DLC 44 Grand Campaign East arrives

[El_Condoro]

Yes, it is OT but those myths and perceptions still fuel popular perceptions. That's why, I believe, Saving Private Ryan re-skinned an old T-34 to look like a Tiger at the fictional battle of Ramelle. The 2nd SS was not in the area at the time and the 17th SS Panzergrenadiers, who were on their way, only had assualt guns and no tanks. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story - SPR now has an SS Tiger in it. Much more exciting killing that Tiger than the Marder III, although it was the 20mm that was the real hero/killer for the Germans. Sorry, now back to our regular programming...

[MartyWard]

There were also about 200 Panthers in the southern front of Kursk. They were not attached to the SS corp but it is not inconceivable that they could have been.

[El_Condoro]

That's something PzC doesn't (can't?) replicate, either - 2 days into Kursk and only 40 of the 184 were still operational due to mechanical failure. Wikipedia - Panther

[boredatwork]

It was an obvious myth and war propaganda and I have a feeling that they are still resounding to this day in the common perception of the WWII.

Of course the myth making works both ways:

According to the book, the Soviets lost about 300/350 tanks out of 600/800,

Soviet tank strength is frequently presented as above, as the sum of the tanks involved/killed. Given that "WW2 soviet tank" is virtually synonymous with "T-34" the impression frequently given, whether intentional or not is that the Germans faced ~700 T-34s and killed 300. In reality of course, until late 43 a substantial portion (25-40%) of Soviet tank units was comprised of the very frightening T-60s/T-70s - in that regard the DLCs with loads of junk armor are actually reasonably historically correct.

Even if there were no Tigers taking part in the real battle, I have no problem fielding one or two, because it wouldn't spoil the the general feel of the scenario for me.

I will however happily admit to fielding an ahistoric core with maybe 2 Tigers for when I get to Prohkorovka in the game.

There were also about 200 Panthers in the southern front of Kursk. They were not attached to the SS corp but it is not inconceivable that they could have been

Given that the DLC on the whole jumps around and your core represents what in reality was multiple completely different units (9th Army in one scenario and 2nd SS PzCorps in the next) I think it's safe to say that most role players aren't particularly anal about matching exact composition as long as it falls within reason. Deploying a few more or less of any given unit that was historically present is a non issue - any of the above would be personally acceptable. I usually have a Tiger and 2-3 Panthers at Prokharovkha to complement my 4 PzIVs and 2 PzIIIs. It's things like making divisions full of nothing but heavy tanks, or taking the equivalent of 3 or 4 times the total production of a given vehicle that stretches our suspension of disbelief past the breaking point.

Regardless the point of the discussion is not that other people should be forced to play with similar cores, but rather because we are limited to premade, one size fits all scenarios devoid of any dynamic balancing, the overall level of DLC core quality should, IMO, be tied to a much more predictable resource than the available prestige after 40+ scenarios. Having individual equipment quality balanced out by lower total quantity allows both Role Players and "Only the best" players to enjoy the same premade scenario at approximately the same level of difficulty which is why it is already done in *many* other wargames.

[Zhivago]

Your hockey analogy is already the case--even if a player wants to buy or upgrade to the best equipment possible, he is still restrained by prestige and numbers of units permitted in each scenario. This is the same as a hockey team, or football team. You buy the best players you can afford with the money available to you.

[quote="boredatwork]It is not the case in the DLC which is the point because, as was said repeteadly prestige is NOT a restraint the further you get into the DLC. In 1939/40 you had to be choosy, by 1941 onwards there is no reason you can't afford to fill up entirely on the "best" available.

I don't agree with this statement, but okay....

Again, the only solution is to make a scenario that either forces a default core upon the player comprised of a variety of different weapons of varying strengths, or one that specifically limits the player to using 3 Tigers, or 5 artillery pieces, or 4 fighter planes, etc.

Only solution??

Have you even bothered to read my posts where I repeatedely made a suggestion for a ***Quality*** based core system instead of the current ***Quantity*** system? Such a system would allow you to retain your all King Tiger force if that is what you desire while at the same time making other core force compositions viable alternatives??

I'm not pulling this out of my ass - it's a very common approach to games where the player can build his own force - the only difference between my propasal and those listed below is instead of buying generic units, you're "buying" units from your core to deploy. I'm at a complete loss why some people don't "get it":

Yeah, I read it, but it is clear that you did not read my earlier posts. The quality v. quantity system you propose assumes that there already exists some form of historical context regarding a player's core composition. Why should such limitations be imposed when there is not even a definition on how large or small a player's core is? If the developers of the game clearly explained that a player's core was representative of multiple divisions of units, or was supposed to be a representative slice of the German Army as a whole during WW2, then I could see such a system being implemented as an option for players of Panzer Corps. However, as I have said multiple times in this post, the game gives the player a free hand to build a core that he thinks will accomplish the goal of the game--winning scenarios in as short amount of time possible, with the fewest casualties possible.

Go check out wikipedia and read about German Heavy Tank Battalions, like the 502nd. They were almost totally compromised of Tigers and Panthers and Tiger II's. Maybe the game should be called Heavy Tank Battalion Commander?

That of course assumes you view your core as a Bn sized kampfgruppe - in which case you could indeed make a case for a Tiger heavy force. Personally however to me the scale varies between divisional and army level - Prokorovka for example being the approximate ground over which the 2nd SS Pz Corp fought 5th GTA. By that logic units would approximate battalions or regiments in scale. Certainly a Tiger would be present - you could also make the case that, being particularly favoured you received a second HT Bn. Equiping a full division with Tigers however simply was not practical, given that they took considerably more resources to build.

Again, until the developers provide a definitive definition, the game allows me to assume that I view my core any way that I want to, including that of a Schwere Panzer-Abteilung (Heavy Tank Battalion). I don't see my core as division-sized. Again, you are trying to make your argument with historical context that has not been provided by the developers.

I never thought I would have a debate with someone who wanted to argue for the right to put a weaker force on the field. Why not make the Russians more challenging and still use the best equipment you can afford? Try Manstein if you want more of a challenge.

Because for some people the fun is to be placed in an approximately historical situation (within the limits of the game) and seeing if you can do better. If I use PzIIIs and IVs with 1 Tiger at Kursk and win I can make believe I've fought better than Manstein. If I go all stupid with a 15 Tiger force which Hitler could not have provided no matter how much he liked the commander the result is, for me personally a pointlessly dull steamroll.

[/quote]

Again, the term "historical" without any definied context or metrics. I believe the developers made the game intentionally ambiguous in this area to allow players to have the freedom to build their cores the way they want to--either with a biggest and best approach, or with a thread-bare approach.

[El_Condoro]

"approximately historical" is the quote. Completely historical is impossible, as everyone here agrees.

[Zhivago]

"approximately historical" is the quote. Completely historical is impossible, as everyone here agrees.

Okay, explain what "approximately historical" means? It's just symantics.

[El_Condoro]

More Pz IVs than Tigers or Panthers; more infantry than tanks; more obsolete equipment than the 'latest and greatest' - that sort of thing. Precise historicity is not possible or even desired, but some of us like a closer approximation of history. Heck, one German division in Normandy was using Char-Bs and H-39s when the Allies invaded! I don't think guys want that kind of experience but it shows the range of equipment that the Germans were using. Not trying to mandate anything here - just saying. It's not just semantics, though.

If a closer approximation of historical accuracy is not worth attempting because 100% accuracy is unattainable, it may detract from the historical aspect to the game (as has been argued more articulately by others, already). It's like saying if we can't be perfect why try to be better?

[Kerensky]

I don't think very many, if anyone, uses more infantry than tanks. Be it in the Vanilla game and especially in the DLC where they are specifically designed to be tank friendly.

[Zhivago]

More Pz IVs than Tigers or Panthers; more infantry than tanks; more obsolete equipment than the 'latest and greatest' - that sort of thing. Precise historicity is not possible or even desired, but some of us like a closer approximation of history. Heck, one German division in Normandy was using Char-Bs and H-39s when the Allies invaded! I don't think guys want that kind of experience but it shows the range of equipment that the Germans were using. Not trying to mandate anything here - just saying. It's not just semantics, though.

If a closer approximation of historical accuracy is not worth attempting because 100% accuracy is unattainable, it may detract from the historical aspect to the game (as has been argued more articulately by others, already). It's like saying if we can't be perfect why try to be better?

You're pulling your approximation of history out of your ass. Give me the PRECISE historical context upon which it is based. For example, find out exactly how many German armored units were at Narva, and what their composition was. This is information that might be difficult to find on the internet, but it is out there. Furthermore, show me where Panzer Corps says anywhere in its instruction manual that players should restrict their purchases to use a mix of older equipment instead of all newer equipment. You can't, because the game as it is out of the box is not meant to be played like that. It is up to each player how they build their core. Again, if you want to make a historical core, get out a history book, identify a particular battle, identify the units present, identify the scale of the core (one tank = one tank, 5 tanks, 10 tanks, etc) and then we can talk.

[El_Condoro]

Wow. backs out door...

actually, no.

Are you saying German divisions were made up of more Panthers and Tigers than Pz IVs - on average, not specific kampfgruppen?

Are you saying there were more tanks than infantry in the Heer?

Are you saying the composition of the German army at one battle (Narva) should be the yardstick by which all German army compositions are gauged?

I have been doing plenty of historical research on the composition of the German divisions in Normandy for my mod - don't have time for tangents, thanks.

What was it about my posts that has obviously offended you so much?

[Kerensky]

You're pulling your approximation of history out of your ass. Give me the PRECISE historical context upon which it is based. For example, find out exactly how many German armored units were at Narva, and what their composition was. This is information that might be difficult to find on the internet, but it is out there. Furthermore, show me where Panzer Corps says anywhere in its instruction manual that players should restrict their purchases to use a mix of older equipment instead of all newer equipment. You can't, because the game as it is out of the box is not meant to be played like that. It is up to each player how they build their core. Again, if you want to make a historical core, get out a history book, identify a particular battle, identify the units present, identify the scale of the core (one tank = one tank, 5 tanks, 10 tanks, etc) and then we can talk.

Careful, you start that sort of talk and HBalck will show up. He actually tries to design scenarios with exactly that mindset.
Ultimately because it tries to be SO historical, it ends up... well let's say that it only caters to a very small and specific crowd of our gamer community.

[deducter]

I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this discussion. We all agree on the salient points, but we have two different, apparently incompatible visions of the game. Rather than continue this ad infinitum, let's just agree to disagree.

[Kerensky]

I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this discussion. We all agree on the salient points, but we have two different, apparently incompatible visions of the game. Rather than continue this ad infinitum, let's just agree to disagree.

Awww but I like seeing a thread with title: "DLC 44 Grand Campaign East" turn into a superthread.

[El_Condoro]

I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this discussion. We all agree on the salient points, but we have two different, apparently incompatible visions of the game. Rather than continue this ad infinitum, let's just agree to disagree.

I agree but am perplexed. I had been enjoying the discussion and how civil it had been given the differences. I am trying to determine why my posts caused such a dramatic change in its tone.

[Zhivago]

I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this discussion. We all agree on the salient points, but we have two different, apparently incompatible visions of the game. Rather than continue this ad infinitum, let's just agree to disagree.

I agree but am perplexed. I had been enjoying the discussion and how civil it had been given the differences. I am trying to determine why my posts caused such a dramatic change in its tone.

Go get your shine-box!

[Kerensky]

It's time to....

[El_Condoro]

I'm not sure there's any point in continuing this discussion. We all agree on the salient points, but we have two different, apparently incompatible visions of the game. Rather than continue this ad infinitum, let's just agree to disagree.

I agree but am perplexed. I had been enjoying the discussion and how civil it had been given the differences. I am trying to determine why my posts caused such a dramatic change in its tone.

Go get your shine-box!

Amazing. First contact with you, Zhivago and you quote that to me. Use your words.

[Bonners]

So, last night, Warsaw Uprising, part of the '44 DLC, remember that? Probably my least favourite scenario, but I got the impression it was more to get a bit of prestige back at the easier levels. With all the other scenarios I've had to spend a lot of time poring over the maps trying to work out the best tactics and deployments, Warsaw on first impressions seemed a straightforward attritional slog through the city and the game bore that out. Pay attention to the briefing and have your fighter force and AA ready for the US airforce and things go fairly smoothly I thought. I would complain about the inaccuracy of having so many US forces available that early on in the siege, but then again I think I've already deployed more Tiger IIs than the Germans built

[ivanov]

Soviet tank strength is frequently presented as above, as the sum of the tanks involved/killed. Given that "WW2 soviet tank" is virtually synonymous with "T-34" the impression frequently given, whether intentional or not is that the Germans faced ~700 T-34s and killed 300. In reality of course, until late 43 a substantial portion (25-40%) of Soviet tank units was comprised of the very frightening T-60s/T-70s - in that regard the DLCs with loads of junk armor are actually reasonably historically correct.

According to the 1943 table of organization, the Soviet tank brigades were supposed to be made of three battalions, equipped purely with the T 34s'. The earlier 1942 tank brigades were divided into two types: one was a "regular" ( 44 T 34s' and 21 T 60s' ) and another was "heavy" ( 32 KWs' and 21 T 60s' ). So the tank brigades of 1943 model were standarized in terms of equipment and the light and heavy tanks disappeared from their structure altogether. Of course even during the Kursk battle, there were still some light tanks present on the Soviet side, but it's worth remembering that 40-50% of the elite II SS Panzer Cors tanks were Panzers III...