Overpowered Heavy Tanks

[unmerged(9612)]

Air was over powered in 1.04 and huge stacks of air could wipe everything off the map. This has been fixed, good.

Now its heavy tanks. Nothing (barring other heavies) can stand in the way of heavy tanks with arty brigades;

A stack of 24 the best infantry (I mean inf at 100+ org with all the infantry improvements) with arty/AT/eng brigades together with the best FM in difficult terrain (forest, etc...) + forts just gets their ass kicked with barely a scratch on the tanks paint.

This needs to be fixed

 

[Castun]

Infantry generally gets their ass kicked by armor as it is, even without heavy tanks. It seems infantry always gets heavy losses in any sort of ground conflicts, even if it's only against other infantry.

I've noticed this plenty of times when doing a combined assault with infantry, mech, and armor, the armor always takes the least losses, followed by mech, and a big drop down to infantry. It doesn't seem to matter what the defending forces are comprised of either.

 

[unmerged(18036)]

This is one of the standards of the modern warfare.

Infantry lose against tanks! Heavy tanks, i.e. 'Tiger II', are very strong, with a very strong armor. They were famous, because most of them were capured, are out of fuel and not have been destroyed (!).

The fact, that Inf. lose against tanks was the wish and developing of weapons like 'Panzerfaust' or 'Bazooka'. But, they are not so effective (and numberous) as Hollywood or games (i.e. 'Battlefield 1942') show us. In earlier days of WW2, the tanks are ever better as inf. Only in forts and cities they lose their advantage. Heavy tanks too, but they are so heavy, with so heavy armor, it is near impossible to stop them. Esp. in large numbers.

Tiger II
- 'Armor thickness: turret 80-180mm; hull 80-150mm'. 18cm!
- 68 tons!

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/heer/tank/pzvib/pzvibdata.html

You have to bomb them, then only attack with other tanks. It's simple and works. I know it, because do it so.

 

[unmerged(9612)]

Well, my point is that tanks -however large- should not be able to ride over large well entrenched and well equipped infantry forces that have antitank, engineer and artillery support... Remember the battle of the bulge ? even weak american forces were able to hold off the panzers

 

[unmerged(18579)]

Heavy tanks are only vulnerable to air power. The bazooka could always penetrate the lighter PzKpWs like the recon and infantry transport vehicles.

Battle of the bulge was going well only because a thick fog was covering the battlefield for about two days. When it lifted, the allied air power destroyed most of the armor (most of which were immobilised due to lack of fuel) with rockets and bombs.

The Konig Tiger (Tiger II) had practically impenetrable armor if it went againgst other allied tanks due to the long range of the 8.8cm cannon and thick armor. See www.achtungpanzer.com for nice info and pics.

 

[Exel]

Originally posted by IcerCRO
The Konig Tiger (Tiger II) had practically impenetrable armor if it went againgst other allied tanks due to the long range of the 8.8cm cannon and thick armor.

The poor quality of allied tanks helped a lot in that. Sherman had no chance of penetrating Königstiger (or even Tiger) armor from the front, and usually not from the sides either. However, an M26 Pershing would have been a serious threat to any German tank (Maus excluded).

Heavy tanks should be very effective war machines, as they currently are. The problem is they are too easy to research (you can get Tigers by 1939 with ease) and perhaps too cheap too. The dramatically increased fuel consumption is a major step forward in nerfing those beasts down to realistic levels, but more might be needed.

 

[unmerged(18274)]

Originally posted by Tomar
Well, my point is that tanks -however large- should not be able to ride over large well entrenched and well equipped infantry forces that have antitank, engineer and artillery support... Remember the battle of the bulge ? even weak american forces were able to hold off the panzers

During the 1944 German Ardennes offensive, the German panzers easily overran the American positions initially. The two strongpoints of St. Vith and Bastogne held out only because the Germans were in a hurry. It was vitally important that they achieve their objectives within a relatively short time frame, so those places were bypassed by the Panzer spearheads. They were attacked only by secondary forces, NOT the heavy Panzers leading the assault. As others have said, it was air power and lack of fuel that defeated the Panzers in the Ardennes, not "weak" (I dare you to go to Ft. Bragg and talk about "weak" airborne forces, btw ) American forces.

 

[unmerged(18274)]

Originally posted by Exel
The poor quality of allied tanks helped a lot in that. Sherman had no chance of penetrating Königstiger (or even Tiger) armor from the front, and usually not from the sides either.

<snip>

The problem is they are too easy to research (you can get Tigers by 1939 with ease) and perhaps too cheap too. The dramatically increased fuel consumption is a major step forward in nerfing those beasts down to realistic levels, but more might be needed.

"Hey, the only way I have of keeping a Tiger occupied is to let it shoot holes in me!" --- Donald Sutherland (as Oddball) in "Kelly's Heros".

In regards to your other point, CORE solves that one .. takes forever to develop the techs for top quality tanks. Hopefully Paradox will insitute something similar in 1.06.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

I think several people mentioned it here, but did not take it into the game ...

My understanding is that Tigers/TigerII/Maus used not only a lot of fuel, but had relatively short "legs". Not from fuel, but from maintenance. They broke down a lot [compared to a Sherman as illustrated by Patton several times].

Suggestion: Have heavy tanks lose org faster in movement, especially over any non-clear terrain. That would better simulate reality from that time, and keep them from just marching everywhere.

Tanks .vs. Infantry
Ask any current soldier about it [I have asked several], he'll tell you: you can't stop tanks without tanks and/or air. Even today with modern AT weapons in infantry, nobody seriously considers stopping an armor thrust with only infantry.

I think the armor effect against infantry in HOI is quite accurate.

Just my thoughts ....

 

[GLENN]

Yes, HOI is quite realistic.

Have you tried using armor piercing amunition?

Maybe that's why your only scratching the paint.

 

[Vulture]

Originally posted by Exel
The poor quality of allied tanks helped a lot in that. Sherman had no chance of penetrating Königstiger (or even Tiger) armor from the front, and usually not from the sides either. However, an M26 Pershing would have been a serious threat to any German tank (Maus excluded).

Heavy tanks should be very effective war machines, as they currently are. The problem is they are too easy to research (you can get Tigers by 1939 with ease) and perhaps too cheap too. The dramatically increased fuel consumption is a major step forward in nerfing those beasts down to realistic levels, but more might be needed.

Suggestions? More expensive IC? More prerequisites?

 

[unmerged(14102)]

Vulture:

Sorry, but i like my idea of simply having them lose org faster, especially over rough terrain to simulate their maintenance issues. Face it, up until the modern battle tanks of today [Abrams/Leopard], tanks of greater than 50t just had difficulty in routinely covering more than 300km. Why are the T70/T80's so much smaller?

I'm sure there are statistics around about this: forced marches and how many tanks actuallly finished on their own power. And if what i'm being told from first person discussions is even close to the truth, after only 150km, you started to have a LOT of drop outs.

and for Germany to get heavy tanks by '39 in 1.05b? i haven't been testing under anything but VH/F for a while now. i do know that under VH/F, maybe she can theorectically, but she won't be able to build any. so i don't think that heavies need any further R&D obstacles. Under 1.05b you already have to research 5th level land doctrine to get them, and that is a huge investment. Under VH/F, it is difficult to start fielding Maus tanks until early '43. By then, as IRL, the war is pretty much decided already. Is '43 earlier than historical, yes. Is this a problem? i don't think so. You have to focus on them to the relative exclusion of everything else.

Alternative Suggestions:

1. if we can get subs to interdict the USA lend lease and subsequent convoys the way we would all like, and then beef up lend/lease and convoys this problem goes away. now, you may really want to consider spreading your r&d around to stop that [as historically happened] instead of having the luxury of focusing on tanks. if germany had built no subs in WWII, how long would the war have lasted irrspective of their better tanks?
2. germany, like most counries then [and today] did not have the luxury of being able to focus exclusively on the 'right path'. internal politics prevents. would goering have let you spend all your r&d on tanks and nothing for his luftwaffe? forget it. as IRL what happened was he got money that maybe should have gone to tanks. how about some events/minister effects that forces that? if ministers aren't getting their share of r&d, they get 'cranky' and start fouling things up. give a warning to be sure, and then have them steal ic's [as apparent higher dissent] until the situation is corrected [r&d their techs secretly, and inefficiently].


just my thoughts ...

 

[unmerged(9612)]

Hmmm...
I tried airstrikes with a force of over 100 basic and improved div bombers against a stack of 12 heavy tanks.... almost no effect... One would assume that the divisions would take heavy losses in terms of the logistics, trucks, support equipment etc, even if the tanks themselves are not impacted..

Secondly no tank is invulnerable.. especially in difficult terrain.. infantry will sneak in from he sides and rear and destroy the tanks in close combat or with AT weapons at short range.. Tanks are usually kept out of wooded areas/ cities and the like... In Hoi a level 5 fort is no problem for tanks divs....Check out german losses at kursk, prior to the tank battles germans tanks suffered horrendous losses to well entrenched soviet infantry

I think tanks are expensive enough now... they should be made less powerful in non clear terrain just like bomber effect was reduced

 

[unmerged(14035)]

I tried airstrikes with a force of over 100 basic and improved div bombers against a stack of 12 heavy tanks.... almost no effect

As of 1.05, air strikes no longer do significant damage to a units strength, they mainly lower org. Having tanks with 120 org and high air defence (as well as very high AA) means that the tanks will generally not loose enough org to retreat from battle.

I do agree with you on the fact that tanks are overpowered in one major sense: tank losses are too low. This has been described recently in detail by MathGuy in a thread somewhere, basically tank divisions loose 30% of the tanks per month of combat. In HoI, as long as you have a large enough tank force to make battles short, you will never loose more than 1-2% per battle, when facing infantry. Trying to stop a large tank force with only infantry in this game is generally only possible in mountains. To stop tanks in other terrain, you need to have your own tank force.

Tanks are already the most expensive unit in the game. Increasing the cost of them further would IMHO only lead to players not building any.

 

[unmerged(10750)]

I modded my game to halve the defensive value on all tank models. I agree that it's way too high right now.

EDIT: Oh, and a hard attack/soft attack value for planes would be really nice. Having dive bombers do lots of damage against tanks would give us a reason to build them.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

How about Sturmkoviks? a dedicated armor killer derivative of the db? low air defense, relatively low soft attack, very high hard attack?

 

[unmerged(6537)]

Some Thoughts...All over the place...

Oct 1942 German medium tank production Mark IV's was 100 per month.

Russia in Oct 1942 was producing a mix of T-34's and KV's heavys at 2000 a month
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That month Hitler ordered production increased to 600 per month... Mark IV's

{Germany may have had vehicle assembly line tech but sure as H wasn't using it!}

Russia had two darn fine tank designs and unlike Germany she didn't allow herself to be distracted by new toys. T-34's... she pumped em out like crazy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There also was a war raging in German power circles over tanks verus self propelled guns and much of the tank chassis production went to SPG's instead of the more useful tanks.

The main problem was a hopelessly unorganised production plan.
{blame DR. Fritz Todt} and in fighting between OKH and the SS.

Many firms were offering competing designs and everything was being tested and retested (two versions of Panthers and two versions of Tigers) but nothing was decided and nothing was getting built .

In Feb 1943 the OKH stepped in with an appeal to Hitler and Guderian was appointed to straighten out the mess.

And at the same time Todt died in a plane crash. Speer was appointed as Armaments Minister.

Production for total war still ....really did not really get organized until after Sept 1943.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point...tech wasn't the problem...German had the tech... "people" was the problem and only a EVENT provided the solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I read about people being upset with Allied non historical abilities to build armies in peacetime I ponder that Germany lacked the abiltity after 3 years of war!

Perhaps they should read up on what USA had in the production cue DURING peacetime. Most of her carriers and battleships were building in the peacetime shipyards long prior to Pearl Harbour.
She also had bomber and fighter designs ready to be mass produced and readied her product lines to be able to.

All during peacetime.

{just add water and stir}


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After thought ...people remained the problem - Germany produced 0ver 7,000 planes (5,000 fighters,1100 tac, 1000 jet fighters) in the last two months of the war Jan/Feb.

An over all production increase of 350% over 1944...But had no pilots trained or left to train , nor fuel.

I sumise the production situation on tanks and subs was similar but lack the data sources to verify this. :

 

[Vulture]

I'm reading this thread with rising interest... Might edit some stuff

 

[unmerged(14035)]

To be honest, if tank values were nerfed, or their costs increased further, I doubt many people would bother building them. In the previous MP game (that this thread stems from), my initial tank force for the August 1941 Barbarossa consisted of 36 advanced heavy 100mm (Panther II) with artillery brigade. These tanks cost an equivalent of 300 vanilla infantry divisions, with the research costs of equalling around 100 additional divisions. In other words, the cost is very high (and reasonable) as it is, the main problem is that these tanks are available TOO SOON (see other threads about this problem).

Also, attacking 24 infantry divisions with 12 of the above mentioned tank divs in open terrain means putting around 3000-4000 highly advanced tanks (with incredible artillery support) vs only infantry, and I seriously doubt any infantry force would stand up to that (at least not in the open) without the assistance of tanks. Again, the problem is not that the end-tech tanks are over powered, you just get them too fast.

Suggestions (implementing all of the following is a bit too much, a few is enough):

1) Make the tank techs more dependent on land warfare doctrines (this was added nicely in 1.05, but still not enough). You could let the Germans get the "free tech events" on different dates, such as End of Czechs or some other event.

2) Add more events that would give specific nations some tank techs at certain times. This could be linked to certain events (End of Czechoslovakia could give Germans some tank tech, annexation of Poland as well, maybe fall of Stalingrad etc)

3) Move the heavier tank guns further down in the artillery tree.

4) Increase the research time for the tank prototypes

5) Increase the initial cost/time of all tank models, and add a few more techs that decrease the cost/build time. For example, tanks now start at 180 days (240 with artillery brigade), with the "vehicle production facility" tech giving you -2 IC and -30 days (this tech is cheap and everybody can get it during 1936 anyway, so it doesnt do much currently). Increase initial cost around 10% and add say 50 days production time, and add a few tech similar to the vehicle facility (that do the same thing, say -1 IC -10/-20 days). These techs could be placed in both the tank tree or the industry tree (or only in the industry tree, but have the better ones require some high-level tank theory and/or land warfare doctrines before you can research them). The total effect of this is to make end-game tank production cost as much as it currently does, but making it much more expensive to build a large tank force early in the game.

Anyway, nerfing tanks would just put us back to the "I build only mech since they are better and cheaper then tanks" stuff again. Just my 2 cents.

 

[unmerged(14102)]

Re: Some Thoughts...All over the place...

Originally posted by Budgie
Oct 1942 German medium tank production Mark IV's was 100 per month.
....

Budgie; everything you state here, AFAIK, is accurate. Your suggestion though opens up a morally difficult [gamewise] dilema: Are we trying to script out history in the game or make this a game of what-ifs? If we add events as you suggest, the end is already known, and is that what we want? Howver, everything you say is accurate and should happen in a historical path, so ...

May i suggest taking your idea and expanding upon it a bit. Add these events IF the cabinet remains historical. Players can adjust the minister cabinet [make sure they can] to avoid these historical pitfalls. Of course, some penalties [in a historical context] should ocurr with those decisions.

You have several excellent historical events. In other threads a number of others have been enumerated:

1. hitler's butter for arms decisions in 39 - 41. make this a series of events, where you trade dissent for IC's [or something like that].
2. Goering's "more is better bomber" design decision. If Goering is a minister [any minister, so this is special], hvy bombers are either not available or a 10 - 15% penalty to reseach and produce.

.
.
.

Vulture: between CORE and SR and maybe you start a separate thread in the suggestions forum, i bet we could get 15 - 20 of these for each of the majors. Most [but not all by any means] of the current HOI events are external politics. These would all be INTERNAL political decisions, which as has been suggested by many, are key drivers in this period [and all periods IMHO].

Thoughts?