I share this observation.
On top, I prefer to see horses more in the role of towing artillery and stuff.
There may be solution: introducing "Horse" transport. And then create "Infantry" units that mount, travel great distances, dismount, attack the enemy.

Most people think WWII was a war of ...

krugec wrote:Cavalry is fine, just dont engage it with tanks in forests!

Maybe simply "Do not engage Infantry in the forests" and "Do not engage low-initiative units in areas that limit the initiative of your own, high-initiative units"

If someone wonders, thats how the Polish Cavalry looked like (photo taken during the battle near Bzura river):
http://www.mojeopinie.pl/img/zoom4/batt ... a_1939.jpg

Equipped with AT rifles and AT guns, and with a high mobility, it was a force to be reckoned with.

Is that these units are TOO deadly against early war tanks, especially in close terrain. Why? Because they have a hard attack of 1 against the close defense on early war tanks of 2. 1 attack against 2 defense is quite deadly, something like 40% or 50% kill.

Well it occurred to me that cavalry are ...

Motorboats actually managed to sink some ships, even the heavier ones.

On the other side, saying that they were better at sinking submarines is a PzC joke/bug, it seems :) .

U-boots may have been cans, but they were able to dive to 200+ metres (quite nice for a tin can), and were equipped with ...

Me-262 vs P-51 may be not a contest, but if you make it "2 Me-262 vs 500 P-51", then it is clear who shall and will win.
Yes and 500 P-511 will lose against 10000 I-16 but this is not the question here. You need to compare the single unit performance against eachother.
But the USSR did not have ...

A latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2

A late war PZ IV would have to close in to near suicidal range to penetrate IS 2 armour. The IS 2 could destroy it long before then
Here is where we come to long-forgotten class of equipment: AT.

According to a Russian tactical guidelines ...

Kerensky wrote:I have a serious problem with torpedo boats that have two ammunition, but use a graphic of some sort of quick firing 2cm gun as their attack animation.

Maybe it has ammo only in the magazine attached to the gun? Be imaginative

If we talk about tanks ...
Tiger II is overrated and too godly compared to its real performance from WWII :P .
The same about IS tanks.

Not for a reason Panzer III, IV, Stug, T-34, T-34/85, Sherman (in various versions) were the bread & butter in that war.

On a related note, soldier & Some1 is ...

Shrike wrote:Try them against submarines.

Great idea .
Why not use them against bombers?

So true ...almost like reality.

There should be some NKVD units behind those Conscripts, though - to make the heroes from those who started to fled, by some reasons.

And if there is anyone in doubt, those Russian soldiers were made heroes and received medals. USSR style - posthumously.

Remember: this game is much about the fantasy of a power trip; not so much about actual history.
But it is boring when all that you have to do is spamming some "best available" unit. If I would want to do it, I would play some mouse-killer RTS game.

Even chess have only one very best "unit". Half ...

Stugs IIIG took part of Citadel. They were just less photographed by the KP photographers and history only remember the Elephant and it's failure.

Actually, I highly doubt about the myth "Elephant's failure".

When used properly (as a tank killer, given the support it should have), it was a very ...

First step of "fixing" StuGs:
- get their stats to the real power they should have (according to a paper); it has been mentioned by impar and other people that StuGs have lowered HA - why not fix it first?
"But they were without turret" is not an argument, as they are already in a handicapped AT ...

He is disappointed with the balance in the game, apparently. IS-2, King Tiger, SU-100, etc -you have them, or you are dead.

Inferior to Elephant, so I'm not sure why he's complaining about it.

Being inferior to one unit does not mean that the game is balanced .

First question, would it be historically wrong to make these units more viable?

No, it would not. StuGs were bread&butter, workhorse of the Wehrmacht.


Although I agree with their historical role, I wouldn't agree with putting all PzC StuGs in the AT type. The type in PzC is more about how a ...

You can go and and volunteer yourself to correct the articles you find incorrect. ;)
I am already too busy with various non-commercial stuff. Time to think about myself now :P .
Heavy fighter works, no?

Imho it should be called Schnellbomber from the start, and later explained that due to its ...

http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm
Nice link, thanks!

I have never even mentioned Sherman on this site
I just wanted to express opinion shared by many armor enthusiasts. I am happy to see that you do not regard Sherman as a complete junk :) .


I only think T- 34's ground defense of 11 ...

Which sources do you have that contradict what is there?
Imho Wikipedia mostly states opinions and not the pure facts. Everyone can write what he/she wants as long as it is cited somewhere (can by anything, from a good book to a propaganda pamphlet).
The extreme example is that you may be ...

Your Panzer company spots a formation of T-34s advancing quickly. You are intimately familiar with the capabilities of your tank, and you have fought the T-34 before so somewhat you know what it's capabilities too. With the lives of you and your fellow soldiers on the line, what is your reaction ...