Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
|
AmmoSgt: You said you understood the price formula, but apparently not completely; see here: quote:
Charles I am not complaining about the cost of US units as based on capability.. I know how the formula works more or less and that doesn't bother me. Inflating the cost by inflating the experience does bother me .. but many countries have inflated experience and morale rating for political purposes.. I don't think the US rating ( and therefore cost ) is inflated for political purpose ( ie National Pride like some are) , I think the 65-70 price break is extrodinarily large to inflate the price and the US is rated way high to take advantage of that.
It sounds like you're a little off-focus there. Part of the price formula IS the experience, and part of it is the equipment. You can ignore the equipment's role in the formula all you want, but it's a major contributor, perhaps even moreso than the experience. Why you'd focus on one and not the other is a mystery to me. If you had inexperienced units, the cost would be lower. If they didn't have so much MG's, etc., then they would be cheaper.
As for the political end of the spectrum, if indeed one could term that as political, I'd say green troops coming out as more experienced than either the GE's or GB is about as good a case of that as I can imagine. I also question why the US has 12 men (and JA and USSR) to many other nation's 9 or 10. The USSR definitely makes some sense, but not so much the US and JA. I suppose what the other poster before me posted, about quantity of men comes into the formula there, though it may not be admitted, but with all the infantry shortages the US had on the Western Front I'd say they certainly don't justify 12 men (maybe the Marines in the Pacific would though).
quote:
I notice you chose not to dispute my contention the US Artillery is under rated in regards to the explosive content and overall weight in the shells. I would settle for that. I notice you do not dispute the radio situation or the artillery call doctrine problems , and the lack of some proportionality in call times . I notice you do not dispute that VT fuzes are not addressed.
Like a lot of people around here I don't have thorough knowledge of everything. Seeing as how you come across as you do have that on those subjects, but your treatment of areas I do know, and your treatment of those, leaves me doubting, so I don't chime in. I do, however, make reference to your occasion to exaggerate, such as referring to WP being so dominating, and then coorelating that to the comparatively poor result in their French liberation compared to the GE invasion of France. Either Monty and a few others were THAT BAD, or the super weapons, ie the WP's and US artillery of the WWII world, really weren't that good. It doesn't add up.
quote:
As to the 60mm mortars not having smoke .. exactly my point, since the German 50mm mortars don't have smoke in real life, US 60mm mortars which had not only smoke, but WP in real life don't have smoke in the game ..Fair is fair ? Right?
I suspect whether the 60mm had smoke or not wasn't very high on the list. It was probably thought that if the GE and USSR short-range mortars didn't have smoke the US ones wouldn't either. Smoke isn't exactly the most pressing issue of the WWII wargamer, but when they last 8 turns they sure press me.
quote:
The Armies are DIFFERENT, they have DIFFERENT strenghts and weaknesses. To only represent the Strenghts of the German armor , Highlight the weakness of US Armor and average out the rest in the name of "fairness and Balance" is not doing the game or the players a favor.
It's just not like that as I earlier pointed out. I think it's a fair guess to say each nation has been snubbed in some sort of manner, be that some attempt at 'balance',or false patriotism, or whatever. You're sweeping with a very broad broom and I've already told you how the US has 12 man squads to the GE 9 or 10's. There could be any number of possible issues, including the issue of killing GE big guns by the visibility cut down so often, but it not like an anti-US campaign as you keep saying, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing these GE anomalies.
quote:
Charles I don't think anybody else really had Smoke Generator Companies with smoke generators in any large numbers , maybe some smoke pot type things , but I am talking about dedicated full time troops with generators capable of continusily producing everlasting permenant smoke barriers ( HC type Smoke, not WP)
Actually that would surprise me somewhat (and of course we don't see the Doras of the GE's represented either), as I know they had smoke detachments for covering the strategic bombing sites. Perhaps this here will be enough to dispel the idea that the US was the only one to form any sort of smoke units, and in this case certainly battlefield ones. See Intelligence Bulletin Vol.I, No.5, Section III.: http://www.military-info.com/Aphoto/Subjectlist/A012.htm#smoke
Notice the word "smoke troops". I notice later mention is made of JA use of smoke, but no mention of "smoke troops". You should actually find it quite odd that virtually every nation wouldn't have some sort of people versed more in the use of smoke, even be that their relative sole assignment. I'll bet anything they had smoke generators and/or smoke units during the crossing of the Meuse in '40.
From what I understood from one net article I found, Ploesti was
guarded with 2,000 smoke generators. From what I've also seen of the US use of these things, a great deal of it was very likely the "smudge pot" sort of thing. Although I don't know how much the strategic defense of the Reich had allocated the sort of smoke generators used there, to combat units, but it did say that the chemicals involved became in something of a short supply. And, of course, if the same could be said of combat smoke troops, then surely the game doesn't have a chemical availability toggle to differentiate the end of the war from the beginning.
I also found evidence that the GE's were experimenting with smoke generators in WWI, so their not being very adept at it, whatever form it took, would come something of a shock.
Here's some perhaps interesting data I dug up from V7.1 last night:
M3 Stuart: 63pts.
acc-11, kill-4, pen-71, apcr-86, 1 AAMG, 2MG's
armor turret-56,25,25,12 hull-44,25,25,12
speed-34,rof-6,lift capacity-(6!),
The last Stuart (not talking about the Chafee here), was similar but had upgraded armor, mostly frontal with increased penetration to the gun. The gun also increased to an HE value of 8!
By comparison, as I suspected, the GE 75L24 fared worse. The 75L24 is a 6 HE value. You'll also notice another trend. At least the Shermans and the PZIV's when they went to the longer 75mm/76mm guns had their HE value drop to 5. So the early Stuart 37mm is worse than the 75L24, but the latter 37mm is better, and signifigantly better then the then standard issue GE 75mm (and US 76mm).
One last thing that proved a little surprising to me. The PZIIL while cheaper then the Stuart, had a much better main gun for HE value (14). One problem is that it had only one MG, and a number of other issues (like not being able to penetrate a wet rag). What's more, as I was picking in 11/44, the PZIIL couldn't even be bought, even though it's availability is claimed to run through '49. Of course the PZIIL, and indeed the earlier II variants had what amounted to an anti-aircraft gun as a main gun, so that would explain the good kill rating. Other than any anti-aircraft type gun mounted as a main gun, I don't think you'll find any that rate above the latter Stuart gun, in fact, quite surprising, even the 88L71 only has a 7 for HE kill.
Although the Stuart is the cheapest tank you can buy for the US, though I wouldn't have known it, I suspect the GE situation late in the war is even worse because you can't pick the light tanks anymore. The US player may not realise what an absolute gem they have in the Stuart, despite it's expense, as it's late gun penetration can knock out anything less then a Tiger from the flanks, in many cases even at a good distance (since a lot of the GE TD's are in the 30-40mm armor range) and with such speed at that. Maybe an 8 HE rating isn't WP, but it beats a KTiger HE.
On the infantry front, you don't like the expense of the US army because of being forced to have the overrated 70 experience factor. That's usually a suffering point that most people are willing to bear I would imagine. In any event, perhaps with CL, or the much more distant CL Western Front module, they can put in the ahistorical uber-infantry rating they have now, with all those 12 men, and then also put in the more common 55-60 rated US infantry perhaps alongside giving them only 10 men and maybe classifying them as 2nd line troops, and then you could have your el-cheapos. Maybe with CL, every nation should have at least a cheap infantry, 2nd line sort of cheap option.
Oh another thing. Don't think a 5-10 experience hike doesn't make a difference. You may not see it too terribly well, but what is a little more boost than that, for what little I've played them, the difference between the SS infantry and the standard Wehrmacht is quite noticeable. You play with 55-60 rated US infantry after playing with 70 rated ones, and you'll suddenly wonder whatever you saw in buying cheaper troops. By that train of thought I'm not trying to say one who has bought SS will regret going back to Wehrmacht, because the Wehrmacht 65-70 (at it's prime) is pretty useful, but when you go back to 55-60 it'll start the tears to flowing.
|
Printable Version
- 
This may help - 
- 
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