Tank battles in CMBB [Archive]

KG_Scout

02 Oct 02, 14:26

The problem some of my fellow players and I have run into is that when using combined forces the points allocated for armor are unbalanced. For example in a 1500pt meeting engagement in the early war the russians are allocated 600 points for armor and the germans 300. It was a swarm of t34s vs. german infantry who were not well equipped with AT weapons.

I realize this is historically fairly accurate, but not very balanced. The problem is not what type of armor a person is using, but how many points they have to buy armor with.

KG_Jag

02 Oct 02, 14:35

The death clock adds uncertainty about the lethality of you penetrating rounds. It is more realistic.

There also appear to be fewer one shot kills, which is also more realistic.

The difference in the gun sights is a great idea. I've only played one long distance tank battle, so I'm still learning about the the differences. At Kursk, keeping the Tigers at long range with their 88s, thick frontal armor and binocular sights seem to be the ticket.

Most of the anit-tank guns I've played with and against have been smaller that those usually found in CMBO. So there are some problems with a direct comparison. However, it appears that they are (like tank fire) less effective than CMBO, which again is probably more realistic. There survivablity may be slightly improved as well.

KG_Leopard

02 Oct 02, 15:33

Originally posted by KG_Scout
The problem some of my fellow players and I have run into is that when using combined forces the points allocated for armor are unbalanced. For example in a 1500pt meeting engagement in the early war the russians are allocated 600 points for armor and the germans 300. It was a swarm of t34s vs. german infantry who were not well equipped with AT weapons.

I realize this is historically fairly accurate, but not very balanced. The problem is not what type of armor a person is using, but how many points they have to buy armor with.

Are you using rarity in the QB purchase?

KG_Scout

02 Oct 02, 16:05

Originally posted by Scipio

Are you using rarity in the QB purchase?

No rarity.

In that particular battle the Russians had 3 t34s and 2 kv1s Germans had 2 captured t34s and 1 panzer 3. Not a very balanced battle. That was all of the armor they could get with the points given.

KG_Leopard

02 Oct 02, 17:36

Originally posted by KG_Scout

No rarity.

In that particular battle the Russians had 3 t34s and 2 kv1s Germans had 2 captured t34s and 1 panzer 3. Not a very balanced battle. That was all of the armor they could get with the points given.

Do you have purchased individuel tanks or groups? Groups are cheaper! For 300 pp you can get for example a group with four Pz-III. The captured T-34 is always relative expensive. Rarity may help, too. Anyway, I think the problem is that the T-34 and KVs are just to cheap. AFAIK, the Soviet didn't had so many of them in the early war.

Lurker

03 Oct 02, 13:28

Originally posted by Scipio
I wonder what you think about the changes in tank vs tank (and AT vs tank) combat in CMBB - or haven't you found any?

I haven't played that much BB yet but so far I've found that a 50 L/42 will take maybe 3 or 4 penetrations to knock out a T34, where as with it's high exolosive AP a T34 will kill an axis tank immediately with one penetration. It seems a standard AP round (non explosive) will have difficulty knocking out a tank with a single penetration the smaller the shot mm is. I'm guessing this is more realistic.

Originally posted by Scipio
And what do you think about the QB purchase is variable rarity enough, or is still a purchase rule needed?

I think much more testing is needed, but as a general rule I favor purchase rules similar to your light, medium and heavy guidelines.
Regardless of rarity, super heavies will still be available even at high cost, and this could seriously imbalance a game.
True that one will be penalized for selecting high rarity super tanks, but even if the other guy can select an extra plt of lesser tanks at the same cost, that in itself may not balance things particularly if the lessers can't touch the super - IMHO.

Rooster

04 Oct 02, 12:02

Russia had a few tanks by 1941...

By 1935 there were more than 10,000 tanks and by 1941, 24,000 (Germans thought maybe 10,000 to 15,000 tanks). :cool:

T-34
In June 1941, there were 1,225 that had been produced. First put into battle against the Germans in June 1941 at Grondno in Belorussia.

Production Numbers for T-34

1940-45: 35,120
1940: 2,800, 117
1941: 3,014, 12,520
1942: 12,553, 15,812
1943: 15,529, 3,500, 15,712
1944: 2,995, 3,723

KV1

1939-: 3,000
1940: 141, 243
1941: 1,121
1942: 1,753

KV1s
1939- :1,233
1942: 780
1943: 452

KV2

?-41: 330
1940: 102
1941: 232

Just a little early Russian Tank history... OUCH!

With all the tanks spread out, they became easy prey during the Russo-Finnish Winter War and the German invasion. It is estimated that 1,600 tanks were lost to the Finns, and 16-17,000 during the last half of 1941 to the Germans and their allies. The primary models of tanks in the Soviet arsenal were the T-26 (approximately 12,000), the BT calvary series (approximately 8,300), the T-28 was the primary medium tank, and there were 2 battalions of T-35 heavy tanks.

The T-34 became the standard medium tank for the war after the invasion. The KV-1 was the most thickly armored tank in the world. There were 508 KVs and 967 T-34s available in June 1941, out of a total of 23,637. However, they were spread throughout the Red Army. By August 6, 1941, 13,145 were lost. :o

1943 on look out! Production numbers were off the board.

KG_AGCent

08 Oct 02, 23:29

Originally posted by Rooster
Russia had a few tanks by 1941...

By 1935 there were more than 10,000 tanks and by 1941, 24,000 (Germans thought maybe 10,000 to 15,000 tanks). :cool:

T-34
In June 1941, there were 1,225 that had been produced. First put into battle against the Germans in June 1941 at Grondno in Belorussia.

etc., etc., etc...

Historical accuracy outside of the modeling of the individual tank is, truly, beside the point. What we are groping for is something approaching FAIRNESS. Where 2 players can come together and have a reasonable chance to select units within certain guidelines (eg. Scipio's Rules) and not be given an arbitrary advantage/disadvantage in one area or the another.

One setting I would like to throw out there for testing is to set both sides to an Armor force, as opposed to Combined Arms. Then limit the tank allowance to 30% of the total Battle Points.

Example: 1500pt ME= 450pts to be spent on armor.

Helpful suggestions?

AG, out.

Lurker

09 Oct 02, 12:51

Originally posted by KG_AGCent

Historical accuracy outside of the modeling of the individual tank is, truly, beside the point. What we are groping for is something approaching FAIRNESS. Where 2 players can come together and have a reasonable chance to select units within certain guidelines (eg. Scipio's Rules) and not be given an arbitrary advantage/disadvantage in one area or the another.

These may be difficult to pry apart. Where does modeling end and historical accuracy begin? Modeling, IMO, implies the 'on paper' numbers and characteristics of a tank. In this regard CMBO modeled the US gyrostabilizer accurately based on a theoretical impact it would have, but historically nothing could have been further from the truth as it really sucked and was disabled as often as not because of unreliability.
At one time the t54/55 and t60 were considered the best of tanks by western experts until history and the Israelies proved how wrong their modeling was by kicking butt with a collection of theorically inferior tanks, including old m4's with new mounted 105's.
The on paper model figures for the t34/76 are pretty scary in themselves - unsurpassed cross country performance, a good gun, excellent slope to the hull armor and strong curved turret armor. Fortunately CMBB infused some historical performace penalties (arbitrary disadvantage?) to this by way of a slow ROF due to a small cramped 2-man turret, a lesser hit potential because of average to inferior optics and a movement delay because of a lack of radio comm. Otherwise we may have had some sort of super stuart racing around the map brewing everthing with one shot kills:eek:.

Personally I'm all for the utmost in historical accuracy. Without this we have a game system like CMBO that, while being much fun, lacks any semblance to historical accuracy and realism. I think a desired fairness can be applied by adopting armored rules such as Scipio's.

By the way Scipio, are there any CMBB armored rules in the works?

Sheik Yerbouti

09 Oct 02, 18:16

Originally posted by Lurker

These may be difficult to pry apart. Where does modeling end and historical accuracy begin? Modeling, IMO, implies the 'on paper' numbers and characteristics of a tank. In this regard CMBO modeled the US gyrostabilizer accurately based on a theoretical impact it would have, but historically nothing could have been further from the truth as it really sucked and was disabled as often as not because of unreliability.
At one time the t54/55 and t60 were considered the best of tanks by western experts until history and the Israelies proved how wrong their modeling was by kicking butt with a collection of theorically inferior tanks, including old m4's with new mounted 105's.
The on paper model figures for the t34/76 are pretty scary in themselves - unsurpassed cross country performance, a good gun, excellent slope to the hull armor and strong curved turret armor. Fortunately CMBB infused some historical performace penalties (arbitrary disadvantage?) to this by way of a slow ROF due to a small cramped 2-man turret, a lesser hit potential because of average to inferior optics and a movement delay because of a lack of radio comm. Otherwise we may have had some sort of super stuart racing around the map brewing everthing with one shot kills:eek:.

Personally I'm all for the utmost in historical accuracy. Without this we have a game system like CMBO that, while being much fun, lacks any semblance to historical accuracy and realism.

Lurker, you `modelled` my views quite accurately. :D

I may add that I´m very pleased to see BF didn´t follow the myths about T-34, but instead modelled its weaknesses too. So there´s no arbitrary disadvantages as far as I know.

KG_Scout

09 Oct 02, 20:58

You ever go up against Tigers with t34s? whew, forget it. Even if you use cover and try to move quickly for flank shots the tigers are just too powerful. Even with t34/85s. Found that one out the hard way. It seems more difficult to achieve balance in CMBB than in CMBO.

If someone were to come up with armor rules I think it should look something like this: A recon class of armored cars. A light tank class. Medium class with 75mm german and 76.2mm russian cannons (although t34/85s and su85 could be in the medium class). Heavy class with, tigers, panthers, kv/85s and JS-1s (85mm) for example. Super Heavy with King Tiger, Jagdtiger, JS-2 with 122mm, etc...

The question remains what to do with brummbar, sturmtiger, kv-2, su-152 and other assault cannons designed for infantry support.

MajorTaktik

09 Oct 02, 21:22

My initial feeling is to leave things as they are without worrying about rule sets so soon. I think rarity does a good job at creating balance as well as realism.

Tanks finally get thier due in CMBB as opposed to the fragile tin cans modeled in CMBO. Gone are the days of elobarate moves and tanks hitting at high speed. It is much more realistic IMO so far.

The Tiger I is fearsome, but with rarity, they are very expensive and some balance is achieved. There is no easy way to deal with the Tiger I from late 42 mid 43, but one approach is to deny the Tiger I targets and destroy the supporting tanks around it. Again, easier said then done, but not impossible.

***SPOILER ALERT****
In Tiger Tiger, I am playing the Russians, and the Tigers are blasting my Ts to bits, but my opponent has lost nearly two plts of MkIIIs. His Tigers eventually moved alone to a big VL, but his MkIIIs were left behind in the wake of destruction as my Ts kept engaging them and preventing them from moving with the same indifference as the big cats :)

If I had a better feel for what the Reds could and could not do, I think I could have made the results even better, but there will be a lot of trial and error for a while :) . As it stands, I may squeek out a draw in this one due to his other tank losses, even though the Reds don't have a thing that can dent the Tiger I from any angle at any range in this scenario :(

MT

Lurker

09 Oct 02, 21:48

Originally posted by MajorTaktik
My initial feeling is to leave things as they are without worrying about rule sets so soon. I think rarity does a good job at creating balance as well as realism.

I'm not sure rarity in itself can handle play balance. I'd prefer a set of armored rules. This way there's a choice between rarity only and rules.
Rarity would probably add more realism but if one side can choose an extra T or two to in response to a high cost tiger, I think little difference will be made to the side with the extra T. Particularly if nothing can touch the tiger:crosseye:
I can imagine how ladder games will go if we can select 'untouchables' at will :D

MajorTaktik

09 Oct 02, 22:11

Originally posted by Lurker

I'm not sure rarity in itself can handle play balance. I'd prefer a set of armored rules. This way there's a choice between rarity only and rules.
Rarity would probably add more realism but if one side can choose an extra T or two to in response to a high cost tiger, I think little difference will be made to the side with the extra T. Particularly if nothing can touch the tiger:crosseye:
I can imagine how ladder games will go if we can select 'untouchables' at will :D

I think you have to look at it in the context of the whole battle. For instance, lets take a 2000 point ME. With standard rarity in May 1943, a Tiger I plt costs 1174 points. You can purchase 4 plts(12 T34s) for that cost. If the German player wants to add some support for the Tigers in the form of a MkIVh plt which costs over 700 points, the Russian player can purchase almost three more plts of Ts. Thats 21 Ts against four Tiger Is and 4 MkIVs. Odds wise, it seems pretty historically accurate to me. With optimum terrain, the Tigers could dominate the map and win the day easily, but that would be seldom the case. In all likelyhood, the Tiger Is can't be everywhere on the map and see everything at once. Germans not so fortunate to be in Tiger Is (and there won't be many due to all the points sunk in the Tiger plt) will have to deal with twenty or so T34s. The Tiger Is can't control all important victory locations or exit points (depending on victory conditions). Additionally, the T34s will take a toll on the supporting German forces and the kills achieved by the Tigers won't necessarilly mean victory at the end of the game.

I think rarity will work in most cases. And if the German player only takes Tiger Is all the time when it first is available, then you can flame him and challenge his manhood :) "little girly-man needs Tigers to win, huh?"

LOL

Also consider computer picked forces for a change. This does away with optimized forces as well.

MT

KG_AGCent

09 Oct 02, 22:53

Originally posted by MajorTaktik

I think you have to look at it in the context of the whole battle. For instance, lets take a 2000 point ME. With standard rarity in May 1943, a Tiger I plt costs 1174 points.

The only way to even get close to the ability to purchase a platoon of Tigers in your example is to play Unrestricted or Armor Force Composition.

What about in the Combined Arms setting? This is the source of my heartburn because it was the cause of tremendous balance and fun in CMBO.

At 2000 pts summer 1943. Germans are allowed 480 points and the Soviets 879.

A Platoon of 3 x T-34's (with rarity) costs 271pts. That amounts to just over 3 platoons worth of T-34's (9 tanks). These are Regulars. Not Conscripts or Green troops.

One platoon of 5 x Mk IIIj costs 448 points. One platoon of 3 x StuG III/F8 is 301pts (with rarity). One Tiger costs 287pts (with rarity).

If I play the Tiger card, that leaves me with enough points to buy (1) StuG III/F8 and (1) Marder II. Would you want to take that German armor force against 9 x T-34 with terrain, the odd Soviet AT gun and bazillion AT Rifles hanging about?

I have experimented in depth with the StuG III/F8. It plinks well! Give it a good hull-down position and some juicy targets and it will go to town, 1 hit (not necessarily a kill) out of every 3 shots or so, worse if the target is moving. And, since the StuG only comes with about 18-22 AP shells... Well I think you see where that one is going.

Even surface analysis says that the Germans start, from jumpstreet, on the defensive. Playing the waiting game until you can attrit the Soviet tanks force. IMHO this makes for low replayability.

KG_AGCent, out.

KG_Leopard

10 Oct 02, 16:59

No, I'm currently not preparing any armor rule. The reason is very simple: I have not enough experience yet. The game is on my drive for three weeks now, but I nearly never play vs the AI - the AI is just...the AI. So my experience grows slow.

What I have learned yet: the Soviets ussually outnumber the Axis with tanks, especially with T-34. This is absolutly realistic. But currently it appears to me that the Soviet losses in tanks are ussually much higher. The later PzIV and StGIII/IV have a powerfull 75/L43 or L48 gun, they hit better on longer ranges and they have a higher chance for a deadly hit. Not to speak about big cats and the late tank hunters! (Tank) battles doesn't work the same way like in CMBO anymore.

So I guess I will just keep things going without an extra rule for tanks until I think there is really a disadvantage.

Hey Craig, you own me a turn!!!

arkai88

11 Oct 02, 18:21

Well, each day that I play, I realize more and more that trying to beat Tigers with a T-34 is simply pointless. No matter how many 34's you have, it's simply not enough. They can't hit a Tiger, and when they do - the only chance they have is a gun hit. I've played against the AI many times now just doing quick battles. I take between 6 and 10 T-34's against 2 Tigers on an open field. Have yet to kill 1 Tiger. Then again maybe I just stink.

KG_AGCent

12 Oct 02, 12:16

Originally posted by arkai88
Well, each day that I play, I realize more and more that trying to beat Tigers with a T-34 is simply pointless. No matter how many 34's you have, it's simply not enough. They can't hit a Tiger, and when they do - the only chance they have is a gun hit. I've played against the AI many times now just doing quick battles. I take between 6 and 10 T-34's against 2 Tigers on an open field. Have yet to kill 1 Tiger. Then again maybe I just stink.

I have cooked more than my fair share of Kitties (Tigers and Panther) with T-34s of all stripes. I have done it with 2 lone tanks and I have also taken 6 of 9 tanks killed to take it out. Hell, I even did it with 1 little OT-34. This is assuming the Combined Arms setting and some terrain on the Quick Battle.

The Tiger is fearsome when on its own ground. It is a plinker. Its weakness is fire and maneuver. You cannot puncture the frontal plates so you gotta do it another way.

AG, out.

arkai88

14 Oct 02, 20:20

I would love to see a movie of someone killing Tigers with T-34's. I have tried against the AI dozens of times now with at least 3-1 odds. Even if I do get my tanks into good position, most of the time the crews throw the tank in reverse and never even try to fire. I had a platoon come upon the flank of a lone tiger(who was engaged at the time), two immediately backed down the crest of the hill, the other got off 1 shot before he was decimated.
I'm just not seeing it happen, even against the AI, with terrain favoring the T-34's.

MajorTaktik

15 Oct 02, 17:44

Originally posted by arkai88
I would love to see a movie of someone killing Tigers with T-34's. I have tried against the AI dozens of times now with at least 3-1 odds. Even if I do get my tanks into good position, most of the time the crews throw the tank in reverse and never even try to fire. I had a platoon come upon the flank of a lone tiger(who was engaged at the time), two immediately backed down the crest of the hill, the other got off 1 shot before he was decimated.
I'm just not seeing it happen, even against the AI, with terrain favoring the T-34's.

Here, here! I second the motion! Please provide a movie of this most excellent feat! Killing Tigers with T34s? My, my. I would be duly impressed :) ;) ;) ;)

arkai88

15 Oct 02, 18:55

I just wanted to clarify my previous reply. I am not trying to imply that it can't be done simply because I can't do it. I am honestly just trying to see how others are accomplishing this, past the point of you need to get in behind them.

arkai88

25 Oct 02, 12:44

Just as a follow-up, I've done numerous tests involving russian armor recently. Russian armor consistently throws the tank into reverse and tries to disengage. At first I thought, 'If I was in a T-34 and come head onto a Tiger, I would back the hell outta there too'.
But it's not just T-34's coming across Tigers. I had the same thing happen with veteran IS-2 crews that came upon a platoon of Pz-IV's. I had one heck of a time getting them to engage.
I have ahd games where this has not occured as well, where my tanks seem to engage just fine, at this point I'm totally confused. Has anyone else run into this?

KG_Leopard

25 Oct 02, 12:48

I have the same impression. Soviet tanks usually try to reverse when they face Krupp steel.

KG_Leopard

27 Oct 02, 18:10

Haha - just seen today, two T-34 far away on a hill retreat when they get fire from one of my Flak HTs...mh, does not sound right to me.

KG_Leopard

29 Oct 02, 13:39

:D

Yep, I made it. I killed a TigerI frontal

I needed three regular T-34/85 in hull down position and at least 8 - 10 hits. Several partial penetrations (not a single full penetration). After the fourth or so, the Tiger stopped to fire (he killed one T-34 til then), I assume the crew was shocked or already decided to bail out. My surviving T-34 continued to fire on the cat until the crew left the tank (one of the hits damaged the gun, too).

Distance was ~400m.