Slitherine

What is happening in most games is that the more numerous side gets to make the defender's units waste their APs on meaningless targets. Thus they come in, duck out, come in fire, duck out, etc until the enemy units have fired all of their shots. AT guns and tanks could and DID kill 5 enemy vehicles as they advanced.

In several games over the last few days I have been seeing King Tigers completely miss targets, the enemy makes an artillery attack, suppresses it and the King Tiger ends up being destroyed by a FLANK shot from a Hellcat or something like that. Now I don't know about you but I did not think that any King Tiger was ever knocked out by a 75mm projectile no matter what angle they had on it. The only reason why a King Tiger was ever taken out was by aircraft bombing. No tank ever disabled a King Tiger. There was a contest between a Pershing tank and King Tiger I believe and I forget the outcome.

The reason why King Tigers were knocked out was:

1. Mechanical failure

2. Tread knocked off - crew abandoned tank.

3. Vehicle ran out of fuel.

I have read far and wide on this topic and a King Tiger just didn't get Suppressed this easily. I have seen THREE of them get destroyed in this manner - Suppress them with a SINGLE artillery shot and then get in an unrealistic hit with a 75mm/76mm gun.

What I would LIKE to see happen is a VARIABLE amount of shots that the defender gets so that the attacker doesn't get to just scoot right on past the defender after having drawn the 2nd shot (or is it 3). As shots are often not hitting at all due to fast moving targets this would make the defender stand up better in MP games. As it is now I feel that I will just move my vehicles to the board edge and just wait for the end of the game to come.

My opponents are saying that I EXPOSE my units to fire ... LOL that is a lot of baloney - they are running right up in front of my guns and mine are not even FIRING in some cases. Thus they get away with moving in the open and my units do not. Whether I use Fast Movement or the more careful approach it doesn't matter. There is no way my units EVER get to move out into the open without drawing fire from at least 2-3 units. So why are the Germans not returning fire? Doesn't even have anything to do with them having to turn either.

Another thing - why is a M36 Jackson or Firefly able to come out into the open and fire for effect (as it is moving fast)? I see these vehicles getting kills all of the time. Seems to me if you move fast you are only firing at half effectiveness. So how is a Hellcat able to kill a Panther FROM THE FRONT if it is moving fast which is what happened to me in a game?

I realize that this is supposed to be a FUN little game and not totally recreate history but the "move up, duck back" form of play is really getting old. It is hard to believe that so many vehicles could have actually been able to do this historically and get away with it. At Halfaya Pass the 88s would have made mincemeat of a British tank trying to do that.

However, the Shermans of the 4th Armored Division of Patton's 3rd Army used a tactic that worked - they would fire smoke at the enemy tank thus obscuring its vision and then take it out with a flank shot or just move up for better effectiveness. Now we can do that in some of the custom missions made by our folks but that is the ONLY way I know that a tank could move up and get a total advantage of another tank. If the enemy tank fired and shot it usually hit and destroyed the advancing armor. Bottom line: whoever SAW the target first usually won the fight. This from a statistical study done on armor vs. armor or AT vs. Armored combat on the Western Front WW2.

Hello Warrior,

I agree with all that you say and I myself have complained about "gamey" tactics. Here is a recent game I played in which a dude used the same move and duck gamey tactic to destroy 2 of my tanks. They had not moved in a several turns and were setup really well. He used the gamey move and hide tactic using a house as an obstacle with 3 jeeps. I think he lost one but my tanks missed the small fast moving jeeps. Once my 3 tanks had shot off all of their 3 shots (elite) he moved up head on with his tank next to mine. 1 tank took out 2 of mine. They had not taken any shots on him as all shots were wasted playing with the jeeps. SP is a very gamey dude friendly game. You will find that some players here (most likely the young kids) couldn't give a damn about simulating a battle and or playing fairly. They prefer, rather, to learn all of the tricks or "cheats" and play accordingly. I've actually seen postings on this forum with the heading "Where can I get the game cheats?"

Avoid the gamey players. There are some here that prefer to play fairly or should I say with some degree of realism.

Try my Peiper Campaign. I hate cheating and tricks so if you like send me a PM and I will set up some games with you.

Here is a classic young kid response to this issue: "It is not a cheat because both players can do it"
Cheers!

To hell with Cheats and Tricks!

Well I hope I am not listed among the cheaters but I do use some of the game mechanics as tactical assets when I can.
I would normally chock it up to "War is hell" considering BA is a great game engine for casual simulation but I understand your's guys frustrations if you're trying to have more of a full-on simulation effect.

But I miss my point of posting. I just wanted to mention to Old_Warrior,since he is referencing King Tigers, maybe he is playing my Capture the Fuel Depot scenario that I created. If you are, I just wanted to post to let you know none of the squads.xls properties were manipulated in that scenario and all vehicle rules are as found as default from BA core. So whatever you are seeing should not be an effect of custom codes, if it is my scenario, at least to the best of my knowledge. =)

jcb989 wrote:. So whatever you are seeing should not be an effect of custom codes, if it is my scenario, at least to the best of my knowledge. =)

Of course the stock codes give the M3 Halftrack a higher HE rating than the T30 75mm (when using direct fire) so nothing is perfect.

Guys, you seem to forget that while BA is turn-based action, everything in battle in a turn (that's one move each per player) should happen inside a few minutes. So if I have 10 M10's I will charge 3 three-star Panthers to try to take as many as possible out, as otherwise I don't have a fighting chance against them, fully knowing that only a few of them will survive. If I have additional units to attack with, I will include them as well. Now the Panther tank team can't fire at all the targets at the same time because it only has one gun and the loader and gunner can only do so much damage per timeframe, so what happens is that many M10s get killed, others speed into flanking positions to take better shots and a couple of Panthers die (this is actually a true story from mission #6 from Peiper ).

So, gamey or not, you can't expect the opponent not to try to outmaneuver you when frontal shots aren't possible.

The morale thing is also needed, as otherwise the German tanks would be invincible. Think of it this way, if a tank gets hit with multiple shells (from a combination of AT shots, AT charges, tanks and artillery/mortar let's say) whose to say that they don't bail out, not knowing where the next hit may come from, because they're in a tank, so they have limited view and communication with other tanks. If you will, this is how combat experience is also simulated.

My guys ears are still ringing!!!!

KINGT, you misunderstood what we mean b gameyness. It has nothing to do with using m10 to flank panthers. The example I gave is a dude using a tactic like lining up 3 jeeps behind a house. Pulling them back and forth until the panthers hav exhausted their shots. Then, pulling up beside the panthers for the kill. The strategy involves using the game mech of getting the other player to spend his shots on jeeps, counting the shots and then moving in. There is absolutely no tank tactic in that. I personally drop a game when confronted by a player that plays like a kid.

ERommel wrote:KINGT, you misunderstood what we mean b gameyness. It has nothing to do with using m10 to flank panthers. The example I gave is a dude using a tactic like lining up 3 jeeps behind a house. Pulling them back and forth until the panthers hav exhausted their shots. Then, pulling up beside the panthers for the kill. The strategy involves using the game mech of getting the other player to spend his shots on jeeps, counting the shots and then moving in. There is absolutely no tank tactic in that. I personally drop a game when confronted by a player that plays like a kid.

Ah I see, yes. For some reason big tanks are awfully threatened by jeeps and trucks and feel the need to drop out of cover to take a shot at them. Even infantry that's at quite some distance. The plus here is that you'd get kills/stars, although it doesn't help if you get killed soon after that.

Maybe BA2 should fix this by either a) allowing unlimited shots against such tactics (with only the first shot having a kill chance) b) block movement after the first tank hit, or even simpler c) prevent tank fire at transports that are more than 2-3 tiles away (you wouldn't want transports filled with infantry flank you).

guardsman wrote:My guys ears are still ringing!!!!

Lol I had to try it. I'm pretty sure I don't have enough tanks left to take on any more cats .

Those are some good suggestions for BA2 KINGT. I wonder if anyone has posted about this on the forum or has contacted slitherine...

I like the idea of shots not counting on trucks and jeeps at x squares away. This adds the realism that trucks were simply not used in a combat role to bring infantry next to a tank for an easy kill after the tank has used up its shots. And also for the issue of scouting target as mentioned above. As you also noted the panther will earn a star which would serve as a penalty for bringing your truck up so close to the front.

Whereas I totally agree that it's the height of 'cheese' to use tactics like that (ie, exploiting the auto-fire routines in a ridiculous way), if you deploy in a 'realistic' manner the damage that can be done from those tactics can be minimized.

For example, heavy tanks like that should not be deployed out 'on an island' but supported by lighter AFVs or AT guns and/or infantry teams. This runs the cost up dramatically on the 'bait' units and if properly positioned they can protect the vulnerable areas of the heavies from units closing in on them.

Simply taking heavy tanks and running them forward with little or no support is also fairly 'unrealistic' and would not have been done if it could be prevented in reality. So doing so in the game will cost you (albeit from 'cheese' tactics). Keep 'em supported and they'll be VERY difficult to put down.

As far as a King Tiger's vulnerability on the real battlefield? Well, they weren't immune to attack, that's for sure.

Here are a few quick things I saw in a quick search and the corroborate what I've seen elsewhere in the past:

Despite those impressive characteristics, the Konigstigers faired worse than the Tiger 1’s on the battlefields of Europe, mainly because by the time they were rushed into service, the Allies had already learned many lessons from confronting the Tiger 1’s. On the one hand, Allied armor would almost always respond en-masse to German heavy-tank threats, and on the other hand, new weapons and ammunition were available, many capable to defeat at least some portions of the Tiger 2’s armor. Coupled with the first rule (attacks en-masse), this helped a lot in destroying King Tigers: the concentration of AT rounds on a single tank quickly worn out it’s armor, caused spalling, and almost always found a “weak-spot”, usually in the sides, through which one or more AP rounds would enter the armored hull.

and

The western allies also fielded new APDS, HVAP and HEAT ammunition, which was available for most of the tank guns (British 75mm / US 75mm/ US 76mm/ US 76,2mm/ US 90mm/ British 6-pdr/ British 17-pdr being the most common). All the above shells could perforate at least some portions of the Tiger 2 at ranges of at least 700-800m, and many times 1500-2000m (17 pdr firing APDS for instance).

So expecting them to be immune to even flank shots is overstating their capabilities (I believe they had ~80mm of side armor...well within the penetration of most Allied armor in '44).

IMO the auto-fire routines could be cleaned up a bit more (Steel Panthers: WW2 has a nice but somewhat cumbersome system to allow you to set the minimum amount of armor to shoot it so you could exclude jeeps/trucks/halftracks etc). But the basic system is solid for a lighter 'beer and pretzels'-style wargame.

I have mentioned this on various games I have played with the designers of those games. I find that the jeep is almost indestructible. It survives quite a lot you throw at it. Question why cannot infantry fire effect a jeep?

Basically a jeep is a stripped down car with four wheel drive and a strengthened sub frame. In the context of this game they are fitted with a mg, which usually is fitted on a pintle style mount. This equates to two men. In the main they would be protected from the front by a folding Perspex screen and in inclement weather by canvas. Not a lot really. But in BA they are transformed into squad munching machines. I have targeted them with mortar attacks with no result. Having in the past used mortars I know what a barrage of 3" or 81mm would do to your average car! With regards passengers well a Jiffy bag and a trowel comes to mind. As regards infantry fire lets not go there.

Cheers

I agree with you entirely Guardsman and will look into modding some weakness in the jeep. A direct 81mm motar hit on a jeep would destroy or at least immobilize it.

The softness just needs to imcreased to the level of a SP bofors. Maybe a tad less. I've done it. The other major inconsistancy iin the stock vehicles is the m3 halftrack and it's derived gun and AA platforms. Look at the armor and HE ratings...

I've also disabled the jeep's ability to transport. You know: an infantry squad, a 25 lber. Absurd. Even when you are "bathtubbing" squads to platoon size as I do (works better for the time and map scales) it makes no sense.

Old_Warrior wrote:The only reason why a King Tiger was ever taken out was by aircraft bombing. No tank ever disabled a King Tiger.

Hi Old_Warrior,

look at this:
"The 113th Cavalry Rcn Squadron, operating with Ninth Army´s 83d Infantry Division ….
The 3d Armored Division had had a nasty scrap with King Tiger tanks from an armor training school in the area a few days earlier, and troop B encountered one of the massive panzers that evening. Two M24 light tanks outflanked the Tiger and destroyed it with shots into the thinner side and rear armor."

http://books.google.es/books?id=SOw9Vg1 ... RY&f=false

Greetings...

@Dickehead
How many hours did you spend looking for such a rare occurrence and how much did you drool when you finally found one to post here. Must have made you feel like a man to have one over someone.

The problem with forums and the reason why they have fallen in popularity can be clearly seen here. There are too many trolls and losers getting more enjoyment in finding an attack angle on what someone posts vs initiating content themselves due to a lack of confidence and or in fear that someone will do to them what they enjoy doing to others.

Old-Warrior wrote something that was nothing less but untrue. I posted a link that proved it.
It was not about to make him look stupid or something. It was about to correct an untrue statementa and to show that the king tiger was not invulnerable.
What you make out of it is a joke and the intensity of you reaction is sad and shocking.
I refuse to discuss on that niveau.
Of course it is always possible to apologize

ERommel wrote:@Dickehead
How many hours did you spend looking for such a rare occurrence and how much did you drool when you finally found one to post here. Must have made you feel like a man to have one over someone.

The problem with forums and the reason why they have fallen in popularity can be clearly seen here. There are too many trolls and losers getting more enjoyment in finding an attack angle on what someone posts vs initiating content themselves due to a lack of confidence and or in fear that someone will do to them what they enjoy doing to others.

Personal attacks and obscenity are not acceptable. It is ironic you say that the problem with the forums is attacking posts - you might want to re-read yours. Moderators will deal with any genuinely trolling posts.

Cheers

Pip