Slitherine

jaggy wrote:

Fimconte wrote:Short Answer: I disband or upgrade all my tanks to PzIV's in the Low Countries.

I would like to do that too but unfortunately for the S.E. Panzer IIIFs' that I have, though the Upgrade button is available, there is no other panzer model to upgrade to. I like your idea of upgrading Towed Arty to Wurfrahmen only after they get Range+1.

To be honest i would not to that. PzIV performs quite poor vs enemy armor until the G version and they do not become available before quite deep into the Barbarossa campaign. The F/2 version finally get proper attack values but it suffers from a lot worse defense again.

Even if the defense values seems to speak pro PzIV, at least since the E version, in praxis the PzIII seems to perform a lot better because of their higher initiative and hard attack. I personally tend to keep a mix of PzIII and PZIV and use them vs the proper targets. Especially vs the russian T34 my PzIV tend to be eaten alive while the PzIII, if they are experienced enough, can hold their ground. The situation changes with the arrival of the PzIVG but it's quite late in the game and you can always decide then, depending on your prestige available, if you want to upgrade your PzIII to PzIVG or just wait a bit and then go for the Panthers or Tigers anyway.

Thanks, Tarrak. Stats-wise, the Panzer IV seems to be the better tank especially in Soft Attack. But I think a mixed force of Panzer IIIFs' & Panzer IVDs, as you suggested will give a better balance. This FM level is a real killer. If Norway is a prelude, I can just imagine what the Low Countries will be like! I really want to make sure I get the force composition right, I don't want to have to start the scenario again if the units I have can't do the job. Appreciate the advice.

jaggy wrote:Thanks, Tarrak. Stats-wise, the Panzer IV seems to be the better tank especially in Soft Attack. But I think a mixed force of Panzer IIIFs' & Panzer IVDs, as you suggested will give a better balance. This FM level is a real killer. If Norway is a prelude, I can just imagine what the Low Countries will be like! I really want to make sure I get the force composition right, I don't want to have to start the scenario again if the units I have can't do the job. Appreciate the advice.

I find a mix of Pz IIIs and PzIVs work best for me too

Tarrak wrote: Either i make some mistakes in the calculations, which is well possible as i just did them on the fly, or something seems to be wrong. Even if i am off and you can gain a bit more prestige so your setup is actually affordable at all it still requite a nearly perfect execution.

Disbanding my entire core, I am at 4721 prestige.
One of the PzIIIF's is a SE unit from Poland (+280).
And it's 4 Pioneers, not 5, all in trucks (+243), since I had to disband one to be able to afford the second Ju88.

As for perfect execution, I didn't reinforce any units in scenario at Poland (you don't need to unless you're very unlucky) and only used elite reinforcements on units that would fall below the 100 mark with regular reinforcement or units that take low damage in most cases (Artillery, Planes).

Tarrak wrote: Even if the defense values seems to speak pro PzIV, at least since the E version, in praxis the PzIII seems to perform a lot better because of their higher initiative and hard attack. I personally tend to keep a mix of PzIII and PZIV and use them vs the proper targets. Especially vs the russian T34 my PzIV tend to be eaten alive while the PzIII, if they are experienced enough, can hold their ground. The situation changes with the arrival of the PzIVG but it's quite late in the game and you can always decide then, depending on your prestige available, if you want to upgrade your PzIII to PzIVG or just wait a bit and then go for the Panthers or Tigers anyway.

Initiative is a non-issue vs suppressed or mass attacked targets in most cases.

The main issue, as I pointed out earlier, is that PzIII's are only marginally better than PzIV's for one scenario (Sea Lion), but cost you considerable prestige or experienced if you choose to use them.

In Barbarossa, you have access to the IVF and IIIH, of which the IVF is imho superior, as it sports a considerably higher Ground Defence and Soft Attack.
In Moscow 41, you get access to the IIIJ, but it's still weaker in Ground Defence/SA than the IVF.

After that, you receive the IVG which is superior to both the IIIJ/1 and the IIIN.


Is it worth ~280 prestige per tank for that small advantage in a few scenarios, vs only Hard Targets? In my mind, no.

The IV family is superior to the III family.
It may not be seen that way at first, but once the evolution of the families continues, it is quite visible.

Fimconte wrote:Initiative is a non-issue vs suppressed or mass attacked targets in most cases.

This is true but you can not always suppress your targets before you attack. Especially the russian tanks tend to be quite offensive on FM level and often attack your forces. PzIVs perform a lot worse when attacked then the PzIIIs. I know the stats of them both would indicate something else but in praxis it is the case.

Fimconte wrote: The main issue, as I pointed out earlier, is that PzIII's are only marginally better than PzIV's for one scenario (Sea Lion), but cost you considerable prestige or experienced if you choose to use them.

In Barbarossa, you have access to the IVF and IIIH, of which the IVF is imho superior, as it sports a considerably higher Ground Defence and Soft Attack.
In Moscow 41, you get access to the IIIJ, but it's still weaker in Ground Defence/SA than the IVF.

After that, you receive the IVG which is superior to both the IIIJ/1 and the IIIN.

I disagree with you here. PzIIIs are not only marginally better for one scenario.

Until the PzIVG arrive the PzIIIs simply perform better vs enemy armor then PzIVs. PzIVD just plain sucks vs hard targets due to it's low HA and ground defense values. PzIVE model impoves the defenses up to pair with the corresponding PzIII but still suffer from 1 less initiative and two less hard attack. At the same time the only real gain are 3 more soft attack. The PzIV is only stronger then the PzIII vs enemy towed artillery and infantry in open field. As second is almost never actually in open field i see a lot more use for PzIII.

Comparing the PzIVF to the corresponding PzIIIJ you actually gain 2 more ground defense but still suffer the problem of 1 less initiative and 2 less HA. The gap in performance on paper at least seems to be really slim here yet in praxis i noticed vs armor the PzIII performs a lot better. The HA from PzIV simply seems to low to cause any significant damage.

PzIVF/2 now finally sports some proper main gun. Compared to the PzIIIJ/1 it got now same initiative and even two more HA. But now it got one less ground defense. From here i tend to say the PzIV got a tiny edge over the PzIII vs armor but its really tiny one. Against soft targets the PzIV remains a lot stronger so overall it's the better fighting vehicle now but there is still a distinct lack of soft targets in open field, except the odd towed artillery which tends to be more and more replaced by self propelled versions.

The finally the PzIVG arrives at the front. It is now clearly superior to the PzIIIs but there is a catch. TigerI and Panther D follow soon and outclass PzIV by far. So imho there is effectively only one scenario where PzIV got the edge and thats Stalingrad. Here now it depends on your prestige if you want the immediate power boost and upgrade all your PzIII to PzIVG or rather stick to them for one scenario and upgrade them in Kursk to either Panther or Tiger.

Fimconte wrote: Is it worth ~280 prestige per tank for that small advantage in a few scenarios, vs only Hard Targets? In my mind, no.

I personally think if you keep using a mixture between PzIIIs and PzIVs and use the first vs hard targets and the second vs soft ones you get best of both worlds without actually having to invest more prestige as if you were going for a pure PzIVs force from start on. Going this route you only really suffer any disadvantage in one scenario: Stalingrad but you have the advantage of performing better vs enemy armor in a lot more (counting now the longest path to victory): France, Sea Lion , Barbarossa, Kiev and Moscow 41.

Of course if you think that PzIIIs do not perform better vs armor or maybe only slightly better then PzIVs your plan to go with a pure force of PzIVs is more prestige effective. But as i said even if from the look at the stats the difference isn't huge the actual performance in the game from my experience is something totally different.

So your style of play involve tank vs tank directly, with no preparation?
When I attack the enemy armour with PzIV they are already damaged and suppressed, the lower initiative doesnt bother me.
The higher SA of the PzIV is invaluable.

Tarrak wrote: This is true but you can not always suppress your targets before you attack. Especially the russian tanks tend to be quite offensive on FM level and often attack your forces. PzIVs perform a lot worse when attacked then the PzIIIs. I know the stats of them both would indicate something else but in praxis it is the case.

With enough Strategic Bombers and Artillery, the sky is the limit!

Also, if the Russian tanks (ie. Barbarossa+) are offensive then the considerably higher defensive capabilities of the IVF is a plus in my book.

At least from my experience, I've never felt that my IVF's aren't a match to early soviet armour (T34's),
but it's clear that you've had a different experience.

Tarrak wrote: I disagree with you here. PzIIIs are not only marginally better for one scenario.

Until the PzIVG arrive the PzIIIs simply perform better vs enemy armor then PzIVs. PzIVD just plain sucks vs hard targets due to it's low HA and ground defense values. PzIVE model impoves the defenses up to pair with the corresponding PzIII but still suffer from 1 less initiative and two less hard attack. At the same time the only real gain are 3 more soft attack. The PzIV is only stronger then the PzIII vs enemy towed artillery and infantry in open field. As second is almost never actually in open field i see a lot more use for PzIII.

2 Less HA doesn't make it "plain suck" vs Hard Targets, this is still superior to Infantry alternatives.

IVE is irrelevant, you don't use it in any of the scenarios since the IVF becomes available at the same time.

The soft attack of the PzIV is also useful vs: AA, AT (when suppressed), Infantry in towns (when suppressed).

As for initiative I guess it depends on your playstyle. A Strategic Bomber and Artillery heavy force probably has less problems with this.

Tarrak wrote:
Comparing the PzIVF to the corresponding PzIIIJ you actually gain 2 more ground defense but still suffer the problem of 1 less initiative and 2 less HA. The gap in performance on paper at least seems to be really slim here yet in praxis i noticed vs armor the PzIII performs a lot better. The HA from PzIV simply seems to low to cause any significant damage.

The IIIJ doesn't become available at the same time as the IVF though, IVF comes at Barbarossa, IIIJ at Moscow 41 (IVF has a advantage of 3 SA, 3 GD, 1 AD, at the expense of 2 HA. For me a trade of 2 HA for 3 GD is well worth it).

And I've noticed that PzIVF+ has no problem with their soviet counterparts if properly supported.
As such, this is empirical evidence and only pertains to our personal experiences.

Tarrak wrote: PzIVF/2 now finally sports some proper main gun. Compared to the PzIIIJ/1 it got now same initiative and even two more HA. But now it got one less ground defense. From here i tend to say the PzIV got a tiny edge over the PzIII vs armor but its really tiny one. Against soft targets the PzIV remains a lot stronger so overall it's the better fighting vehicle now but there is still a distinct lack of soft targets in open field, except the odd towed artillery which tends to be more and more replaced by self propelled versions.

IVF/2 is again irrelevant since it becomes available at the same time as the IVG.

Tarrak wrote: The finally the PzIVG arrives at the front. It is now clearly superior to the PzIIIs but there is a catch. TigerI and Panther D follow soon and outclass PzIV by far. So imho there is effectively only one scenario where PzIV got the edge and thats Stalingrad. Here now it depends on your prestige if you want the immediate power boost and upgrade all your PzIII to PzIVG or rather stick to them for one scenario and upgrade them in Kursk to either Panther or Tiger.

Sea Lion 42 as well, and both it and Stalingrad can be quite challenging scenarios.
A cost of 134 prestige for +6 HA, +3 Initiative, +1 GD, +1 AD, I'd say it's a bargain.

Tarrak wrote: I personally think if you keep using a mixture between PzIIIs and PzIVs and use the first vs hard targets and the second vs soft ones you get best of both worlds without actually having to invest more prestige as if you were going for a pure PzIVs force from start on. Going this route you only really suffer any disadvantage in one scenario: Stalingrad but you have the advantage of performing better vs enemy armor in a lot more (counting now the longest path to victory): France, Sea Lion , Barbarossa, Kiev and Moscow 41.

Of course if you think that PzIIIs do not perform better vs armor or maybe only slightly better then PzIVs your plan to go with a pure force of PzIVs is more prestige effective. But as i said even if from the look at the stats the difference isn't huge the actual performance in the game from my experience is something totally different.

Out of those scenarios

Low Countries has:
14 Infantry units, 5 Artillery units, 1 AT units, 3 AA units, all of which are Soft Targets.
There are 5 tanks, out of which only 2 are "dangerous", the Cruiser Mk.I and the Mk.IV.

In France:
15 Infantry, 5 Artillery, 2 AT, 2 AA.
4 Tanks, out of which 1 is "dangerous", the Cruiser Mk.IV.

In Sea Lion 40:
19 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1AT, 3 AA.
3 Tanks, out of which 2 are "dangerous", the Matilda II and the Cruiser Mk.I
There's also a Armored Train.

Barbarossa:
21 Infantry, 4 Artillery, 1 AT, 4 AA.
7(!) Tanks, but only 2 that are of real danger, the T-34/40 and the BT-5.

So as you can see, there's really not a huge market for the HA toting PzIII, at least early in the war.
Also this is perhaps amplified by the fact that the AI does not purchase tanks. It prefers to turtle up it's VP cities with a mix of AT, AA and Infantry, supported by Artillery.

If it would use it's prestige to purchase tanks... then perhaps I would've needed to use the PzIII at some point.


In conclusion, I think we could agree that both of us have had success with our strategies and that looking only at the stats does not paint a clear picture from which you can ascertain which tank is clearly superior, because out on the field, you have other factors to take into account.
Support from Aerial Forces and Artillery for one, Enemy troop composition for another.

impar wrote:So your style of play involve tank vs tank directly, with no preparation?
When I attack the enemy armour with PzIV they are already damaged and suppressed, the lower initiative doesnt bother me.
The higher SA of the PzIV is invaluable.

I try not to attack on my own without preparation but as i mentioned the AI tends to attack my units with it's tanks. I often use my tanks as a spearhead pushing forward and protecting the enemy from penetrating my lines and attacking my soft targets (infantry and artillery on the move in trucks). The tanks doing this job tend then to get attacked. Additionally artillery barrage seems to have nearly no effect on tanks from my experience. You are lucky if you suppress one or two strength points. Bombers are more effective but i tend to not have to many of them ... a streak of bad weather tends to seriously cripple you if you rely to heavily on bombers imho, and the few i have are often needed somewhere else. I almost never use tanks as well to attack infantry unless it is standing in open field, which tends not to happen often. Yes with proper suppression a PzIV can damage an infantry unit in a city or entrenchments without taking to much, or any losses but from my experience infantry tend to do it better and free my tanks to do other jobs.

It seems that we are using different strategies in the game: I tend to follow the Blitzkrieg doctrine: use tanks to push forward, neutralize dangerous/annoying targets like enemy artillery and AA guns and hold counterattacks from enemy armor at bay while a second wave of infantry and artillery cleans out entrenched defensive points. I do not like as well to rely to much on air power due to the danger of multiple days of bad weather slowing my progress to much to be able to win decisively. For my playstyle a mixture of PzIIIs and PzIVs works better. For your approach PzIV only tank force do better job. It is actually nice to see that there are different working strategies in the game and not everyone is forced to do the same ... well at least until the super heavy tanks comes then its Tigers or Panthers all the way

@Fimconte & @Tarrak – This is a very interesting discussion on the merits and demerits of the tank forces employed based on your individual experiences. Its made me look at the tank upgrades in a whole new light, cost efficiency, analysing tank model stats and projecting their usefulness over several scenarios.

Upgrading introduces new elements as to what to upgrade to, whether your planned upgrade might become obsolescent too quickly and making your upgrades as cost-efficient as possible based on your gaming style. Due to reduced prestige at FM level, if you make a mistake in upgrades it will probably burden you not only in the current scenario but the next couple of scenarios until the next upgrade is available, and even then you may not be able to afford it.

For myself, I just found out the SE Panzer IIIFs cannot be upgraded until you complete the Low Countries so I will be using a mixed force of Panzer IIIs and IVs. From this scenario, I hope to figure out which model suits my playing style. I like my Stukas and Bombers but at FM, they are subject to the vagaries of the weather, so its better to depend on your own all-weather Artillery.

There's no harsher weather conditions under FM though.

But I agree a too large air force can be troublesome in weather affected maps (Moscow 41/43, a prime example), but most maps have quite a low chance for bad weather.
I'd suggest at least 3 Strategic Bombers though, they can be very useful for Sea Lion 40.


Ah and you probably know this, but elite replenishments in deployment mode are 50% cheaper.
So whenever possible, do not use in-scenario reinforcements.

Also, in most cases, units under 100/200 experience (at least for tanks/infantry that can take considerable damage early in the war), you can freely use normal reinforcements, since the exp growth isn't hampered too much, as you can see below.

• ExpGrowRate0 100
  ExpGrowRate1 50
  ExpGrowRate2 25
  ExpGrowRate3 12
  ExpGrowRate4 6
  ExpGrowRate5 3

P.S. Another great way to save time is to encircle, suppress and attack a unit. In most cases they will surrender (since they can't fall back).
You can see it in action here: Panzer Corps: Operation Fall Gelb Part 1 of 2

Yes, definitely agree with you on the bombers for Sealion 40. My Kriegsmarine got badly mauled (putting it kindly) in Norway, so its more of the same or even worse for Sealion 40.

Yes, after reading the various posts, I knew about elite reinforcing being cheaper at the deployment phase. But I didn't know about the experience growth rate. There was vague posts about it being OK to normal-reinforce units with 100-200 experience but I never knew why. So thanks for explaining the mechanics on that one.

That's an excellent tip and I'm trying to get into the habit of forcing surrenders. Only managed to use it once in Norway. Kerensky really knows how to force surrenders though. How come the unit that was heavily suppressed in Kerensky's video didn't retreat to the forest hex (at the start). The forest hex was not occupied, it could have retreated there?

jaggy wrote:Yes, definitely agree with you on the bombers for Sealion 40. My Kriegsmarine got badly mauled (putting it kindly) in Norway, so its more of the same or even worse for Sealion 40.

Yes, after reading the various posts, I knew about elite reinforcing being cheaper at the deployment phase. But I didn't know about the experience growth rate. There was vague posts about it being OK to normal-reinforce units with 100-200 experience but I never knew why. So thanks for explaining the mechanics on that one.

That's an excellent tip and I'm trying to get into the habit of forcing surrenders. Only managed to use it once in Norway. Kerensky really knows how to force surrenders though. How come the unit that was heavily suppressed in Kerensky's video didn't retreat to the forest hex (at the start). The forest hex was not occupied, it could have retreated there?

Thick forest...many units types cant go in there including infantry with transports

Horseman wrote:Thick forest...many units types cant go in there including infantry with transports

You are right, Horseman, forgot about Thick Forest.

Actually it was due to "wide" river, no unit (except Bridge Engineers) can enter that.

Whew! I've just finished Greece and I thought it would be a cake-walk! I decided to skip Sealion 40 as I have never done Greece, Crete, Sevastopol, etc so decided to take the scenic route. With a core force of 12 for that scenario, I presumed (wrongly!) that I could waltz down the mainland. Had 3 SE units, so my core force consisted of 15 units: 1 Fallschirmjager, 1 Pioniere, 2 Grenadier, 3 150mm Arty, 2 SE Panzer IIIF, 6 Aircraft (2 Stukas, 2 Ju88s, 2 Bf109s). I didn't use my auxiliary forces well (Italians, Bulgarians) and the entrenched enemy infantry was just slowing down my advance. I also became so absorbed with clearing the enemy from their entrenchments and neglected nearby Strumica, which started out churning out enemy infantry. My Fallschirmjager was getting shot to pieces whenever it attempted to paradrop at Salonika and/or Athens.

Unhappy with my gameplay, I decided to replay it. This time I bit the bullet by buying 2 more Pionieres (for a total of 3), upgrading 3 SE Panzer IIIFs to IIIHs and buying 3 Nebelwerfer 41s. Now more effectively supported by the Nebelwerfers, Stukas and Ju88s, progress was much more rapid. The Italian and Bulgarian infantry, while more brittle, if properly handled are capable of clearing enemy units in their own sector. I don't know whether Fallschirmjager are effective in this scenario but I didn't bother using them this time round as the core slots imposed a premium on selecting the right units.

DV had to be achieved by Turn 12 but I managed to clear only the last objective by Turn 15. Looking back, I take off my hat to all the scenaro designers of this game. I think making maps is not a real problem, its getting the balance of the gameplay right. The map could be too easy, too hard but to get the balance where its challenging for the player and where he gets a feeling of accomplishment, that is the hard part. I also realised that deciding on the units that comprise your core for any given scenario is the really fun part. Where your task force configuration doesn't work (like the Greece scenario for myself), you have to take a long, hard look and start analysing your units again.

Fimconte, Tarrak, et al, any advice on Crete is appreciated. What a map! I think three-quarters of it is water! I was thinking of converting all the Grenadiers to Pionieres. Right now, I have 5 Grenadiers, 3 Pionieres, 2 Fallschirmjager and 1 Gebirgsjager. Finally the Wurfrahmens are available. Wrestling with the idea of converting the Nebelwerfer 41s to Wurfrahmen but the latter has a lot less ammo and more vulnerable to air attack.