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.
Will tanks/planes reflect the tanks/planes of the period/county or will they be same?
- Thread starter Gratch11
- 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.
All of this bickering about Panther vs. Tiger vs. whatever distracts from the real issue that the OP posted about.
Beagá said:
Better unit for unit or cost for cost?
Do you really think one Tiger in the wrong strategic position is better then 4 StuGs, of whom 2 are in the right position to have a critical impact?
You do realize that these two claims are totally different:
"The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws"
"Germany should have kept building more Panzer IV and StuG and never tried to develop another tank"
Most weapons had flaws, many of them major, and all weapons could be improved upon. Stating this does not mean that you automatically think not building any new weapons at all would have been a better move.
To get this back on track the answer is that if the research is the same the tanks will be the same. Here's why. The stats are limited in what a unit has. IIRC each ground unit has the following list of stats that can impact it.
Morale, organization, strength, size (combat width).
Hard attack, soft attack, air attack, penetration.
Defensiveness, toughness, air defense, armor, softness.
Officers, manpower, fuel, supply usage, IC cost, build time.
Suppression, speed, weight, radio strength.
There are also terrain modifiers but in the end those 1942 tanks will be identical.
What would be nice instead would be if a German 1943 tank say had better penetration, more armor, and maybe changes to other stats including increasing cost, while a US tank was much cheaper but wasn't as good in penetration and some other stuff.
And the real cherry on top is the research trees let Germany build the US tank described above while the US builds the German type tank. But that won't happen based on what ahs already been shown in the research trees area.
Morale, organization, strength, size (combat width).
Hard attack, soft attack, air attack, penetration.
Defensiveness, toughness, air defense, armor, softness.
Officers, manpower, fuel, supply usage, IC cost, build time.
Suppression, speed, weight, radio strength.
There are also terrain modifiers but in the end those 1942 tanks will be identical.
What would be nice instead would be if a German 1943 tank say had better penetration, more armor, and maybe changes to other stats including increasing cost, while a US tank was much cheaper but wasn't as good in penetration and some other stuff.
And the real cherry on top is the research trees let Germany build the US tank described above while the US builds the German type tank. But that won't happen based on what ahs already been shown in the research trees area.
You can`t directly compare unit for unit cost. What is more effective cost for cost a bunch of DDs or a battleship? A carrier with full CAG or a bunch of cruisers for the same cost?
Tiger`s major benefit was it`s side armor. StuGs could be penetrated by light AT guns from 1930s on sides. To kill tigers enemy`s AT had to be equiped with large, unvieldy and unltimately simply too big to be usefull in other cases guns. Which created additional cost and logistical troubles way beyond the direct impact of tanks themselves. Those AT guns are more vulnerable to detection, and are easier to destroy with support weapons.
It is not that simple, really.
Heavy tanks themselves, be it KV-1, B1bis or Tiger-Tiger2 were never "cost-effective" in themselves, but they did create large complications for emenies to counter them. For eample Soviets created 100mm AT gun, and built 3800 of them. Those guns were not nececery for anything other than countering Tigers or Tiger2s. Now add in additional cost, and other expences, and suddenly those heavies don`t seem all that ineffective.
Hell V2 was not particularly effective weapon. But it forced the Brits to spend several times as much to try(and fail) at defending against it. So was it effective? Yes, it was cost effectie. No it didn`t achieve much of anything.
Maybe in 1943, the Nazis will have researched ahead and field 1944 tanks. Whereas the USA will still be fielding 1942 tanks. So, in 1943, the German tanks would have better armor and more penetration, but the USA tanks would be cheaper and be able to swamp the Nazis with numbers. So, your desired outcome is perfectly able to be replicated in game terms. And this does not even take into consideration the still undisclosed system where a nation will be able to buy upgrades for its equipment with combat experience. The Germans, being busy steamrolling Europe and waging mass war on the Eastern Front, will have plenty of combat experience to improve its tanks. Whereas the USA will only have that meager experience derived from peacetime exercises. So, even if in 1943 both Germany and the USA are both fielding 1942 tanks, the German 1942 tanks will be superior to the USA 1942 tanks, because Germany will have bought more upgrades with its higher combat experience.
To make actually different models for each nation would be too much work indeed. Nevertheless, it would also be nice to have some nation specific advantages/disadvantages or technologies for the majors to properly show the reality on the battlefield and the character of each nations' forces.
Examples: higher armor for USSR tanks in general
much higher hard attack for German AA guns (88mm!
) and higher organization for tanks
cheaper cost for US tanks etc etc
This would not require too much work and would still allow the player to take an ahistoric route, but it would also depict the reality of the battlefield. Some factors could not just be changed too easily within a nation and it would make the majors not have exactly the same units, except for the different pictures and names, like now.
Examples: higher armor for USSR tanks in general
much higher hard attack for German AA guns (88mm!
) and higher organization for tankscheaper cost for US tanks etc etc
This would not require too much work and would still allow the player to take an ahistoric route, but it would also depict the reality of the battlefield. Some factors could not just be changed too easily within a nation and it would make the majors not have exactly the same units, except for the different pictures and names, like now.
Except the real world didn't work that way. Gee let me gimp myself and do no research. Even the Shermans were constantly upgraded with new variants.
That is actually an offensive benefit mostly when you need to advance into enemy territory and have a greater risk of getting ambushed or flanked.
For defensive having a low profile (StuG) was often more useful since the enemy would not spot you at all until they got to close.
The argument raised was that Tigers/Panzers were a better choice then more StuGs/PzIV.
To get a fair answer you need to look at their cost and strategic usefulness too, otherwise you will end up with the conclusion that Germany should have built the Maus since it could defeat any other tank 1vs1...
On defencive, it doesn`t metter as your viechles are dug in or maked with terrain.
Granted, it is far cheaper to defend with truck-towed AT guns than TDs anyway, so cost-efficency doesn`t really fly here.
Armor is mostly an offencive unit and most of the time was used as such, for offencive or counter-attack.
They are not better or worse. They are different choices, that require different strategy and circumstances to utilise, so it is more an argument of in what circumstances will a country(Germany in this case) end up.
Tiger could`ve be a decent breakthrugh tank, that need to penetrate 20-60 km defencive line and then lighter and faster tanks would take over, for which, it was initially designed since 1938. Damaged Viechles could be picked and repaired, thus decreasing cassualties and the large cost wouldn`t be all that troublesome. But in 1943, being on defencive, Tiger was night inadequate.
How can one decide the cost-efficency without taking circumstances into account?
Not if the enemy attack also contains infantry, or strafing from air attacks, and not if you need a very flexible off-road weapon that can quickly be moved short distances and respond without a long setup time.
And TD is basically the same thing as the StuG anyways.
You don't consider "strategic usefulness" to include taking circumstances into account?
You cant just ignore size on the defensive. Size matter alot in regards to spotting and blending in with the terrain. Also why are we suddenly talking towed AT now. Yes its cheaper but you just stated that cost shouldnt be a factor also theres a tradeoff in mobility and armor to think about. Theres always a tradeoff. You could also compare a Tiger with Inf but whats the point?
Im confused you quote an answer thats says you need to look at cost effectiveness compared to the situation By saying that it isnt about cost effetiveness but you have to look at cost effectiveness compared to the situation.
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.
Precicely, sometimes you don`t want cost-effecive weapon, due to it`s flaws in some situations.
Most of the time I can, as tanks are not radically different in size.
What I mean is, comparing single weapons is rather poor idea.
What should be compared is a version of how entire weapon complexes match to what an army is supposed to do, and how a particular weapon(tank) fits into a niche that it is supposed to fill. Then, one can compare either weapons that are supposed to do occupy the same niche for various things. Or various approaches, that utilise different niches of equipment have to be compared as a complex.
Heavy tanks don`t occupy the same niche as medium ones. Heavy tanks tend to require different strategy to utilise and different strategy of enemy to counter, and the entire complex of solving the "problem" of enemy utilising an approach based on heavy tanks should be taken into account.
Especially is easy to miss the additional resources required for enemy to create, distribute and teach crews for new weapons that have to be created to counter heavy tanks. So is easy to miss the cost of producing rather large amounts of those specialised equipment.
I already showed an example, where Soviets created more than 4k of specialised AT guns, and another 2k of specialised TDs only to take care of 1.5k of German heavy tanks that didn`t even all go to fight USSR. Should this things taken into account when talking about cost-efficency of a particular weapon? Absolutely.
Should we talk about how an army weapon complex matches the circumstances it fights in? Again, absolutely. But it should be, as a whole, not as a particular single part of it.
Cost efficency argument makes sence for comparing apples to apples. Either weapons that are supposed to occupy the same niche, or entire weapon pool that are needed for armies nececery to complete certain task, otherwise we end up comparing apples to oranges.
Comparing Tigers to Stugs is pointless from the very begining.
Size in this regard is mostly about height. Now if we consider tanks and assaultguns/TD with the same type of gun then we have the following comparisons of height.
StugIII: 2,18m
StugIV: 2,20m
Panzer IV: 2,68m
Panzer IV being 22% larger than the Stug IV.
Jagdpanzer IV: 1,85m
Panther height: 2,99m
Panther is 62% larger than Jagdpanzer IV
Jagdpanther: 2,71m
Tiger II: 3,09m
Tiger II being 14% larger than Jagdpanther
take from it what you want i would call it decent to large size difference and a show that the panther is crazy high.
It must be good stuff then.
Height did allow you to see farther. It's a trade off link many other things.
I think saying that a given tank is a certain percentage bigger than another based strictly on height is a bit misleading. The things were generally not completely box shaped. The taller vehicles more often than not had a turret which is a much smaller target than the chassis (not to mention better armored).
Isn't the most significant size number the overall area of the silouette from various angles?
You can certainly say that. I was however not talking about the general size of the tank just stating that in terms of being spotted the height would be the major factor in this case (since its here the difference between TD and tank is greatest). TDs are normally build on a older thus smaller chassis than equivalent gun sized tanks this will for all intends and purposes be a smaller chassis and therefore a TD will also have a slightly smaller build (given the tanks gun face forward). However the size is roughly the same and the major difference is the height.
Ofcourse theres tradeoffs like the ability to spot, not having the flexability of a turret etc. you can also point out that a casemat style can easier dig in due to the lower height, it generally have better slope on the front and do not have to worry about the turret being a target or potential bullet traps due to the turret. but we were only talking about if the TD would be harder to spot than a tank. In this case there really shouldnt be any doubt and this would mainly be due to the height.
EDIT: As it has the largest contribution to the difference in silouette size.
Last edited: