will you mass produced crappy shermans or have limted numbers of tiger tanks
- Thread starter historykid1942
- 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.
Depends on game balance, too early too tell.
For pure infantry support Sherman was more cost effective.
For pure infantry support Sherman was more cost effective.
you are right but the tigers are good for mobile defense the kind the Germans needed in late war 1943-1945
Just set up camp behind a river keeping 1 artillery and 1 at alongside your main 3 brigades, should be really difficult to be dislodged. Then you can focus on a few stronger tanks somewhere else for a offensive of your own.
Small elite brigade/battalion of King Tigers, rest Panzer 4 or Panthers and Stug 3:s.
You can`t really say that this early.
So ARE STUGs and Tank Destroyers, which were also cheaper to produce.
I'll definitely choose the smart option a.k.a cost efficient production with high reliability, so under normal circumstances sherman mas production.
If I progress technological far enough so that the Heavy Armour would actually stand half a chance in terms of cost-efficiency then those. If the balance is somewhat similiar to HoI 3 I'll just rush SH Armour and call it a deal.
If I progress technological far enough so that the Heavy Armour would actually stand half a chance in terms of cost-efficiency then those. If the balance is somewhat similiar to HoI 3 I'll just rush SH Armour and call it a deal.
If you`re US, then maybe you will have the fuel to fuel all those crappy tanks(that said, Sherman wasn`t crappy, just obsolete in 1944), otherwise you will have to balance things.
It is debatable if having Tigers instead of Sherman would make the US win the war faster, however. Sure Sherman wasn´t very good, but a US Tiger would be blown by a Jagpanther just the same, and possibly even easier because it was more sluggish and prone to breaking down. In a setting where the sword is always stronger then the shield, isn´t it better to have more swords than a better shield?
On the other hand considering how often UK and US forces were counter-attacked, maybe having a tank with better armor and gun would be worth it overall.
On the other hand considering how often UK and US forces were counter-attacked, maybe having a tank with better armor and gun would be worth it overall.
Armor and penetration is not a 0 or 1 relation, the distance is what meters.
American tank doctrine certainly favored offense and speed over armor, but the sherman wasnt that well equipped at fighting heavily armored targets like tigers and king tigers, especially in situations where their mobility could not be taken advantage of. The americans considered moving over to the M27 (T20) but deemed it not worth the problem of switching over their production lines. It wasnt until later with the pershing with the strong 90mm gun that they decided switching over to producing them in large numbers to be able to combat heavily armed targets.
As for jagdpanther vs tiger that depends a lot on the situation and terrain. In any situation where ambush is impossible or there isnt a lot of flat terrain the tiger is going to have the upper hand every time by being able to react and fire much much faster.
As for sword always being stronger than shield this is very much something happening at the end of WW2. Earlier, Tigers and Stalin tanks on the eastern front were both in a situation where their armor were generally stronger than most weapons commonly available to take them out, at least frontally.
as for the game I think it will still make sense for the americans to rely heavily on shermans if things have played out mostly historical.
Last edited:
The question I have, if you don`t mind(Podcat), is that, Germans, theoretically should have Panzer 4(A and B variants) available to be build from 1937, and up to 1945.
If I skip Pz3 completely and just build Pz4s from 1937, wouldn`t that mean that I will have insane "gearing bonus" or whatever the advantage of having more or less continuous building of the same model since I will be producing the tank for years before the war starts?
Or how will the game mechanics handle that? Will it be profitable to just skip Pz3?
If I skip Pz3 completely and just build Pz4s from 1937, wouldn`t that mean that I will have insane "gearing bonus" or whatever the advantage of having more or less continuous building of the same model since I will be producing the tank for years before the war starts?
Or how will the game mechanics handle that? Will it be profitable to just skip Pz3?
You don´t say.
Sure but ambush was quite possible and besides it´s not only Jagdpanther, even a Panther could knock down a Tiger. Germans had tons of weapons capable of destroying a Tiger clone. Not to mention that the gun and armor of the Jagdpanther were better. In a 1vs1 situation, Tiger is at disadvantage even if not ambushed.
So in the end, if regardless of tank built it will be destroyed if it can´t fire first, or you need such na expensive and big tank to have a chance of surviving, it´s better to have numbers than pseudo-quality, quite often. How many Shermans you could build at the cost of one Tiger?
Last edited:
Not if you want to have a lot of tanks ready for taking poland and france. We also consider the Pz4 to be later than '37 tech so you will be researching ahead of time for the penalties that entail. I can't say much more yet without having to type up a whole dev diary, sorry
if I remember correctly it was something like 2-3 shermans for the cost of a tiger. Tigers were very costly though. Both Tiger II and panther were cheaper to make. My memory says something like $46k for a sherman compared to $120k for a tiger. (edit: got numbers mixed up with T-34s)
Last edited:
It is fine, thanks for the answer.Not if you want to have a lot of tanks ready for taking poland and france. We also consider the Pz4 to be later than '37 tech so you will be researching ahead of time for the penalties that entail. I can't say much more yet without having to type up a whole dev diary, sorry
BTW, what would be German after 1945 models, assuming Germany can survive past 1945? E-series?
Will we have an option for something less costly(and powerful) than Tiger-King Tiger-Esomething for heavy tanks?
Well, if you can answer, if you can`t, it is fine.
It had domestic oil production and domestic steel production, so what resources would it lack? The numbers may be debatable.
Tanks are not supposed to fight tanks. They are built to exploit breakthroughs created by the infantry (1918 German stormtrooper tactics anyone?) They are basically mobile artillery, to give infantry punching power after the storming of the frontline, and loss of supporting artillery due to range limitations. Thus, there is a need to have enough to do the job.
the whole point of the E series was to make them easier to produce, and assuming germany does better than historical it makes perfect sense
Last edited: