Oh, of course not. They would just rush over Locusts to foil Panzer Lehr's aspirations.
Them's Goimans won't even see it coming.
Tank Combat in Steel Division
- Thread starter kvnrthr
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Them's Goimans won't even see it coming.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at, here. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
Kind of seems like you don't have an argument, so you're trying to distract everyone from the issue with a half-baked meme instead. You could have at least added some superimposed emoji tears to the turret.
Kind of seems like you don't have an argument, so you're trying to distract everyone from the issue with a half-baked meme instead. You could have at least added some superimposed emoji tears to the turret.
Adding tears would remove the irony 
Nope nothing else to add, I just hope the devs will finally add it or explain why they would not do so.
Nope nothing else to add, I just hope the devs will finally add it or explain why they would not do so.
Didn't MM already say all the stuff they looked at showed that the M18 wasn't used in Normandy until late august after the games setting and then admit it was a mistake after someone showed them a war diary or something?
Just seems like a simple mistake and no need to pull up the M22 being included as a strawman
Just seems like a simple mistake and no need to pull up the M22 being included as a strawman
It kind of is? The M22 is not why the M18 isn't in, the M18 isn't in because Eugen couldn't read the wiki page to see the M18's first engagement was in Normandy in July.
The M22 is in to give the 101st organic armor. Did it have it in real life? Nope. Would I mind if it was in or out? I don't know, depends on how the game is now. I'm not in the beta.
This is something i was wanting to ask people here but thought it might be wrong to do so, given the NDA of the beta, its hard to talk about things without knowing etc or for those whom do know whats up to not break said nda.
However, I can talk about the RL usage of the M22, its RL usage (alongside tetrarchs) saw them giving infantry fire support especially in defencive operations in their drop even though they had bad luck, this will likely be able to cross into the game in some way, shape or form that will make the vehicle useful as it is armed with a gun that can fire both AP and HE shells and given the games phase system its likely to at least have some time before being blown up by a bigger tank as from whats been publically said the phase system lets light stuff fight first then heavy stuff later, and if isnt useful, then it will be something that gives a little fun and flaire to people whom like light tanks in their general RTS game i bet.
Personally, i am sad not to see it as a confirmed for 6th airborne in the commentary of it going to the 101st, as IIRC it was planned for replacing the tetrarch prior to D-Day but the plans changed due to preffering the 2 pounder and 75mm howitzer? Oh well, will still have alot of fun with it i suspect.
You don't know what a strawman is. Either way, the M22 locust didn't see action in this campaign. The M18 did. The M22 brings nothing to the table. The M18 does. That's really all there is to it.
They were used once. Eight of them. In 1945.
They pack a 37-mm gun in a tank that has thinner armor than the M5 Stuart. In contrast, the M18 packs a 76-mm. Denying one of the Americans only capable tank destroyers in favor of a useless unicorn is borderline retarded, especially considering the king of tanks the Germans can, and will, field.
So, the only remaining argument is its placement in the 'phase' meta. Either way, it's ahistorical; the 101st should be reliant on 57-mm M1 guns, rocket launchers, and 'air power' (as if air power were assigned to a single division) to defeat armored counter attacks.
If you want to maintain the 'light' theme of the infantry, the M18 is a better fit than the M10 because it is lesser armored, and far faster.
Basically, there is a historical precedent for the M18. There is a game-play precedent for the M18. There is no historical or game-play precedent for the M22.
Last edited:
"in favour of" suggests it was a "this or that" situation, i am 99% certain it wasnt, because eugen has never done so with past games. As you say, its a completely different vehicle anyway. As for being useless, as the rule goes for anything 1 doesnt actually know about "wait and see" and "when you assume....". I dont know how effective the locust will be, but I doubt it will be as useless as you are making it out to be. It has a 37mm, okay, but did that gun stop tanks IRL from providing decent fire support to infantry? It might not be able to go toe to toe with a panther (and 1 tried, lol) but vs infantry, other light tanks? Halftracks? I dunno, it might just prove interesting.
We dont know how its going to turn out, "end is neigh" doom propheting the vehicle now is pretty pointless i would say, again, we should wait and see.
Strange, because just a post ago you were trying to pass yourself off as a historical authority on the vehicle.
Yes. It did. Light tank crews hated the 37-mm and noted that in Europe, even with canister ammunition, it was not an effective weapon in any circumstance. If you would like, I can show you actual sources of crews reporting this.
All of the German armored cars in this game that are armed with anything more than machine guns (which is just about all of them) will be more than capable of knocking out the M22 with their primary weapons. The Puma is a wheeled armored car with a 50-mm antitank gun and comparable armor to the Locust.
Don't fanboy Eugen. They beat the realism drum, and dropped the ball by denying the U.S. one of its vital tank destroyers while offering unicorn in return.
There is always at least one who will stick by a game developer no matter what they do. I am strongly suspecting that you are that guy.
No I didnt, at all, you read into what you like, all I said was they gave a good account for themselves for what the yare according to reports with reguards to fire support for the paras.
I didnt say it was good, i said it was able to do the job still. AKA doing something in a pretty meh way is still able to do it.
Which is where tactics will come in to get the usage of the vehicle up, dont like the vehicle, dont use it, but let those of us whom do like things like this keep the thing we will like(basing this on how i tend to play any game, i love my armoured cars and tiny tanks across the board in games, so i think i will like this tank too).
As the chaps whom frequent the wargame forums back a while will tell you, no, I tend to get very upset with eugen for nerfing muh favorite strats and vehicles
I just dont see the point in complaining over the vehicle being in because another isnt, it has nothing to do with the M18, totally different class of vehicle and ability.You can unsub/unwatch the thread then just ignore it right? (if you mean getting notifications)
The M22 is not preventing the M18 from being in. The M22 is in because it is in the TO&E of the 101st Airborne. The M18 is not in because Eugen failed in that aspect of their research and also didn't pick the one division that had attached M18s in Normandy anyways.
Your post is there. Anyone can read it. You attempted to speak as an authority on the usage of the tank, specifically selecting vocabulary that made it sound as if the tank was deployed more than it was.
If you have a love affair with the M22 Locust, there are other games that feature it. This was a game that beat the realism drum, and still parades itself as authentic.
Tank Destroyer Battalions were not organic to divisions. The pathetic, poorly constructed excuse of "But it wasn't attached to any units represented in game!" fails to strike a chord when Eugen went out of its way to include a unicorn vehicle which they should have known was never deployed in that particular campaign.
If they needed to give the 101st Airborne a fast vehicle for the early game, the M18 Hellcat is a superior choice from a gameplay perspective as well as a historical one because it offers to bring something to the table, and the 101st Airborne actually received such an attachment at some point in time; which is more than can be said about the M22.
As a matter of fact, I'm having a hard time finding the M22 in any Airborne TO&E prior to the invasion. What I am seeing, however, is that the only vehicular attachments that the unit had during the earlier portion of the invasion were Tank Battalions, either independent or from other divisions. That means Shermans.
So there's more historical precedent for the 101st to be using elements of Tank Battalions and other Armored Regiments than the M22 Locust.
Last edited:
It was not an either/or thing. Eugen thought the M18 didn't make it to Europe before the Normandy breakout. Eugen knew the M22 was in Britain before the invasion. Therefore, they included the M22 and not the M18.
If they had known about the M18, it would be in. If we're lucky they still might put it in.
If they had known about the M18, it would be in. If we're lucky they still might put it in.
That statement is actually not true.
There were a lot of units that weren't included for a nation because "it already got enough new toys and the coalition already has the same capability".
Just think of the FRG-Air-tab... or the FRG in general.
Looks like US-Forces are the new FRG.
(To make it clear, this last sentence is sarcastic, as it is obvious that no either-or decision was made by Eugen).
Ohh and @Baane:
You complain about a meme but are unable to answer a sarcastic point properly.
Last edited:
It is; you're asserting that Eugen made a conscious choice between including the locust, (which they've admitted is the biggest unicorn in game) and the M18 (which they admitted was a research mistake)
That was a case of "literally the same unit with different skin", i wouldnt call it a "this or that" but a "this and this again" situation
. I also thought it was a bad move but, it was understandable.
That was a case of "literally the same unit with different skin", i wouldnt call it a "this or that" but a "this and this again" situation
Ehm... I'm not talking about the Eurofighter (or the Patriot... or the G41... or the Unimog...)
I was rather thinking about the PARA-Fuchs vs VAB RASIT, PzH 2000 vs Caesar, Leopard 2A6 vs Leclerc (ok that one can be argued about), giving Germany a decent Air-Tab vs French getting it, No Jäger in Airmobile for Germany because French Line was available...
These are the things that just jumped instantly to my mind... there were more, I'm quite sure.
Last edited:
- Status