AC: any reason to take anything but Churchills?

[KenPortner]

These are very tough, especially when they have experience. It seems to me that their great defense against enemy armor offsets their offensive disadvantage compared to the Firefly for example?

And is there any reason to take any US tanks, other than historical reasons?

[ThvN]

Churchills are very overpowered, unfortunately. I tried some historical units, but because they are often easily damaged I rarely get them experienced and overstrenghted enough to be effective. The Firefly is also very good, but more fragile (but still better than the US Shermans, a very strange situation). I usually have one or two to take out suppressed heavy armor, but they need backup.

I think there are several issues that conspire to cause this situation. First of, the Churchill: it is available far too early, it has move = 4 (they were actually very slow, but with very good performance in difficult terrain). Its toughness means it can survive, so it will gain experience and be effective without constant reinforcement costs.

The US equipment gets introduced quite late in the full AC campaign, and they have a hard time gaining experience. Some Sherman variants are very good, but only available quite late. But the US also has one very overpowered unit, the 155mm GMC (self-propelled 155mm artillery), which is way too good in my opinion.

So, I'm guessing a lot of player will end up with a sizeable force of Churchills, 155mm GMC's and Mosquitos, which I find a little boring. But it's all very moddable, so I'm not too worried about it.

If you want a more historical 'look' to the battlefield later in the war, get some 105mm (artillery) Shermans. They are switchable, very useful and this way you can still have a few Shermans in your core.

[timek28]

If there was no Churchillils I seriously don't know how one would survive onslaughts of German armor. On the other hand having all Churchill tanks is highly unrealistic from historical viewpoint, but only rational choice in order to save prestige. All other tanks get pummeled by German hardware so one must ask how did allies win ground war at all? Churchills on the other hand are mediocre in attack, but form a steel wall of protection for artillery and infantry which is enough.

US army receives some neat tanks close to the end of the war (as well as British army). Comet and Pershing are tanks that are pretty good, but they also have to choose their targets as they are not going to have a pleasant time with TIgers. They can manage PzIVs or maybe even Panthers. Also M4A3W76 (E2) (if I am correct) is a good tank due to it's better armor. The main problem of US tanks is them low GD which makes them unusable against German thick armor. The 76mm gun itself is not bad.

When I played I used all Churchills for British side, and had couple of M4A3W76s on US side (later upgraded them to E2 variant). And only at that moment did they became somewhat usable. Pershing on the other hand comes too late (last 2-3 missions). Fireflies are nice but too fragile due to bad armor.

There is also one hidden tank that is IMO only one that is on par with best German armor, but it is awarded to player and it cannot be bought...

The bottom line is, allies should bomb (from air and artillery) the hell out of German armor and don't try anything fancy in terms of tank offense.

[Razz1]

It's not strange the Firefly is better.
The 17lbr gun was more powerful than a US 76mm gun.

I play with a balance core. Just upgrade to the better USA tanks when availble.
Air power and Artillery is key.

The reason why AG is off is....

Due to the fact the player should have more Shermans as auxiliary units. Allies won the war by numbers. AKA mass attacks.

Shermans should be perishable.

[macattack]

If there was no Churchillils I seriously don't know how one would survive onslaughts of German armor. On the other hand having all Churchill tanks is highly unrealistic from historical viewpoint, but only rational choice in order to save prestige. All other tanks get pummeled by German hardware so one must ask how did allies win ground war at all?

The answer was learned in Africa... Numbers. It does very little good to have 100 top of the line tanks if you are facing almost 400 decent tanks. The U.S. and British learned the lesson in Egypt and the Russians followed suit.

The Germans always went for a bigger and bigger tank which was a waste of resources and not very fast. They should have designed a T-34 to support it.

[soldier]

I agree with many comments here. Being able to run rings around your opponent is a very good reason in real life but this is not represented well in the game. The best tanks in Panzer Corps are always the ones that can engage in long ranged slogging matches and survive direct hits. The Churchill like all heavies in the game excel at this and get huge GD ratings so their the best choice. The many shortcomings and failings of the slow WW2 behemoths are not so well represented. Some are strategic in nature and beyond the scope of the game.

Successful tanks have to combine mobility, firepower and protection no matter what the job their being designed for and although there's always a certain trade off between these attributes, they are not negotiable. Too much of one element (in this case protection) compromises the other two and effects the vehicle as a whole. In Panzer Corps firepower and protection override maneuverabilty and mobility which is only represented as a tanks movement range. A problem if you want get to somewhere fast but not something that's really required in a firefight so long as your bigger and heavier than your opponent.

I think there are several issues that conspire to cause this situation. First of, the Churchill: it is available far too early, it has move = 4 (they were actually very slow, but with very good performance in difficult terrain). Its toughness means it can survive, so it will gain experience and be effective without constant reinforcement costs.

I actually modded the later Churchill models to movement of 3. I think its fairer but it means they cannot enter bocage hexes. I gave elephant and KV 2 the same speed.

[Tarrak]

These are very tough, especially when they have experience. It seems to me that their great defense against enemy armor offsets their offensive disadvantage compared to the Firefly for example?

And is there any reason to take any US tanks, other than historical reasons?

This is of course my personal opinion only:

1) early aka pre D-Day time: NO
2) after D-Day it is worth to mix a few tanks in that packs more firepower to let them go after wounded/suppressed enemy tanks but the majority of the tanks in my core remained Churchills.

I personally think that the mobility of a tank should play a certain role in its defensive values. The armor thickness is one thing but hitting a fast moving target is a lot harder then hitting a slow one. If that would be factored into the defense values it would make the lighter tanks a lot tougher and hopefully they could compete with the Churchills.

[ThvN]

To add some more thoughts, I try to include the size and mobility of the vehicle when adjusting GD and INI. A smaller target is harder to hit, and it will be more difficult to spot, so will be more survivable compared to a larger vehicle that has the same armor protection. To account for a vehicles' mobility is more difficult for me, as it is also determined by manoeuvrability, not just speed. Actually, in combat acceleration is very important, and some tanks were very slow to turn, making them more vulnerable at shorter ranges.

And to explain my comment about the strange Firefly, the GD of the Firefly is 16, while the regular Shermans have 11 or 13, only the E2 'Jumbo' has 20. So not only has it got a better attack (like Razz said, because of the 17-pdr) , but more defense as well (CD is lower, though). So I think this situation is a bit unbalanced as well. But the US 155mm GMC is also way too good (10 ammo!), so I'm afraid most people will end up with similar cores.

The PzC system is in favour of quality, not quantity. During the beta, several systems were tried to simulate a numerical advantage. There was the possibility to overstrength units regardless of their experience, but this made the game very easy (it's now back as a hidden option in 1.21 beta). And there were scenarios that had evacuation hexes on the map so you could rotate out damaged units and redeploy a fresh one from the reserves. But this caused some trouble with victory conditions under specific circumstances, so most were removed. I really liked it and for me it captured the feeling of committing reserves to relieve battered formations.

[soldier]

To account for a vehicles' mobility is more difficult for me, as it is also determined by manoeuvrability, not just speed. Actually, in combat acceleration is very important, and some tanks were very slow to turn, making them more vulnerable at shorter ranges.

Its a pretty safe bet to say who the worst offenders were in terms of maneuverability. One still holds what the others may have held at one time or another, the world record for heaviest AFV during WW2 (with the only probable exception being the Churchill). The key recalcitrants are Jagdtiger, Elephant, KV 2 and Churchill V II. 4 tanks who could never share the stage and are in serious need of a diet. All have appalling power to weight ratios with dismal top speeds as a result (especially off road) and most were (to varying degree's) prone to mechanical problems. Even the massive King tiger with its unquenchable thirst for fuel beats this lot across the finish line but its a pretty close call with its stable mate JT.
While they are mostly unbeatable (almost indestructible) in terms of armoured combat and dictate the battle in PzC, they are all still vulnerable in fast moving fluid situations, when a front line can move past them faster than there own capacity to make it back. In these situations they are as good as dead and (as was often the case with the jagdtiger especially) end up abandoned and destroyed by their own crews to prevent capture... A humiliating end.

[Longasc]

Churchills are definitely the tank of choice for Allied Corps. Later on, around D-Day, the Churchill Crocodile keeps them viable as anti-infantry tank. They can still fight all but the heaviest German tanks well. Some will get upgraded to Fireflies, which have great anti-tank power, but still take damage and have low close defense. It takes a while till the M26 and Comet replace them, at this point though I didn't even bother replacing all of them.

There is no scenario that punishes slow tank speed, not even Arnhem. The default campaign punishes slow speed in some US scenarios. The thing is, speed 4 is still good enough and better than speed 6 and being a Panther G - I had more success with the Tiger II than the Panther G. Speed 3 is extremely punishing and rendering units basically a defense unit.
-> Maybe Churchills would work better with speed 3? The late Churchill model has speed 3. But speed 3 is also decidedly not fun to play, but well. Dunno, just a thought.

The thing is, if you do NOT take Churchills, your other tank choices make things way more difficult for you.

Panzer Corps favors quality over quantity a lot. Maybe a future "Panzer Corps II" will have a resource system that limits us getting only the very best units as replacements over and over. Even highest Prestige cost for the best units is often not enough to balance their advantages.

Another oddity:
Spitfires. Never had one. Hurricanes worked very well for a long time and then Typhoons, P-47 Thunderbolt and... from D-Day on the jet fighter Meteor surpassed them. This really bothers me somehow! Especially the Meteor being available. I would really have preferred this one to be a special unit, like the "Tortoise" tank players get in the Ruhr scenario.

[soldier]

There is no scenario that punishes slow tank speed, not even Arnhem. The default campaign punishes slow speed in some US scenarios. The thing is, speed 4 is still good enough and better than speed 6 and being a Panther G - I had more success with the Tiger II than the Panther G. Speed 3 is extremely punishing and rendering units basically a defense unit.

Ironically that's the final indictment of the super heavy block tanks, they were better off on the defense. Poor operational range and low speeds made them unsuitable for offensive operations where they might breakdown far from home.

Speed 3 is pretty awful but we've been spoilt in Panzer Corps with fatties that can run a marathon. I slowed down elephant (and KV 2) for my DLC campaign and dropped an ammo (making it a Panzer General clone) otherwise it just seemed far too versatile. You can make them work in offensives but its not ideal and you have to constantly whip them on. It was however very useful for guarding against tank attack as "Super Block" but in the end i only bought one and not through some self imposed limit setting (later on he upgraded to Jagdtiger which i kept at 4 but only just).

Problem is when i tried the same thing for the Churchill V II (which was even slower) I found it couldn't enter some terrain types, the game was designed so that tanks drive around at speed. It takes that mobility compromise, the achilles heel inherent in heavy tank design and removes it from the equation.

[soldier]

I havn't played allied corps yet but its interesting you had no spitfires, I would have thought them a pretty essential unit. Didn't know anything about the meteor during WW2 so had a bit of read on google. Apparently they were around in late 44 but forbidden to fly over Germany in case they were bought down and captured. Perhaps a little strange when you consider what the luftwaffe was up to at the time

[LandMarine47]

Well I doubt the Lutwaffe would have wanted any in 1944 as they were making their Jet Fighters. A head to head fight the the Spitfire would have been shot out of the sky pretty easily. Assuming the Jet doesn't explode....

[Shrike]

What I don't understand is that both AC campaign endings happen even before the better US tanks become available. No M26 or that successor to the M4A3E2. Same goes for fighters: no P-47N.

[robman]

What I don't understand is that both AC campaign endings happen even before the better US tanks become available. No M26 or that successor to the M4A3E2. Same goes for fighters: no P-47N.

Those become available if you take the Bulge path after Arnhem.

[Anfield]

Is there any reason not to take all Churchills, nope. But can you win without loading up on them, sure. Playing as the Brits I never take more than 2 and as the Yanks with a small brit force I only have 1 in that group. I think where players struggle, and I did to at first, was having to learn you cant fight as the allies as you did when you commanded a german force. The Germans were simple, great tanks. The Allies, crap tanks! So your tactics have to change to fit that. Airpower, Artillery and Infantry I find are key, not to forget the M10 is a great unit too. If your airpower can get hits on german armor 1-2 turns before they attack, and if you are scouting right with your air you should be able too, by the time they attack youll have inflicted good hits. And the terrain in europe is perfect for infantry to take out German Armor. I would guess my infantry kill close to 50% of the german tanks I face.

So do you need lots of churchills to win, not at all. I find high level bombers taking the german tanks ammo and fuel way down, make them perfect targets for artillery and infantry to take out in one attack. The churchills are maybe to good, as some have said, I think they should move at only a 3 as well.

[Shrike]

Those become available if you take the Bulge path after Arnhem.

Are you sure about that? I followed through two endings: one where you get to fight the Russians and another and didn't see any of these units available. Is there a 3rd ending I missed?

[ThvN]

robman is right, if you play through Market-Garden and have a Triumph, the campaign splits. You can choose between V-rocket sites or Battle of the Bulge (the historical path). After Battle of the Bulge comes Crossing the Rhine and Advance to Elbe, these last two scenarios have your missing equipment available.

If you choose V-rocket sites, you'll take a path (Berlin west, Allied disputes) that ends the war earlier, so these late units do not show up. This last path is the one where you fight the Soviets. You can check the campaign path with the game's library, if you're not sure.

[captainjack]

Thanks ThvN - I was wondering why I hadn't seen any of the advanced tanks when I last played.

I think the earlier comment on tactics for dealing with heavier tanks with lots aof air and artillery is sound, and though I end up with all Churchills I also rely on experienced air power and a sacrificial unit to use up the last remaining shot before pummeling the disarmed heavies (great in theory, harder in practice). Under 1.20 the prestige bonus for surrender makes Level bombers and a few semi-disposable faster units for surrounding better enemy units more attractive in theory, although I don't think that the vulnerability of inexperienced light units makes it viable for most of the AC scenarios. A smaller core and more numerous auxiliaries as the incentive from the prestige and a reasonable supply of cannon fodder would encourage more massed attacks.

In principle, you could use weaker units because you can afford to keep using cheaper Elite replacements (which you can't afford with a Churchill), but the suppresed replacements in 1.20 make frequent in-game replacement much less desirable. Strange that one of the cures for too many high powered units may be discouraging the use of weaker, cheaper units!

You might be able to encourage people to use the less attractive units by awarding special hero units or bonus units that can't be upgraded (in one of the Cassino West scenarios where there is a 109K that can't be upgraded without the all eqp cheat). If prestige is tight or upgrading out of path is expensive, you might stick with what you have for longer and find a way to use speed and cunning to your advantage. Finding a use for Italian tanks in AK is a challenge but can be done.

Incidentally, while playing 42/43 West recently I noticed that the light M5 tank has CD 5. This is one of the best CD for any tank (apart from the flame tanks and probably Tiger 2). I've noticed that quite a few other allied tanks have relatively high CD (I keep the Cruiser 1 rather than upgrade to Cruiser 4 because it has CD3, which is handy for a lot of early scenarios with fortifications and cities. Also in AK the Lee's CD and reasonable SA come in handy for finishing off entrenched infantry. Apart from the Cruiser 1's machine gun turrets - which might also hjustify raising the CD for the very early Churchills - I don't understand the historic justification for this and would be interested to hear about it.

[wastel]

If you mention the M5 Stuart CD value..there are quite some strange values of units in PC.
Just playing through the GC44W campaign and was surprised that e.g. a FW190G has better ground attack values than a 190F.
Or the "overall" to good Me410 in ground combat..in my eyes. Or the Churchill tank...
But i think this was shure all discussed during beta.

wastel