3rd Armored Division balance thread

[Zinegata]

Regarding the lack of M10s in the the 3rd Armored deck...

I would argue that having a towed 76mm is superior to an M10 in a deck that is already overflowing with armor options in the first place.

I think a major problem with Wargame is that too many players are looking at the cost from a unit-per-unit basis, as opposed to looking at the cost from the context of its place in an overall deck.

In the case of US 3rd Armored, M10s have distinctly worse value even if they are cheaper because there are so many other potential armored vehicle options - and there are precious few anti-tank slots in 3AD to begin with.

So even if M10s become available, I would almost always pick towed ATGs over them because towed ATGs are superior in many specific situations whereas the M10 would be just as vulnerable in those situations as a 76mm Sherman.

I feel that the Panzer IV also suffers from this to an extent thanks to the overall Division context of the beta (but can't comment for sure because I haven't played them much). It looks like a good tank cost-wise, but most players just buy a Panther outright and use it as a very resilient bunker with long-ranged shooting ability - especially considering that both Allied decks tend to use a lot of armor (3AD) or very heavy ones (Scot AVRE) which tend to do well against medium armor.

 

[IronHat]

I feel that the Panzer IV also suffers from this to an extent thanks to the overall Division context of the beta (but can't comment for sure because I haven't played them much). It looks like a good tank cost-wise, but most players just buy a Panther outright and use it as a very resilient bunker with long-ranged shooting ability - especially considering that both Allied decks tend to use a lot of armor (3AD) or very heavy ones (Scot AVRE) which tend to do well against medium armor.

I doubt it. the p4j is fairly popular as filler for the axis. Even with the lowered accuracy the p4j still kill soft target and suppress reliably. The weaker side armor is trivial for anyone who know how to player.

 

[Zinegata]

I doubt it. the p4j is fairly popular as filler for the axis. Even with the lowered accuracy the p4j still kill soft target and suppress reliably. The weaker side armor is trivial for anyone who know how to player.

My sense is that it will be much less of a filler and more of a mainline tank once 12th SS starts facing opposition other than the Scots or 3AD; much like how the regular Sherman tends to get used a lot more in my 3AD deck against a Luftlande opponent instead of a 12th SS one. Against the latter I almost always buy Jumbos as my first tank because I expect them to be deploying a Panther early on; but against the former extra Shermans are great against all the damn infantry and nothing they deploy for armored support couldn't really be handled by a Sherman 75 in the first place.

 

[Dongs Galore]

I absolutely cannot comprehend why people dismiss the M10 as valuable to 3AD, or why you would take the towed 76 over one.

Yes, the towed AT can hide, but it is more vulnerable and less mobile. It cannot advance with a push or relocate quickly to defend.

As for the 76 Sherman, that's the point - the 76 Sherman is only 1/card at Phase B and so is hugely expensive to take in your deck. M10s would provide an alternative, higher avail SPG 76 which does not eat up tank slots.

 

[Dongs Galore]

I mean for fuck's sake this is a capability they had and were doctrinally reliant upon. Why is giving 3AD a card of Wolverines such a fucking controversy?

Jesus, the British infantry get them, the US Infantry get them, the French Armor get them - every single fucking division has tank destroyers except the one representing the tank force of the army which wrote tank destroyers into their fucking armored doctrine.

 

[Sharkey Ward]

I mean for fuck's sake this is a capability they had and were doctrinally reliant upon. Why is giving 3AD a card of Wolverines such a fucking controversy?

Jesus, the British infantry get them, the US Infantry get them, the French Armor get them - every single fucking division has tank destroyers except the one representing the tank force of the army which wrote tank destroyers into their fucking armored doctrine.

But in the arbitrary point in time Eugen modeled the 3AD they didn't have a TD attachment so the decision is final. By the way the 352nd ID is getting 80% of all Jagdpanthers in the entire ETO despite the fact that 654 Schwere Panzerjäger Abteilung was attached to the 326 ID. :^)

 

[Graphic]

I mean for fuck's sake this is a capability they had and were doctrinally reliant upon. Why is giving 3AD a card of Wolverines such a fucking controversy?

Jesus, the British infantry get them, the US Infantry get them, the French Armor get them - every single fucking division has tank destroyers except the one representing the tank force of the army which wrote tank destroyers into their fucking armored doctrine.

I only ever expressed my personal preferences. It would be great if they have them, I'm just personally not missing them that much. I don't think many other people are saying more than that too.

 

[usnstarkey]

Also strange and silly is that any German tank is the same cost as almost any US tank. Really doesnt make alot of sense for a P4 to cost less than a Sherman. Regardless of their stats. The German armor should be more rare and expensive all round.

 

[Zinegata]

I absolutely cannot comprehend why people dismiss the M10 as valuable to 3AD, or why you would take the towed 76 over one.

... and what exactly does the M10 offer above the 76mm Sherman aside from minor statistical differences and points cost?

Yes, the towed AT can hide, but it is more vulnerable and less mobile. It cannot advance with a push or relocate quickly to defend.

I don't think you really understand the basic premise of unit utility in this game.

Units have various stats and characteristics, but its effectiveness is a function of those stats and characteristics compared with the terrain. And that the game revolves around the terrain feature known as hedgegrows - which prevent the movement and LOS of vehicle units through them.

And in the case of towed ATGs you're forgetting that they can cross into and out of hedgegrows - the only long-ranged anti-tank weapon that can do so - thus it is a capability of very high utility given the ubiquitous nature of the hedgegrow terrain in this game.

That you think an ATG can't "advance with a push" points to a player relying on linear tactics - meaning you expect your troops and tanks to advance together in a big blob, when the ATG is used on the offensive primarily as an overwatch weapon: Send out your infantry, wait for the enemy to start firing, and then "unmask" your ATG at the now exposed enemy tanks. That you can do this from basically anywhere on the map actually makes them much more capable of ambushes than faster units.

By contrast an M10 can't do this. It has to "peak-a-boo" out of the corner of a building or hedgregrow just like a Sherman.

As for the 76 Sherman, that's the point - the 76 Sherman is only 1/card at Phase B and so is hugely expensive to take in your deck. M10s would provide an alternative, higher avail SPG 76 which does not eat up tank slots.

I generally don't even buy the 76 Sherman in Phase B. Even if it's cheaper it's just not going to be killing German tanks as effectively due to the hedgegrow issues. Indeed, I would note that most of your tank kills in Phase B as 3AD should be when you're on the defensive - and at such short ranges ordinary Shermans and even Stuarts are almost as effective.

Moreover I would really raise an eyebrow over the idea that you want to "save" tank slots by getting M10s in favor of Shermans. You don't get towed ATGs anywhere else. By contrast you will almost certainly not be able to buy all of the Shermans - and even if you do so it's probably not going to win you the game.

I mean for fuck's sake this is a capability they had and were doctrinally reliant upon.

Completely false. US armor may be primarily about exploitation and infantry support, but anti-tank work is a subset of those two tasks. The Tank Destroyers were specifically tailored to counter large-scale armored counter-offensives - meaning tank spams of 100+ German tanks - but by that point in the war it was both contrary to German doctrine and no longer feasible.

Anyone who thinks that a US Armored Division wasn't allowed to engage enemy tank and had to rely on the Tank Destroyers hasn't read the actual Armored Division manual. And in any case it was much less dependent on its Shermans for anti-tank work - that's why it got armored infantry and artillery.

 

[Dongs Galore]

It's just so fucking frustrating that, instead of anything resembling their actual doctrine, the division's meta revolves around the goddamn fucking Jumbo, which the fucking troglodytic wehraboo base will never shut the fuck up about because somebody having one tank they can't instagib is so fucking traumatic.

I want 3AD to be given TDs now, during beta, so that the division can be balanced around a mix of capabilities, rather than constantly at the mercy of Jumbo changes. I want it to have its real doctrine instead of some weird bastard doctrine centered around a time-travelling assault gun.

 

[Sharkey Ward]

... and what exactly does the M10 offer above the 76mm Sherman aside from minor statistical differences and points cost?



I don't think you really understand the basic premise of unit utility in this game.

Units have various stats and characteristics, but its effectiveness is a function of those stats and characteristics compared with the terrain. And that the game revolves around the terrain feature known as hedgegrows - which prevent the movement and LOS of vehicle units through them.

And in the case of towed ATGs you're forgetting that they can cross into and out of hedgegrows - the only long-ranged anti-tank weapon that can do so - thus it is a capability of very high utility given the ubiquitous nature of the hedgegrow terrain in this game.

That you think an ATG can't "advance with a push" points to a player relying on linear tactics - meaning you expect your troops and tanks to advance together in a big blob, when the ATG is used on the offensive primarily as an overwatch weapon: Send out your infantry, wait for the enemy to start firing, and then "unmask" your ATG at the now exposed enemy tanks. That you can do this from basically anywhere on the map actually makes them much more capable of ambushes than faster units.

By contrast an M10 can't do this. It has to "peak-a-boo" out of the corner of a building or hedgregrow just like a Sherman.



I generally don't even buy the 76 Sherman in Phase B. Even if it's cheaper it's just not going to be killing German tanks as effectively due to the hedgegrow issues. Indeed, I would note that most of your tank kills in Phase B as 3AD should be when you're on the defensive - and at such short ranges ordinary Shermans and even Stuarts are almost as effective.

Moreover I would really raise an eyebrow over the idea that you want to "save" tank slots by getting M10s in favor of Shermans. You don't get towed ATGs anywhere else. By contrast you will almost certainly not be able to buy all of the Shermans - and even if you do so it's probably not going to win you the game.



Completely false. US armor may be primarily about exploitation and infantry support, but anti-tank work is a subset of those two tasks. The Tank Destroyers were specifically tailored to counter large-scale armored counter-offensives - meaning tank spams of 100+ German tanks - but by that point in the war it was both contrary to German doctrine and no longer feasible.

Anyone who thinks that a US Armored Division wasn't allowed to engage enemy tank and had to rely on the Tank Destroyers hasn't read the actual Armored Division manual. And in any case it was much less dependent on its Shermans for anti-tank work - that's why it got armored infantry and artillery.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that any good player will instantly kill any spotted AT gun (which is all AT guns after they fire the first shot) with artillery or air support. The M10 would give american decks more 76mm platforms not subject to being completely avoided by the use of an 80 point mortar. I honestly don't remember the last time i had an enemy AT gun kill one of my tanks, it requires such extreme luck to get that first shot kill, since otherwise you can just instantly delete it with air power or artillery, that they're basically not worth using .

 

[Zinegata]

It's just so fucking frustrating that, instead of anything resembling their actual doctrine, the division's meta revolves around the goddamn fucking Jumbo, which the fucking troglodytic wehraboo base will never shut the fuck up about because somebody having one tank they can't instagib is so fucking traumatic.

I want 3AD to be given TDs now, during beta, so that the division can be balanced around a mix of capabilities, rather than constantly at the mercy of Jumbo changes. I want it to have its real doctrine instead of some weird bastard doctrine centered around a time-travelling assault gun.

The issue, which I pointed out in an earlier post, is not about the Jumbo or the M10s. This is all about the terrain and the nature of the battle; and of the basic pricing premise of every Division.

Anyone attacking into a defensive position in a hedgegrow will more often than not get wrecked.

That is again why every deck is ultimately infantry-centric. You need cheap units that can go out and take a few hits, and yet still be able to come back alive for another run.

Tanks in this game are simply not priced in a way that will allow that. Again, as I noted, if you want a tank-centric army instead of an infantry one, you need to have a deck with 50 point Shermans (and more expensive everything else). At that point players would be willing to risk them.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that any good player will instantly kill any spotted AT gun (which is all AT guns after they fire the first shot) with artillery or air support. The M10 would give american decks more 76mm platforms not subject to being completely avoided by the use of an 80 point mortar. I honestly don't remember the last time i had an enemy AT gun kill one of my tanks, it requires such extreme luck to get that first shot kill, since otherwise you can just instantly delete it with air power or artillery, that they're basically not worth using .

The two-star 76mm can in fact get a first shot kill quite often, and in most cases would have a kill by the second shot.

And "instantly delete"? ATG will get those first two shots in even before the air manages to get over it. Mortars also hardly kill ATGs on the first shot unless lucky.

And note in any case that 3AD is itself one of the better artillery Divisions. I use 3AD arty all the time on ATGs too - ones that weren't even moving because the players just left them there - and neither the mortars nor the much more powerful M7s could reliably delete them on the first shot.

 

[Graphic]

Also strange and silly is that any German tank is the same cost as almost any US tank. Really doesnt make alot of sense for a P4 to cost less than a Sherman. Regardless of their stats. The German armor should be more rare and expensive all round.

No, tanks should be priced according to their stats. If a tank should be rare, make the cards smaller.

 

[Sharkey Ward]

T
The two-star 76mm can in fact get a first shot kill quite often, and in most cases would have a kill by the second shot.

And "instantly delete"? ATG will get those first two shots in even before the air manages to get over it. Mortars also hardly kill ATGs on the first shot unless lucky.

And note in any case that 3AD is itself one of the better artillery Divisions. I use 3AD arty all the time on ATGs too - ones that weren't even moving because the players just left them there - and neither the mortars nor the much more powerful M7s could reliably delete them on the first shot.

If by "quite often" you mean 58% of the time then i guess you have a weird definition of quite often, and that's using the 2 star ATG with an extra command unit close to it making it a 3 star, since otherwise its first shot hit probability drops to 41%. And you get the lavish amount of 3 of those elite guns in a 2AD deck, making it so if you lose those guns you have to rely on the marvelous 16% CTH of the base veterancy 76mm gun, which if used with a command unit can be bumped up to a "comfortable" 27%.

By any metric having a 58% chance to hit an enemy tank is not good when the counter to that is a simple mortar round dropped close to you, which will cause severe panic in the ATG further decreasing its chance to hit the enemy tank. And all this is considering you're fighting a bumbling retard that charged your AT guns over an open field with no recon and is completely oblivious of your defensive position, since otherwise a simple smoke barrage in front of the forest will again negate your 76mm gun entirely.

EDIT: And all that hassle and vulnerability will cost you 100 points, when the Germans get a Pak 40 with 1 more AP and nearly 15% more base accuracy for 10 points cheaper.

 

[Dongs Galore]

Oh Jesus Christ save me of course the answer was a theorycrafting lecture about how instead I could just put an AT gun in a damn bush.

The M10 would be cheaper and higher avail than the M4 76. It would give 3AD more tactical options than nudging AT guns up into bushes. (Where did you even get the idea your kills are supposed to be "mainly defensive" in Phase B?) It would permit the division to fight in a more mobile fashion like an armored division ought to.

And I fucking well know what TD doctrine was, thanks. By the time the Army went into France in 1944, FM 18-5 had been revised to permit the forward deployment of the TD battalions to frontline units for local support against enemy armor - like for example if 3AD came into contact with a goddamn Panzerabteilung of Panthers. That was literally the point of having them, and arbitrarily stripping that capability is ridiculous.

 

[usnstarkey]

No, tanks should be priced according to their stats. If a tank should be rare, make the cards smaller.

They should be priced based more on historical availability than stats. Which also why there should be basically no planes in the German decks.

 

[Dongs Galore]

Also since the answer to Panthers and other Cats is supposedly "flank them" I would think the utility of a mobile 76mm gun would be fucking obvious compared to a towed one.

 

[Graphic]

They should be priced based more on historical availability than stats. Which also why there should be basically no planes in the German decks.

Why should they be priced on historical availability when you can precisely and directly limit the number you can bring by setting how many you get per card?

 

[usnstarkey]

Why should they be priced on historical availability when you can precisely and directly limit the number you can bring by setting how many you get per card?

Because the 3AD comes from an army which should be able to consistently field twice as many tanks as its opponent at the very least. Given how hard Panthers are to overcome, it unrealistically complicates things when the opposing force can flood the map with P4's and then sprinkle in the occasional P5 to create a nearly impossible tactical situation.

 

[Graphic]

Because the 3AD comes from an army which should be able to consistently field twice as many tanks as its opponent at the very least. Given how hard Panthers are to overcome, it unrealistically complicates things when the opposing force can flood the map with P4's and then sprinkle in the occasional P5 to create a nearly impossible tactical situation.

For the third time, you can solve this "issue" by making the cards half as small as Sherman cards.

But making it so Germany can't even get worse tanks than Shermans in more than half the quantity is an absolutely terrible proposal from a gameplay perspective. This isn't a milsim.