I have been using both as early as possible.
The Crocodile has 12 soft attack, 6 close defense and still 9 HA (IIRC). It cannot defeat anything stronger than a Panzer IV, but fight Panzer IV and below due to the high armor and a still relatively potent gun. It is not part of the usual Churchill upgrade path, so you have to pay full price for a conversion.
Are you fine with the stats, what are your experiences? IMO the Crocodiles are coming close to being too good. They can outright kill 10 strength soft units regularly.
For killing hard targets, the Sherman Firefly makes a great companion. The American M4-76 tanks are well balanced, but never good enough against the experienced axis tanks and I lose units using them regularly so far.
My other question is more a question of preference. But checking the stats of available Tactical Bombers I always settle for the Mosquito. The Hurricane IID is nice against armored targets, but will soon get surpassed by later Mosquito versions. The American Tac Bombers cannot compare, or do they somehow bomb better? Statwise they seem slightly inferior and they cannot be used as fighters.
Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
It appears that allot of British units are superior to USA units.
It make the game feel like it is British oriented.
It make the game feel like it is British oriented.
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
The reality was the British created a lot of specialized units that the US saw no need for so this is accurate but if they are too powerful is another question.
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
I like that the Crocodile is a specialist soft attack unit. I keep one for taking out infantry in town hexes where it's close attack of six makes it deadly. Makes you want to mix up your units a bit.
Mosquito's were always the best Allied Tac in AG and in reality were deadly in a variety of missions. I don't think anything else came close to what would now be termed "Multi-role" capability. I think the game stats reflect this nicely. I think you'll find, in the library, that they made a certain head of the Luftwaffe "green and yellow with envy".
I also think the Hurricane Tac bomber should have the highest outright hard attack so you could keep one for specialist tank attacks and not want all Mosquito's, bit like the Stuka G which had the highest HA but was more vulnerable to fighters. You wanted it for it's pure killing power but had to be careful when you used it. I think the drawback of having all one type of unit is that you lose the need to be more strategic with your planning if you have a homogenous force that is equally good all over the map.
I am playing with a US core at present but still have a Firefly and a Mosquito in there.
Mosquito's were always the best Allied Tac in AG and in reality were deadly in a variety of missions. I don't think anything else came close to what would now be termed "Multi-role" capability. I think the game stats reflect this nicely. I think you'll find, in the library, that they made a certain head of the Luftwaffe "green and yellow with envy".
I also think the Hurricane Tac bomber should have the highest outright hard attack so you could keep one for specialist tank attacks and not want all Mosquito's, bit like the Stuka G which had the highest HA but was more vulnerable to fighters. You wanted it for it's pure killing power but had to be careful when you used it. I think the drawback of having all one type of unit is that you lose the need to be more strategic with your planning if you have a homogenous force that is equally good all over the map.
I am playing with a US core at present but still have a Firefly and a Mosquito in there.
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
I think the Crocodile is a bit too good.
The SA is 12, the StuH42 can switch to artillery but its 12 SA get reduced to 10 SA in "tank" mode. The HA of the flameburst is also relatively high 9, it's hard to model that compared to the usual HE/AP distinction we make for tank attack values.
So far the Crocodile hasn't been used extensively in the campaign or scenarios I am aware of. It might be the right time to tone it down before I get too used to it making everything but tanks and planes really easy mode targets.
-> to put it bluntly, I suggest reducing the Crocodile to 10 SA.
(edit: The sound of the flameburst and the animation seem to be off by about 1 second, btw)
The Mosquito is fine! I also like the special HA attack specialist value of the Tac Hurricane.
I would definitely call it "Best in slot" for a Western Ally Tac Bomber, but all those B26, A20 etc. bombers are very very close to it, just like the Liberator, B17 and Lancaster don't have too significant differences and advantages over each other. I find they are portrayed historically fine, and it doesn't hurt the gameplay, no need to make them artificially different.
I like the US Ranger Infantry and the Long Tom/self propelled versions of this legendary gun. The P47 Thunderbolt is also better than the Spitfire (mostly due to range), at least to Mk IX. What is also very good are the British "special" troops, the Bridgelayer is particulary good, used it in Cassino and plan to do so later at the Rhine perhaps. Didn't test the Churchill AVRE yet.
We might want to watch how our core troop composition develops. Let me point out some things that didn't bother me so far as we mostly played the German side.
The British get access to the "Meteor" jet fighter at D-Day already. I dare to say most won't bother to upgrade their Spitfires to Meteors, but I suggest delaying the Meteor to not be immediately available at the start of the D-Day (6 June 1944) scenario, as it is a few days before the official introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor (27 July 1944).
I have never heard, read or whatever about Gloster Meteors being in action in significant numbers during WW2, but they were. I just want to point out this: "After the end of the V-1 threat, and the introduction of the ballistic V-2 rocket, the RAF was forbidden to fly the Meteor on combat missions over German-held territory for fear of an aircraft being shot down and salvaged by the Germans."
-> does the Meteor not sound like a perfect "SE unit only" or special scenario reward fighter? Because it would really rub me the wrong way if an all Meteor fighter core fights from D-Day to the end of the campaign! Maybe it is just me, what do you think about that?
The SA is 12, the StuH42 can switch to artillery but its 12 SA get reduced to 10 SA in "tank" mode. The HA of the flameburst is also relatively high 9, it's hard to model that compared to the usual HE/AP distinction we make for tank attack values.
So far the Crocodile hasn't been used extensively in the campaign or scenarios I am aware of. It might be the right time to tone it down before I get too used to it making everything but tanks and planes really easy mode targets.
-> to put it bluntly, I suggest reducing the Crocodile to 10 SA.
(edit: The sound of the flameburst and the animation seem to be off by about 1 second, btw)
The Mosquito is fine! I also like the special HA attack specialist value of the Tac Hurricane.
I would definitely call it "Best in slot" for a Western Ally Tac Bomber, but all those B26, A20 etc. bombers are very very close to it, just like the Liberator, B17 and Lancaster don't have too significant differences and advantages over each other. I find they are portrayed historically fine, and it doesn't hurt the gameplay, no need to make them artificially different.
I like the US Ranger Infantry and the Long Tom/self propelled versions of this legendary gun. The P47 Thunderbolt is also better than the Spitfire (mostly due to range), at least to Mk IX. What is also very good are the British "special" troops, the Bridgelayer is particulary good, used it in Cassino and plan to do so later at the Rhine perhaps. Didn't test the Churchill AVRE yet.
We might want to watch how our core troop composition develops. Let me point out some things that didn't bother me so far as we mostly played the German side.
The British get access to the "Meteor" jet fighter at D-Day already. I dare to say most won't bother to upgrade their Spitfires to Meteors, but I suggest delaying the Meteor to not be immediately available at the start of the D-Day (6 June 1944) scenario, as it is a few days before the official introduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor (27 July 1944).
I have never heard, read or whatever about Gloster Meteors being in action in significant numbers during WW2, but they were. I just want to point out this: "After the end of the V-1 threat, and the introduction of the ballistic V-2 rocket, the RAF was forbidden to fly the Meteor on combat missions over German-held territory for fear of an aircraft being shot down and salvaged by the Germans."
-> does the Meteor not sound like a perfect "SE unit only" or special scenario reward fighter? Because it would really rub me the wrong way if an all Meteor fighter core fights from D-Day to the end of the campaign! Maybe it is just me, what do you think about that?
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
I agree the Croc is a bit too good perhaps. I think the problem is that in reality, it had to tow a lighty armoured (12mm, only resistant to small arms), 6-ton trailer behind it that stored the fuel. This decreased the mobility in tight spaces a lot, and the trailer was vulnerable to attack and had to be shielded by the tank when approaching enemy positions. Apparently it was judged too vulnerable and clumsy to be used in the thick jungles of the Pacific.
The flamethrower was mounted in the front plate, not in the turret, so it could only be aimed over a limited arc before the tank had to help by turning. And it was powered by 5 seperate compressed gas cylinders that were slid into the trailer and connected by the crew. Apparently the whole system leaked and the crew had to open the valves from the outside shortly before going into action (30 minutes seem to have been common). If it was done too soon or the action was delayed, is would lose pressure and the crew had to exchange the bulky gas cylinders.
But, the tank still had its main armament, a big advantage, and the trailer could be disconnected when in trouble. So, all this will be difficult to model to suit all tastes.
It may be a good idea to reduce move to 3, so it cannot enter Bocage/Swamps anymore, or change the movement type to half-tracked or something. Reduce Ammo and INI a lot and Fuel and GD a little. CD is difficult to judge, I'd have to think about that, but I would lean towards lowering it a bit.
In general:
The UK vs. US advantage depends on what measure you use to judge it with. The biggest problem is that the game rewards certain unit stats (INI, HA) and survivability, regardless of cost, while most US tanks are well-balanced and affordable. This favours the somewhat overpowered Churchill and Firefly. But the US has much better strat bombers and I prefer their fighters and artillery as well. As for the Tac. bombers, British have the advantage here, because theirs can help clear the skies, which is a massive advantage. But if I just needed a small bomber, the US offerings are good value.
Tanks:
Mid-war, US tanks have good SA, are mobile and affordable, very balanced. But the British start overtaking them, although some late-war US units are better. The Firefly has strangely high GD (it's a regular Sherman hull with the hull MG removed), and the 17-pdr and 77mm HV gun are a bit too powerful, esp. when compared to the US 90mm. Churchills are too fast, Valentine should have higher GD.
Recon:
I think the either the M24 Chaffee is too weak, or the British recon units (Daimler, Humber) are too tough.
Artillery:
US units are very good, notably the SP versions. The Sexton is way too good; overall, it should be equal or slightly worse than the M7 Priest.
Figters:
Good point about the early appearance of the Meteor, maybe it would be better a 'gift' unit and only available for purchase much later. I like the US fighters better because they carry a lot of fuel, have good stats and aren't very expensive.
Tac. bombers:
All hail Mosquito, lord of the skies.
The flamethrower was mounted in the front plate, not in the turret, so it could only be aimed over a limited arc before the tank had to help by turning. And it was powered by 5 seperate compressed gas cylinders that were slid into the trailer and connected by the crew. Apparently the whole system leaked and the crew had to open the valves from the outside shortly before going into action (30 minutes seem to have been common). If it was done too soon or the action was delayed, is would lose pressure and the crew had to exchange the bulky gas cylinders.
But, the tank still had its main armament, a big advantage, and the trailer could be disconnected when in trouble. So, all this will be difficult to model to suit all tastes.
It may be a good idea to reduce move to 3, so it cannot enter Bocage/Swamps anymore, or change the movement type to half-tracked or something. Reduce Ammo and INI a lot and Fuel and GD a little. CD is difficult to judge, I'd have to think about that, but I would lean towards lowering it a bit.
In general:
The UK vs. US advantage depends on what measure you use to judge it with. The biggest problem is that the game rewards certain unit stats (INI, HA) and survivability, regardless of cost, while most US tanks are well-balanced and affordable. This favours the somewhat overpowered Churchill and Firefly. But the US has much better strat bombers and I prefer their fighters and artillery as well. As for the Tac. bombers, British have the advantage here, because theirs can help clear the skies, which is a massive advantage. But if I just needed a small bomber, the US offerings are good value.
Tanks:
Mid-war, US tanks have good SA, are mobile and affordable, very balanced. But the British start overtaking them, although some late-war US units are better. The Firefly has strangely high GD (it's a regular Sherman hull with the hull MG removed), and the 17-pdr and 77mm HV gun are a bit too powerful, esp. when compared to the US 90mm. Churchills are too fast, Valentine should have higher GD.
Recon:
I think the either the M24 Chaffee is too weak, or the British recon units (Daimler, Humber) are too tough.
Artillery:
US units are very good, notably the SP versions. The Sexton is way too good; overall, it should be equal or slightly worse than the M7 Priest.
Figters:
Good point about the early appearance of the Meteor, maybe it would be better a 'gift' unit and only available for purchase much later. I like the US fighters better because they carry a lot of fuel, have good stats and aren't very expensive.
Tac. bombers:
All hail Mosquito, lord of the skies.
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
I have been waiting for this discussion so I could see what others thought.
Meteor, was thinking about reducing it's fuel similiar to the effects of ME163B. Why? Because it was forbidden to Fly over German control territory.
If you change the entry date for the Meteor, then watch Monkspiders Normandy map and compare that to mine or someone else's who doesn't have that unit in Normandy. That jet is a gift from heaven on that map.
Firefly - tested this for several months. Way too good. Knocks out Panthers like butter. I reduced the HA by 1 with great results.
On the other hand, I kept the 17lbr AT gun the same value but increased its initiative by 1. Why? Towed AT units are hard to use and keep a slot for them in the game. The extra HA gives them a value to keep them as they are more effective against the heavy tanks.
Crocodile - I like that tank. Need more testing.
AVRE - It appears that it is under powered by 1 SA, however need more testing. Probably expecting too much from that unit for a first impression.
Hurricane IID - That may be a good idea to increase the HA by 1 or lower the Mosquito by 1 HA. I need more evaluation
M24 Chaffee Something is making me think about that unit. My tests over the last few months shows a better fit is to give it more strength. I have 5 I, 4 SA and 12 HA. Also increased the price by 46
Meteor, was thinking about reducing it's fuel similiar to the effects of ME163B. Why? Because it was forbidden to Fly over German control territory.
If you change the entry date for the Meteor, then watch Monkspiders Normandy map and compare that to mine or someone else's who doesn't have that unit in Normandy. That jet is a gift from heaven on that map.
Firefly - tested this for several months. Way too good. Knocks out Panthers like butter. I reduced the HA by 1 with great results.
On the other hand, I kept the 17lbr AT gun the same value but increased its initiative by 1. Why? Towed AT units are hard to use and keep a slot for them in the game. The extra HA gives them a value to keep them as they are more effective against the heavy tanks.
Crocodile - I like that tank. Need more testing.
AVRE - It appears that it is under powered by 1 SA, however need more testing. Probably expecting too much from that unit for a first impression.
Hurricane IID - That may be a good idea to increase the HA by 1 or lower the Mosquito by 1 HA. I need more evaluation
M24 Chaffee Something is making me think about that unit. My tests over the last few months shows a better fit is to give it more strength. I have 5 I, 4 SA and 12 HA. Also increased the price by 46
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
Regarding fuel restrictions on the Meteor, hmm...! Would have to think some more about that. As I said, I really don't want to see dozens of them over Normandy!
I agree about the Firefly. It's a huge jump, from all those crap gun tanks to this one. It's still good with 18. But if it stays at 19 I wouldn't bet upset either.
The point you made about the towed AT is good.
Regarding the M24 Chaffee:
It's more about this unit, it's about the price and performance of almost ALL recon units ingame. The pricing is inconsistent, I don't have the data in my head right now but people brought forward several examples of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Armoured_Car
The Daimler was a very popular and successful design and definitely used for recon. The M24 was a light tank and used in a multitude of roles. Basically, it was good as long as the enemy didn't have tanks to counter it. BUT IT IS A PRETTY TANK, isn't it? I would like it to be my pet tank!
I agree about the Firefly. It's a huge jump, from all those crap gun tanks to this one. It's still good with 18. But if it stays at 19 I wouldn't bet upset either.
The point you made about the towed AT is good.
Regarding the M24 Chaffee:
It's more about this unit, it's about the price and performance of almost ALL recon units ingame. The pricing is inconsistent, I don't have the data in my head right now but people brought forward several examples of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Chaffee vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler_Armoured_Car
The Daimler was a very popular and successful design and definitely used for recon. The M24 was a light tank and used in a multitude of roles. Basically, it was good as long as the enemy didn't have tanks to counter it. BUT IT IS A PRETTY TANK, isn't it? I would like it to be my pet tank!
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
Hi Razz1.
Great comments, here's my input.
Meteor: agree with your logic, but this is still a game and I would like something to take on the Me 262 later, that said it appears way too early. Didn't really use it in Normandy, but awesome for those pesky FW 190's. With the new prestige rules I am concerned one or two Me 262's could take out a lot of points very quickly if not stopped.
Firefly: again I see your point, but please let us have ONE tank that can fight back, I promise not to ever have more than two in my core....
It only knocks out Panthers like butter compared to Shermans and Cromwells!
Crocodile: Nice as it is, thank you. Again should really only have one in core as it is a specialist unit. Not overpowered but very useful in the right place.
AVRE: I have already stated this is a piece of s***, found it very easy to lose to infantry and had no real hitting power. With range one it has to move to front line and then it gets annihilated next turn. I will try it again but I observed this pattern over many conflicts. In PC you could get away with this type of attack, to a point, because Allied armour was weaker, but in this... forget it. You miss, you're history.
Hurricane IID: Definitely make it (just) highest HA of allied Tac bombers so it will remain valid in core as a useful tank destroyer.
M24 Chaffee: very disappointed that this was so ineffective compared to it's AG incarnation. Was a fave of mine back then but is now pretty ordinary. same for M5 Stuart. Needs more HA.
Towed AT: I always find these hard to justify as they have trouble keeping up with an advance and infantry kills them. To my mind they would be small and hard to hit so, when I mod my games, I sometimes give them a range 1 AT attack, in other words a free hit ( they are hard to initially fire back on? ) to make them worthwhile keeping, I am not suggesting being that extreme for the game itself, but I just wanted to show that I need a reason to justify maintaining them. As they are I would always take mobile AT.
So I agree with you in principle on all of these but a couple (Meteor, Firefly) could be left as is to add a bit of not-quite-historically-correct spice.
You're never going to be able to stop people stacking their core with all the most powerful units, but you can at least make some of the other units more desirable so we can play around with them on future campaigns. I'm sorry but I don't mind the game being relatively easy as it plays out of the box because I can always replay it harder, or differently, as I choose. That's the beauty of this game, it has many difficulty levels and it is infinitely modifiable.
Whew! I need a drink after that little rant. Hope you are all still awake.
Great comments, here's my input.
Meteor: agree with your logic, but this is still a game and I would like something to take on the Me 262 later, that said it appears way too early. Didn't really use it in Normandy, but awesome for those pesky FW 190's. With the new prestige rules I am concerned one or two Me 262's could take out a lot of points very quickly if not stopped.
Firefly: again I see your point, but please let us have ONE tank that can fight back, I promise not to ever have more than two in my core....
It only knocks out Panthers like butter compared to Shermans and Cromwells!Crocodile: Nice as it is, thank you. Again should really only have one in core as it is a specialist unit. Not overpowered but very useful in the right place.
AVRE: I have already stated this is a piece of s***, found it very easy to lose to infantry and had no real hitting power. With range one it has to move to front line and then it gets annihilated next turn. I will try it again but I observed this pattern over many conflicts. In PC you could get away with this type of attack, to a point, because Allied armour was weaker, but in this... forget it. You miss, you're history.
Hurricane IID: Definitely make it (just) highest HA of allied Tac bombers so it will remain valid in core as a useful tank destroyer.
M24 Chaffee: very disappointed that this was so ineffective compared to it's AG incarnation. Was a fave of mine back then but is now pretty ordinary. same for M5 Stuart. Needs more HA.
Towed AT: I always find these hard to justify as they have trouble keeping up with an advance and infantry kills them. To my mind they would be small and hard to hit so, when I mod my games, I sometimes give them a range 1 AT attack, in other words a free hit ( they are hard to initially fire back on? ) to make them worthwhile keeping, I am not suggesting being that extreme for the game itself, but I just wanted to show that I need a reason to justify maintaining them. As they are I would always take mobile AT.
So I agree with you in principle on all of these but a couple (Meteor, Firefly) could be left as is to add a bit of not-quite-historically-correct spice.
You're never going to be able to stop people stacking their core with all the most powerful units, but you can at least make some of the other units more desirable so we can play around with them on future campaigns. I'm sorry but I don't mind the game being relatively easy as it plays out of the box because I can always replay it harder, or differently, as I choose. That's the beauty of this game, it has many difficulty levels and it is infinitely modifiable.
Whew! I need a drink after that little rant. Hope you are all still awake.
Re: Of Mosquitos and Crocodiles
Crusader III has higher Hard Attack than a Sherman Mk.1
57mm 6PDR was a good gun, but I'm just surprised at the low Hard Attack (9) for the Sherman Mk.1
57mm 6PDR was a good gun, but I'm just surprised at the low Hard Attack (9) for the Sherman Mk.1