Will tanks/planes reflect the tanks/planes of the period/county or will they be same?

[podcat]

Panther, Jagdpanther and Tiger. Is 3 names of succesful tanks.

The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense. I believe the Jagdpanther was pretty solid.

Although lets not turn this thread into another Panther argument thread

 

[podcat]

IRL Japan did buoght 2 Tigers, and was studying them, so the possibility is not that far off as you might think.

It was a panther and a tiger I think and they never got delivered afaik

 

[podcat]

yes

 

[Darkrenown]

Rubbish, and nothing to do with Panther being bad or good. Germany´s STRATEGIC situation was bad and it would STILL be bad regardless of mass building Panzer IV and StuG. Look how well it worked out to keep building BF 109... instead of rushing Me 262. PAnther had flaws? Would have been improved if Germnay wasn´t beign crushed.

People should stop looking at the tree andlook at the forest.

So in what way is what he said "rubbish"? Panther and Tiger flaws don't magically stop existing because Germany was also losing the war they started. Is it also Rubbish that the JP was "pretty solid"? Really, what are you talking about?

 

[Darkrenown]

No, he said "The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense." ie being heavy and short-legged they were difficult to use strategically. That's not the same as saying it was a bad strategic decision to build them (although it was).

 

[Darkrenown]

Yes, Germany had a very short front to defend and plenty of tanks to cover it, there was certainly no need for their tanks to be strategically mobile.

 

[Darkrenown]

All of this bickering about Panther vs. Tiger vs. whatever distracts from the real issue that the OP posted about.

Who's comparing Panthers to Tigers? I wasn't even comparing any tank to any other, just pointing out Beaga was disagreeing with Podcat over something he hadn't actually said. Not that comparing tanks would be off topic for the OP though, since it begins with the assumption that "german tanks were superior" and "the t-34 wasn't as good as was thought".

There's not really much to discuss about the OP in regards to gameplay. We've already said with no techs or upgrades or leadership tanks are the same across nations, and we've already said you can have different production lines for different version of equipment.

 

[Darkrenown]

There are other ways of defending, ya know. Specially as it was posted more than once that tanks were NOT the major cause of casualties for tanks. But the thing is, you need a MUCH heavier gun to take out a Panther than a PAnzer IV. You honestly think that´s NOT a tactical advantage?

You missed the point. Building fewer more expensive tanks or lots of cheap tanks would NOT change the doomed strategic situation Germany was in. Even if building cheaper tanks would result in more casualties - Germany would STILL lose. So cheaper tansk would give, MAYBE, a tactical advantage, and that´s it. I for one think that if Germany had focused only on Panther (with JagdPanther thrown in) instead of Tiger and Panther it would be the best overall strategic choice. And better than building thousands of Panzers and StuG.

What other ways of defending? If you want to use your tanks in defense they have to be where the enemy is attacking, so being mobile is helpful. There's no getting around that.

I have not missed any point, I'm just not discussing what tanks Germany should or should not have built. Feel free to keep countering points I haven't made though, I guess that is how one gains "credibility".

Podcat said building Panther or Tiger was strategically bad, I said it wasn´t. Please, don´t distort other people´s posts when anyone can see the post I was replying to. It isn´t good for your credibility.

Reading sure is hard:

No, he said "The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense." ie being heavy and short-legged they were difficult to use strategically. That's not the same as saying it was a bad strategic decision to build them (although it was).

 

[Darkrenown]

I know exactly what point I wanted to make, and I have made it: You called Podcat's post rubbish, and when I inquired as to why it turned out you thought he was saying something other than what he was actually saying. You're still going on about guns and armour though, I have no idea why - it's not relevant in the slightest.

 

[Darkrenown]

[Again]Reading sure is hard:

No, he said "The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense." ie being heavy and short-legged they were difficult to use strategically. That's not the same as saying it was a bad strategic decision to build them (although it was).

This isn't the first time I've seriously wondered if you genuinely cannot read English or you are pretending you can't to troll me. It's bizarre. Do you understand that the following two statements do not mean the same thing?
1) The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense.
2) It was strategically a bad choice to build Panthers and Tigers.

 

[Darkrenown]

The problem is that even though those two statements are different, he is saying both things. He is saying both clearly in that piece you quoted. The first is in the lead sentence and the second is in the parenthetical expression at the end. However, I am not sure what any of this has to do with the game itself.

I only quoted myself in the post you replied to, so I am not sure what piece you mean...

The point was Podcat said (1), Beaga called this "rubbish", I asked why it was rubbish, and Beaga goes off about (2). They are not the same thing and he is arguing against something that was never said.

And tommylotto is correct, you can use XP to improve your equipment.

 

[podcat]

We all know that experience won't be the only way (and may not even be the primary way) of unlocking research. How much experience was there to research atomic bombs? Or all the prewar improvements in planes, tanks, artillery, communications, ships, subs etc.?

If experience is the only method then the US would have zero new research up till December 7th 1941. The Soviets could NEVER research and develop the T-34 in time for Barbarossa, etc..

Yeah its a mix. You need research to unlock new stuff. Experience is for improving things you already have.

 

[Darkrenown]

You're simply terrible at communicating if this is you making a serious attempt. What makes it worse is the condescending and belligerent tone you adopt which is totally at odds with the lack of relevance and correctness of what you post. Please stop.

 

[Darkrenown]

Actually SHOWING I was wrong, by rationally writing that building cheaper tanks was strategically the better thing AND that the heavier tanks actually had some kind of real strategical flaw and thus cost Germany the war... he could not, or was too lazy, which has the same result. And it´s even more sad because I am open to other opinions, if they are well constructed.

You're still posting about irrelevant things. I'm not (And Podcat wasn't) writing about whether Germany should build some other tank. The statement which began this was Podcat's:

The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense.

I expanded on it to add:

being heavy and short-legged they were difficult to use strategically

Podcat made no comment on if Germany should have built something else, if building these tanks cost Germany the war, or how either tank performed tactically - which are all things you keep bringing up. Those are all irrelevant, as are your strange appeals to the masses that ignore that everyone replying to you has disagreed with you, and as is what Keynes may or may not have said about Mexico in another thread. Stick to the topic at hand. If you want to dispute Podcat's comment and back up your claim that it is "Rubbish" the only way to do so would be to show that neither the Tiger or the Panther had any major flaws that are particularly related to their strategic use - which will be difficult as the fact they were both heavy and shot-legged is self-evident. Or you could admit you misunderstood the initial comment, or even just quietly let it go.

 

[podcat]

Ah....I remember the soft Spring days whence first I dallied with HOI3...and saw Tiger Is thundering across Poland in 1939 and being
told by PI, don't worry, its just a name....How far we have come.....:laugh:

Don't worry, we'll still say that

 

[Darkrenown]

XP-upgrades are small upgrades to individual parts, like the HoI3 techs were. Of course, you can always get several at once if you have enough XP, indeed it'll probably be wiser in most cases to wait until you can afford several upgrades before switching to produce a new variant.

 

[Darkrenown]

Would it be possible for '41 tanks to be better then '43 tanks if the '41 tanks are heavily upgraded and the '43 tanks are new?

It's not really nailed down yet, but provisionally I'd say: No, or at least not in all areas. Perhaps you can match or exceed the '43 tank in one or two areas if you upgrade your '41 tank heavily, but the '43 tanks should be better all-round.

 

[podcat]

But couldn't the US game the system by just shifting production to other things while they finish off the '43 research early? Unless researching 6 months early is so prohibitively difficult as to be useless I can't see why the US would want to put the XP it earned passively in '41 into the older instead of the newer design.

While doing that is certainly possible there are some serious tradeoffs.
- waste of research. Maybe Tojo kicks your ass now that all your naval tech is behind.
- limits on how much combat experience you can save up before you need to use it.
- Quantity has a quality of its own(tm). Are you sure a bit better tanks are worth it rather than a lot of OK ones (which might be a bit shit now that you didnt spend any xp on upgrading them).

And some other stuff.

 

[podcat]

(and the Soviets used pencils & crayons in zero g. What does that tell you?)

That they dont value Cool Shit(tm) as much as the americans

 

[Darkrenown]

Pencils actually aren't a good idea in zero g, the tip can break off and then you have little bits of graphite floating around and getting into delicate spaceship parts. Crayons can also be flaky. As far as I know, the Russians ending up buying space pens too.