahistorical results, than have to be fudged to go back to what the designer percieves as normal). Say "you do not have to use each cartridge caliber in an operational scale" to the troops that lack AP ammo for their AT guns, while having plenty of mortar rounds... Have you read what impact had the introduction of HEAT ammo for StuGs in early 1942 near Leningrad? By this time Soviet KV-1s were bold, because they new that at 1000m nothing the Germans have can stop them, so they drove to the front and fired on German lines unpunished. Suddenly they lost many KVs, and had to alter their tactics :)

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 44
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 3:20:16 PM   
DerGrenadier


Posts: 106
Joined: 12/11/2011
From: Germania Superior
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

Honestly, how do you KNOW that toothpaste wasn't the reason the Germans didn't get to Moscow. Might as well have been the deciding factor. Similarily how do you KNOW that the inclusion of Pz 38(t) would make this game better, compared to have them part of some other formation type. To be completely honest, you don't KNOW.


Iam with Templer here. For me its a bad design decision. This game wants to recreate history. So I want the same conditions that prevailed on 22.06.41. Maybe the inclusion of the Czech tanks doesnt make a difference but I want “immersion“ when playing historical games otherwise I would prefer playing phantasie games, which I btw dont. To be honest this is one of the reasons why I regretted that I bought DCB.

< Message edited by DerGrenadier -- 12/4/2015 4:21:23 PM >

_____________________________







(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 45
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 3:49:50 PM   
Gettysburg


Posts: 153
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline 		1+

(in reply to DerGrenadier)
Post #: 46
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 3:54:12 PM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

So the game doesn't have Pz 38(t)s. Nor any of the other czech types. I am sure that it doesn't have a complete list of the men that participated in each division either, nor does it account for how many handgrenades this division had pr. man, compared to any other division. Some things need to be simplified, because realism is simply too complex. It is the designers choice to decide what is important and what is not. What can be approximated, and what can not. In the end what really matters is:

1). Is it playable
2). Does the game achieve what it has tried to

In this case you have a game that is centered around command decisions. Not OOBs. If that is not your taste, leave some kind words, and a suggestion to make an improvement. Don't say, oh this is bad because it omitted the type of toothpaste the germans used (did they use any btw).




I definitely agree with the overall approach the designers have taken here. The emphasis on operational decisions over individual unit detail is what makes this game special.

Having said that, there is a sameness about the units that removes a bit of "personality" from the game as you play it. After awhile, the units just become a "purple infantry" and a "green infantry," and you don't really care if one is destroyed over another.

Some variety already occurs dynamically (over the course of the campaign, units change in relative strength and experience) and the SS units certainly offer aditional variety (which the beta patch expands upon), but I think it would be nice to see a bit more individuality among certain units.

I don't care whether the OOB is completely "realistic" - there's really no such thing anyway - but I do think the designers should look for ways to add some additional flavor elements to help distinguish at least some of the units. Elements to make you really care when a particularly valuable or distinctive unit is in play.

But I do agree that's a secondary consideration to the operational focus of the game.

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 47
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 4:03:28 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		More than 33% of a TOE were cut.

It's Christmas. You donate?
How much of your wealth you donate?
33% and more?

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 48
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 4:04:57 PM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

Honestly, how do you KNOW that toothpaste wasn't the reason the Germans didn't get to Moscow. Might as well have been the deciding factor. Similarily how do you KNOW that the inclusion of Pz 38(t) would make this game better, compared to have them part of some other formation type. To be completely honest, you don't KNOW.


You're right - whether toothpaste or tank type, we can't KNOW what might have made a decisive difference historically. So the question then becomes what type of game are you making - one that focuses on tanks and toothpaste or one that focuses on some of the other factors that might have been decisive, such as operational decisions and hierarchical rivalries.

We already have tank and toothpaste games. I own them. What we don't have is another game like this one.

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 49
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/4/2015 4:09:07 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		So why different types at all?
Let's go with light, medium and heavy and kiss goodbye.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 50
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/6/2015 8:44:39 PM   
amatteucci

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi amaatteucci,

One of the reasons the number of different tank models were kept to a workable number was the amount of data that's tracked for each Division.

There are around 50 different datapoints that are recorded for each and the fast divisions require additional data for two types of mileage. The mechanical failure routines are pretty detailed and they operate on a matrix of individual tank types and accumulated mileages.

Ramping up the number of tank models portrayed in the game isn't just a case of adding a few extra models into the libraries and TO&E's, it'd also involve expanding the code base to accommodate the new types.

In the end the effort involved in doing this didn't justify a change that, on the scale of the game, is largely cosmetic. I understand that this isn't to everybody's liking.

It's a trade-off. One one hand there are a few near-equivalent tank types that got left on the reserve bench but on the other there is a very detailed model that lets you explore the non-combat limitations of how far you can push your Panzer Divisions.

I haven't played WiTE but if you took a Panzer unit and moved it across an empty map to Moscow what would happen?

Cheers,
Cameron


Dear Cameron,

I appreciate your explaination of the rationale behind the decision of limiting the overall tank types in the game's TOEs. In fact I agree with what you say. I'm not advocating the introduction of every and each type of hardware.

I was more underlining the necessity (IMHO) to better reflect the numbers, rather than the types, of the AFVs available at the start of Barbarossa.

That is: is perfectly fine with me to model the PzKpfw 38(t) with the same data of a light PzKpfw II, as the manual suggests. I'd simply like to have this choice actually reflected in the game.

My requests about improving the OoB of DC:B is not to be intended as a blanket statement on the quality of the game itself. I do appreciate your effort in modelling some aspects that are rarely depicted in a strategical/operational wargame, yet are fundamental to every campaign.

I do really like the fact that (just to make a couple examples that ruined somehow the immersion experience in WitE, for me) you cannot just shift Panzer Groups between Army Groups without regard for what Hitler, or the AGs commanders themselves, will say. Neither may you just do a Soviet "Sir Robin" with a dozen armies, when faulty communications hampers you and Stalin will likely demand the head of any Army commander that refuses to stubbornly defend that doomed city.
There are also many other features that I appreciate for their ingenuity and their realism.

I don't want a more refined OoB at the cost of dumbing down the intricacies of the C3I and "political" modelling. I just would like to have them both!

Kind regards,

Amedeo

(in reply to lancer)
Post #: 51
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/6/2015 9:18:16 PM   
Gettysburg


Posts: 153
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline 		The Pz 38 (t) with his 37mm gun is roughly equivalent to the Pz III.
The older and smaller The Pz 35 (t) is more equivalent to the Pz II, the 6 Pz Division possed 155 of them

(in reply to amatteucci)
Post #: 52
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/6/2015 10:10:52 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Just to add my 2p to this topic now I own, have seen and am beginning to play the game:

I personally believe (as some have said above) that as a minimum panzer and tank division afv numbers should be accurate. The numbers exist out there and I think they should be added to reflect the true starting dispositions of the respective forces rather than any great quibble over more tank types. I've been an avid player of wite in the past and don't think a dramatic expansion of afv types would be the right way to go as its not that kind of game.

Historical starting afv numbers I would argue and support though.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Gettysburg)
Post #: 53
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/7/2015 7:03:24 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline 		I think the obvious point is that WitE does claim to 'model' this stuff, but the combat model revolves entirely around achieving a 2:1 force ratio so in practice the detail is utterly irrelevant.

Far better to acknowledge from the start that equivalent equipment can be largely abstracted together and then focus on making sure that the actual game plays out well.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 54
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/7/2015 7:24:48 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Don't disagree with that Alchenar - the right and accurate model and operational eleents is key here to DC3 but at least have the right number of AFV's present maybe?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 55
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/7/2015 8:43:22 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alchenar
I think the obvious point is that WitE does claim to 'model' this stuff, but the combat model revolves entirely around achieving a 2:1 force ratio so in practice the detail is utterly irrelevant.


Shhhhh! Don't you know you're never supposed to pull back the curtain?

(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 56
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/7/2015 8:52:32 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		As WitE is mix of classic board game mechanisms and some ideas revolving around the ability of the computer to calculate thousands of formulas in seconds, the detail you say is irrelevant is used in "fire combat", that is to find out which elements will be destroyed and which will survive the battle. Then, the number of elements that survived is used to calculate the final force ratio and here indeed that detail is not used.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 57
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/7/2015 10:02:56 AM   
Alchenar

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 8/2/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

As WitE is mix of classic board game mechanisms and some ideas revolving around the ability of the computer to calculate thousands of formulas in seconds, the detail you say is irrelevant is used in "fire combat", that is to find out which elements will be destroyed and which will survive the battle. Then, the number of elements that survived is used to calculate the final force ratio and here indeed that detail is not used.



If you flip a coin a thousand times your results will average out to 50-50. It's the same with rolling ten thousand times for rifle squads shooting at each other - aside from the odd outlier your overall result is going to trend towards the statistically likely result for any one combat.

That's why in a wargame there's a point at which directly simulating more detail adds nothing to your game except CPU cycles and you are better off spending your time on things that actually make the game better. It's also why in an operational level all that really matters is that a light tank is a light tank.


e: I mean this is a key thing to grasp because knowing what to abstract and what not to abstract is key to good game design. CMANO abstracts very little because the game is all about second-by-second combat operations. DC is all about controlling the entire Eastern Front for just over half a year, so it abstracts up to the level of information that an officer at your level would need to care about.

WitE is a showcase for really bad design because enormous amount of detail and resources were pumped into a level of fidelity in describing formations that's utterly pointless because the combat model does not in any way reflect reality and the designers had to throw in special rules on the ratios needed to win attacks just to get something that vaguely reflected reality.

< Message edited by Alchenar -- 12/7/2015 11:11:41 AM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 58
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/7/2015 10:19:47 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline 		That's why in my dream game I'd go with a system like Dupuy's QJM, where physical qualities of equipment matter, but are reduced to a single number. Just like in the Operation Barbarossa books where one Pz 38(t) is worth 0.56 of a Pz III with 50mm gun. Because IRL one light tank may not be equal to other light tank. Speed, protection, guns, optics, communications all vary between different models. WitE achieves the same by doing a lot of calculations on the go, using equipment parameters as specified in the database. Of course this will average with many die rolls to the mean value, but that doesn't make those numbers irrelevant. Heavy tanks will kill more light tanks on average than the other way round, and that's all that matters.


(in reply to Alchenar)
Post #: 59
RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? - 12/7/2015 5:59:27 PM   
gunnergoz


Posts: 447
Joined: 5/21/2002
From: San Diego CA
Status: offline 		Numbers, gun calibers, tank varieties are not enough to tell the story of how tanks function on a battlefield. There is also the issue of training ("Can they drive at night?",) doctrine (Can they fight independently?"), communications ("Do they even have radios?",) design ("What, the tank commander is also the gunner?" plus a thousand other historical variables ad infinitum. As the designer of a game, to the degree possible you try to bring all these factors into the combat equations in an operational level game, however you reach a point of abstraction where the small factors have less and less impact, simply because you are "zoomed out" so far that the alterations the minor details make tend to wash out. Example: it is a fact that one solitary Soviet KV-2 held up an entire German corps at one point early in Barbarossa; but in the game this is simulated as mere action point attrition against the Germans that goes away after a couple of turns. So while it is nice to ponder all these fine tank specific details and ask what is their relative importance, it is how well the game simulates historical reality that is the real measure of its accuracy and validity. So far as I am seeing in my game play so far, DC3 is doing a stellar job of that.

_____________________________

"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t) - Where are they? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.734