ostheer medium tanks

Quote* Making StuGIII a reward unit is like making T34/Sherman
a Reward Unit.

Loup as far as I know 88s were used extensevely, still are Doctrine Specific  ;)

Quote- What won't work is you want PzIII to be MORE numerous
than T34/Sherman *AND* to kill them 1-on-1. That 'feel'
should be Russian/American tanks.

If Coh was a campaign scale game  that would a good argument, but CoH is Battle Scale. The soviets over streched their advance in some ocassions which allowed the Panzer Divisions to overwelm them with more tanks, Im mistaken?

But putting that aside, I think what Lord Rommel proposed was to best the allied tanks with coordination rather than with numbers.

QuoteIf you want an alternative to Tiger/Panther, then
StuGIIIF comes in.

Loup, what fails in that proposal is that StugIII doesnt win in 1 on 1 against an ISU-152  :P even with Ambush, First Strike, Marder Lockdown or whatever. Is kinda like wanting a hetzer to overpower a Pershing.


In that sense I have to agree with Auch, PzIII could be the equivalent of StugIV, StugIII-PzIV, and a Uber-Tank. That without losing flavor

Ryousan wrote:

Quote* Making StuGIII a reward unit is like making T34/Sherman
a Reward Unit.

Loup as far as I know 88s were used extensevely, still are Doctrine Specific  ;)
** Then Sherman/T34 should be doctrine specific ;)

Quote- What won't work is you want PzIII to be MORE numerous
than T34/Sherman *AND* to kill them 1-on-1. That 'feel'
should be Russian/American tanks.

If Coh was a campaign scale game  that would a good argument, but CoH is Battle Scale. The soviets over streched their advance in some ocassions which allowed the Panzer Divisions to overwelm them with more tanks, Im mistaken?

** So if Chuck Norris can uni-punch someone dead,
that should always be the case when Americans fight
Germans, I'm mistaken?

But putting that aside, I think what Lord Rommel proposed was to best the allied tanks with coordination rather than with numbers.
- Oh, I AM TOTALLY for that. Winning by superior
micro than by spam.

QuoteIf you want an alternative to Tiger/Panther, then
StuGIIIF comes in.

Loup, what fails in that proposal is that StugIII doesnt win in 1 on 1 against an ISU-152  :P even with Ambush, First Strike, Marder Lockdown or whatever. Is kinda like wanting a hetzer to overpower a Pershing.

- Actually, the counter to the ISU-152 (Doctrine unit)
is the Elefant (doctrine unit). I win :)
- Hetzer no cap. Pershing has cap. I win :)
- PE-AT has JagPanther for Pershing. I win :)

In that sense I have to agree with Auch, PzIII could be the equivalent of StugIV, StugIII-PzIV, and a Uber-Tank. That without losing flavor

- Actually, I'm the one who said that :)

EF doesn't take place in a specific period of time.
Therefore you can't compare the numbers of Pz3 which were built in the early war-time to the numbers of Shermans and T-34 which were produced all over the war-time.
Same for Stug3. Production-numbers raised significantly over the whole war-time, therefore it's unfair to compare those numbers.

Quote- What won't work is you want PzIII to be MORE numerous
than T34/Sherman *AND* to kill them 1-on-1. That 'feel'
should be Russian/American tanks.

Brits also don't rely on "spamming" tanks, additionally their tanks are rather "weak". Still Commonwealth can win.
Therefore USSR/USA "spams", Brits don't.
WH and PE don't spam tanks, OH ? .

However, I rather meant it the way Ryousan put it:

QuoteBut putting that aside, I think what Lord Rommel proposed was to best the allied tanks with coordination rather than with numbers.

Some more things:
At least to me it seems that Lord Rommel just give suggestions and don't "want something". Then I just said I like that idea, because I thought that could work for the OH.
What's so wrong with liking different concepts?

QuoteYou specifically said you wanted PzIIIL60+tungsten
to kill T34/85 and Sherman76. 1-on-1 AND have numerical
superiority.
- You can't have PzIII num superiority AND have StuGIII
(Then you'd have 6 to 1)

I want L/60 with tungsten having a chance against T-34/85 and Sherm76. I don't want them to drive towards an enemy tank, fire a tungsten-round, enemy tank blows up and Pz3 drives by without taking damage.
Apparently, that's how you think I want it. However, that's not the case.
I also don't want them to be more common than other tanks.

My concept was to give them the British-movement-con you suggested, therefore they are forced to move in groups.
However, this doesn't mean that you have 15 tanks driving in groups of 3-4 all over the battlefield but instead you have only one group.
This Panzerrudel can't be everywhere, BUT where it is, it's usually numerical superior.
Therefore the rest of the frontline can't have tanksupport but instead has to rely on Stugs (like you said, Stugs were the tanks of the infantry!  :) Therefore the idea of Stugs being a mobile cover for inf), PaKs or improvised AT-tactics.

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 5:37 PM by Aouch

Quote** Then Sherman/T34 should be doctrine specific ;)

My Point being if they made the StugIII doctrine specific, or reward unit. no hard feelings about it.

Quote** So if Chuck Norris can uni-punch someone dead,
that should always be the case when Americans fight
Germans, I'm mistaken?

Dont Understanding what you tried to say  ???

Quote
- Oh, I AM TOTALLY for that. Winning by superior
micro than by spam.

Nice to see we can agree in some things  :)

Quote- Actually, the counter to the ISU-152 (Doctrine unit)
is the Elefant (doctrine unit). I win :)
- Hetzer no cap. Pershing has cap. I win :)
- PE-AT has JagPanther for Pershing. I win :)

-Let supose for a second that not all the Ostheer doctrines have Uber tanks. I win  :)

-Stug will have cap ::). I Win :P?. Yet Hetzer bad example.

-Then what has Ostheer for Pershing? ::). Let call it a draw

Quote- Actually, I'm the one who said that :)

Did you? I neeed new glasses  :'(

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM by Ryousan

@Ryousan :
-
If they make StuGIII doctrine specific, they have to
make T34/Sherman/Panzer4 doctrine specific. If a tank
ought to be Doctrine-specific, it'd be more PzIII than
StuGIII, don't you see?
-
Re: Chuch Norris Spam.
In game terms, if you change all the Zerglings to Uberlisks
(Ultralisks) with a 4vs1 ratio advantage and 3vs1 quality
advantage... it just doesn't add up.
-
German winning by quality, not spam.
: Well, yea. But a PzIII that is superior to *AND*
numerically superior to T34/Sherman doesn't add up.
-
Re: I win, I win, I win.
Not really. If don't have Elefant, they have Nashorn.
Ifnot they have FPAK88. Either way, there will be
something uber for each OstHeer tree to deal with
ISU152. Pesides, Multiple M10s and AT57+Tungsten
can kill King Tigers. So it's not an issue. Just use
StuGIII and Marders. Problem fixed.
- StuG will have a cap.
: When T34/Sherman have a cap.
When crocodile/PanzerFlak has a cap.
- Hetzer only has a cap because AI is stupid.
(Does it?)
- Pershing is 1 doctrine unit of 1 doctrine tree.
OstHeer has Elefant. Of 1 doctrine tree. It balances out.
- Yes, I'm the one you suggested it.
You can't take my own suggestion and turn it against me.
It would say that my idea is bad because I said it.
But if someone said sae thing, then it's good.
It's like Aouch said : Whatever Lord Rommel says it's
amazing best idea (Despite he offering conflicting ideas).

Lord wrote:
Well. Ostheer will need a second, a stronger tank.
With Panzer III or StuG III u cant deal with russians JS-II  ;)

i was thinking about a real tankhunter like either marder II or nashorn to deal with heavier tanks.

Quote Re: Chuch Norris Spam.
In game terms, if you change all the Zerglings to Uberlisks
(Ultralisks) with a 4vs1 ratio advantage and 3vs1 quality
advantage... it just doesn't add up.

Point Noted.

Quote
There will be Something uber for each OstHeer tree to deal with
ISU152

Well that is not entirely true, try to kill an ISU while being Scorched Earth PE Commander, Yeah Marder is one solution. But Stug is not Marder. And heavily depends on how the Stug will be represented. Yet, Point Noted.

Quote- Pershing is 1 doctrine unit of 1 doctrine tree.
OstHeer has Elefant. Of 1 doctrine tree. It balances out

Alright, I need to quote Lord Rommel in this one

QuoteWith Panzer III or StuG III u cant deal with russians JS-II  ;)

A third tank is needed, you cant fix all with Stug Spam  ::). Yet, Point Noted.

Quote- Yes, I'm the one you suggested it.
You can't take my own suggestion and turn it against me.
It would say that my idea is bad because I said it.

I apologise for that. Yet, never said that your idea was bad.

Ghost wrote:

Lord wrote:
Well. Ostheer will need a second, a stronger tank.
With Panzer III or StuG III u cant deal with russians JS-II  ;)

i was thinking about a real tankhunter like either marder II or nashorn to deal with heavier tanks.

- OstHeer will have both Marder2 and NashHorn (Marder4).
So it's not an issue.
Marde2 buildable, Nashhorn doctrine 'tiger' call-in.

Who said that Ostheer get Marder II and/or Nashorn Oo
And why do u call Nashorn Marder IV...

Loupblance...u confuse me more and more  :-[

Loupblanc wrote:
- OstHeer will have both Marder2 and NashHorn (Marder4).
So it's not an issue.
Marde2 buildable, Nashhorn doctrine 'tiger' call-in.

I don't think that'll happen. Marder 2, OK. But Nashorn (btw, it was never called Marder 4, therefore you shouldn't call it Marder 4. It was Nashorn, Panzerjäger "Nashorn", SdKfz. 164 or "Hornisse". But never Marder 4, not even to show it was something like the Marder-tankhunters, because it wasn't) would be very, very difficult to balance out to fill the narrow gap between Marder and Elefant.

I would even go that far and say either Pz3 and Stug3 are Reward-dependent (either Pz or Stug) or Pz3 is MTB and Stug3 and Marder2 are Reward-dependent (either Stug or Marder).

Also, now you've got Ryousan, you completely forgot commenting my main statement which could perhaps help you understand my point of view on the whole "Pz3/Stug3"-story.  :'(

QuoteMy concept was to give them the British-movement-con you suggested, therefore they are forced to move in groups.
However, this doesn't mean that you have 15 tanks driving in groups of 3-4 all over the battlefield but instead you have only one group of 3-4 Pz3.
This Panzerrudel can't be everywhere, BUT where it is, it's usually numerical superior.
Therefore the rest of the frontline can't have tanksupport but instead has to rely on Stugs (like you said, Stugs were the tanks of the infantry! Therefore the idea of Stugs being a mobile cover for inf), PaKs or improvised AT-tactics.

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 7:34 PM by Aouch

QuoteStugs were the tanks of the infantry!  Therefore the idea of Stugs being a mobile cover for inf), PaKs or improvised AT-tactics.

+1 :)

Ryousan wrote:

Quote Re: Chuch Norris Spam.
In game terms, if you change all the Zerglings to Uberlisks
(Ultralisks) with a 4vs1 ratio advantage and 3vs1 quality
advantage... it just doesn't add up.

Point Noted.
- Thank you. So why be for PanzerIII that are more
numerous AND superior to T34/Sherman?
(5700 to 75000)

Quote
There will be Something uber for each OstHeer tree to deal with
ISU152

Well that is not entirely true, try to kill an ISU while being Scorched Earth PE Commander, Yeah Marder is one solution. But Stug is not Marder. And heavily depends on how the Stug will be represented. Yet, Point Noted.

- Scorched Earth PE commander. Panther+Marder+
Sector Artillery + Troop Bazooka/AT grenades. Against
a SINGLE ISU152 ? Nooo problem.
- StuGIIIF is noted AT tank. With Ambush/First Strike,
it could work as an armored weak Marder with more
resilience Similar to a Hetzer.

Quote- Pershing is 1 doctrine unit of 1 doctrine tree.
OstHeer has Elefant. Of 1 doctrine tree. It balances out

Alright, I need to quote Lord Rommel in this one

QuoteWith Panzer III or StuG III u cant deal with russians JS-II  ;)

A third tank is needed, you cant fix all with Stug Spam  ::). Yet, Point Noted.
  - Of course you can deal with Russian JS-2 with StuG3F.
Plus, it gives it perfect reason for why it's needed.
M10 can kill King Tiger. Why can't StuG3F kill JS-2 ?
Throw in Marders to the mix, problem fixed.
- Third Tank? Panzer 4 or Panzer 5?
With Panzer4, don't need Panzer3. With Panzer5 Panther,
you don't need StuG3F (So you have a MOST numerous
tank that was NEVER represented in all German armies,
and Panther/Panzer4 that was in all 3 factions).

Quote- Yes, I'm the one you suggested it.
You can't take my own suggestion and turn it against me.
It would say that my idea is bad because I said it.

I apologise for that. Yet, never said that your idea was bad.

- Yes, you methodically say my ideas are bad :p

----
@ Lord Rommel :
I've read in numerous places that the NashOrn was going to
be in OstHeer. As for the Marder2, it's a Panzer2 conversion,
so it's logical that it'll be in OstHeer.

The Nashorn is a Panzer4 conversion, so I call it Marder4.
Just like the Marder3 is a conversion of PzIII - Oh, wait,
it's a conversion of Pz(38)t, nevermind. Lol.

  But Marder2 would explain why there won't be StuGIII in
OstHeer, and why PanzerIII will be the new Panther, as
Aouch demanded.

- You confuse me more and more.
: Learn French ;)

@ Aouch :
- If Pz2/Wespe is in, why shouldn't be Marder2 ?
- I'm not german. So I'll never call it :
Panzerjäger "Nashorn", SdKfz. 164 or "Hornisse".
As Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung H (‘Panzer VI version H’, abbreviated PzKpfw VI Ausf. H), but the tank was redesignated as PzKpfw VI Ausf. E ... I'll call it Rhino, or Marder4 at worse.
Nashorn is the best I'll call it. As long as we both know we're
talking about the same tank, no problem.
- NAshorn won't be in same Doctrine as Elefant. It's a mobile
PAK88 in game terms with the mobility of a Hummel.
And, yes, it'll be in OstHeer.

- How about making StuG3 and Marder2 the main tanks
of OstHeer, and have PzIII as reward unit? ;) I doubt you'd
agree. Thus my whole point.
- Yes, I know. You want no StuG, and want uber numberous
PzIII that kill IS-2.
- Oh, I said that StuG were the infantry support
(They're part of Artillery-corps, I said), not Panzer-Corps.
Soooo... yea, in that context, StuGIII and PzIII could be
reward unit to each other.

I'd like the mass PzIII to be a doctrine, not general.
Or else, why not say, Allies forever have tons of tanks,
and Germans never have any? (German tank armies are
elsewhere). It can't be 100% 'Today, the elite german
spearhead shows up) :p

Soviets and Americans also had Tank armies.
The only army who had no tank army was... France.
Believed to have the largest, most modern, and best
equipped army in the world in those days
(But no tank army).

We saw what happenned to THEM.

- Small note :
General DeGaulle kept screaming for tank armies
for years. Got ignored. Finally, in frustration, he kidnapped
some 20+ tanks (Don't know how much) and send them on
a counterattack against the Germans. He was the only one
who was able to hurt Germans at ALL.
: They wanted to courtmarshal him for disobeying orders :p

According to French Tank doctrine, tanks were mobile
pillboxes that accompanied Infantry.

@Ryousan :
StuGS being infantry-tanks. Oh, I'm totally for that too.

You know what Loupblanc? I'm done with you and your arguments.

QuoteI've read in numerous places that the NashOrn was going to be in OstHeer.

Link or it never happened.

Quote As for the Marder2, it's a Panzer2 conversion,
so it's logical that it'll be in OstHeer.

Ah. Following your argumentation, it's logical to have StuIG 33B in the OH because there will be Pz3.  ::)

Quoteand why PanzerIII will be the new Panther
- Yes, I know. You want no StuG, and want uber numberous
PzIII that kill IS-2

Sorry for being a bit rude, but don't you notice you're making a fool out of yourself?
I've stated infinite times that I want Stugs and don't want Pz3 being an uber-tank which is four times more powerfull, twice as common and half the price of T-34.
Despite I said that countless times, you continue to use that phrase over and over again.  >:(

Now back to topic:
I think everything was said in this thread, nothing new comes. Only the same old "discussion" which goes over 3 pages back.

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM by Aouch

Aouch wrote:
You know what Loupblanc? I'm done with you and your arguments.

QuoteI've read in numerous places that the NashOrn was going to be in OstHeer.

Link or it never happened.

- Fine. There will be *NO* Nashorn in the Ostheer.
Because you said so. Now Lord Rommel can't add it
to the OstHeer. Are you satisfied?

Quote As for the Marder2, it's a Panzer2 conversion,
so it's logical that it'll be in OstHeer.

Ah. Following your argumentation, it's logical to have StuIG 33B in the OH because there will be Pz3.  ::)

- Never heard of StuIG 33B before?? I'm learning something
new. Well, it seems like a very small run tank.
Production history
Designer Alkett
Designed 1941-2
Manufacturer Alkett
Produced 1942
Number built 24

Plus, it'S 1941-1942 (5 left in 1944)
Guess you'd like it spammable/uncapped? ;)

Quoteand why PanzerIII will be the new Panther
- Yes, I know. You want no StuG, and want uber numberous
PzIII that kill IS-2

Sorry for being a bit rude, but don't you notice you're making a fool out of yourself?
I've stated infinite times that I want Stugs and don't want Pz3 being an uber-tank which is four times more powerfull, twice as common and half the price of T-34.
Despite I said that countless times, you continue to use that phrase over and over again.  >:(

- Topic on table is removing StuGIII (Putting is as a
Reward unit) which would rebalance the PzIII as an uber
tank. Well not 4x more powerful. Maybe 1.5 vs 1 T34,
at 60% price, with a ratio of 3 on 1.

Now back to topic:
I think everything was said in this thread, nothing new comes. Only the same old "discussion" which goes over 3 pages back.

Well, actually, yes. Some things did come out of it.

Making StuGIII a reward unit for PzIII. (But capped)
(With no cap on PzIII).
No Nashorn. (Absolutely not in OstHeer)
MarderII as the AT unit (Thus no need for StuGIII)
with Buffed/cheap/numerous/powerful PzIII. (Who comes
early).

Je ne veux pas ecrire francais ici  :P

About Nashorn: Anyone had said that Ostheer get Marder II or Nashorn. This are community rumours ;)

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 9:02 PM by Lord Rommel

@Loupblanc

You should calm down pal, you're spaming ideas that already presented yourself(overall) pages before. Lord Rommel just wrote some options for the ostheer and of course, it contradicts each other because are different options.

You read him, he wants to implement the Stug if possible without the reward system, you don't need to defend your point like this.

You have to reflect what devs can do and why they are doing it. I think you're overreacting. This won't help your suggestions and probably most people could have a bad opinion about you because of how you defend your point.

@Lord Rommel :
- Et pourquoi ne veux-tu pas écrire en Francais ici?
Ca serait rigolo, et on pourrait peut-etre se comprendre
pour une fois ;) Ca ferait différent, et ca serait fort
enrichissant ;)

@BlackBishop :
- Yea but it pisses me off that Aouch says oh yes,
that is the best idea yet! You are so right! Even if
ideas contradict each other. If Lord Rommel declared
the introduction of Japanese Units in OstHeer (He
won't, but for argument's sake) I bet Aouch would
say oh yes! This is your best idea yet, let's do it! :p

- I have a very good idea of what the mods can or
can't do. Been around modding communities for a few
years, namely Merciless Creations (BF1942) and Forgotten
Hope group, under various names. I been playing video
games for awhile, namely just about everything WW2-
related, and have been paying attention to COH_EF
since it began. Fine, I'm passionnate, and opiniated, and
outspoken.

  Is it too much to ask for something that is Historical,
balanced, different yet has a fun, but distinct feel?
Well, yes ;) But, still.

  I recall when they said no to Finn StuG/captured T34's.
And Italy and Romanian and... saying there were too many
German units still unrevealed. And yes, often, there has
been quite a bit of talk about excluding the StuGIII.

  It can't be a doctrine unit, it can't be a call-in, it has
to be a refit, or buildable.

  I guess I'm just sad they shoot down any and every
interesting idea that fits well and is balanced, in favor
of Uber and numerous German tanks that were the
exception, not the rule.

And a thousand apologies, I know I do not express myself
very well, at times. I'd like to see you try it in French ;)

Loupblanc, seriously, why the hell do you keep on writing in this strange, sarcasm-style-way?
Since you don't get it, I'll have to repeat myself, now in short phrases, maybe you are now able to get it and stop to troll, because that is exactly what you are doing in the moment:

1) I want Stug3.
2) I want Pz3.
3) I want Pz3 being a gap-filler between the Stuart and
    Sherman -> Ausf. J (5cm KwK38 L/42).
4) I want Pz3 to be the MTB of the OH. A rather "weak" MTB.
    (Should only be effective as a group -> 2-3 Pz
    needed to gain full movement-speed in enemy territory)
5) I want Stug3 being an assault-gun and tankdestroyer.
    -> Ausf. G (7.5cm StuK40 L/48)
    (To work as infantry-support -> mobile "infantry-cover")
6) I want pricing + pop be based on balance-testing

Now some additional things: Pz3 is only effective as a group. This doesn't mean they should be spam-tanks. I'll make an example to help you understanding it:
If a SU-player has 3 T-34, he can use them everywhere on their own to support infantry or do attacks.
If a OH-player has 3 Pz3, he can use them only in a group to do attacks.
Therefore, if 3 Pz3 encounter a lonely T-34, they'll win, because they're more and can circle-straf him, whatever.
If 3 Pz3 encounter all 3 enemy T-34 in one place, they'll lose.

Now, the other things depend on how the Pz3/Stug3 are added.
If they're reward-units, Pz3 should be upgradeable to Ausf. J¹ (5cm KwK39 L/60) for better AT or Ausf. N (7.5cm KwK37 L/24) for better AI.
Stug3 should start as version with short 7.5cm StuK37 L/24 for AI and later be upgradeable to Ausf G with StuK40 L/48 for AT.
If they Stug3 is Pz3-upgrade, Stug3 shouldn't have the StuK37. Because that's the Pz3 Ausf. N's role.
Or forget about Ausf. N and make Stug3 with StuK37 and later upgrade. However, as we've seen a WIP-model of "N", it would be dump to not add it in.
If they're added through unit-pools, we can have them the first way, both with all upgrades. However, the "tank-branch" should get PzJ Marder II as tankdestroyer, since Pz3 lacks proper AT-capabilities against later tanks and "artillery-branch" should get PzH Wespe, because after all it's the artillery-section.

For all three possibilities there should be still some heavier tanks, may they be buildable or through doctrine.

And now, please stop talking bullshit about "what Aouch thinks/wants".

QuoteThird Tank? Panzer 4 or Panzer 5?
With Panzer4, don't need Panzer3. With Panzer5 Panther,
you don't need StuG3F (So you have a MOST numerous
tank that was NEVER represented in all German armies,
and Panther/Panzer4 that was in all 3 factions).

My bad, didnt express myself correctly. I meant a HEAVY OPTION. Which can be a Tankdestroyer, a Battlegroup or sorts. Tank are not a must

Quote- Yes, you methodically say my ideas are bad :p

Nope, Just didnt agree with some of them.

Quote
For all three possibilities there should be still some heavier tanks, may they be buildable or through doctrine.

I vote for a heavy buildable. In addition to the ones that will be doctrine specific.

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 9:43 PM by Ryousan

Aouch wrote:
Loupblanc, seriously, why the hell do you keep on writing in this strange, sarcasm-style-way?
- $#!(**$??

Since you don't get it, I'll have to repeat myself, now in short phrases, maybe you are now able to get it and stop to troll, because that is exactly what you are doing in the moment:

1) I want Stug3.
* Me too.
2) I want Pz3.
* Me too.
3) I want Pz3 being a gap-filler between the Stuart and
    Sherman -> Ausf. J (5cm KwK38 L/42).
* Me too.
4) I want Pz3 to be the MTB of the OH. A rather "weak" MTB.
    (Should only be effective as a group -> 2-3 Pz
    needed to gain full movement-speed in enemy territory)
* Ok, I agree, but there is something I hadn't understood.
  I only wanted the speed limitation to prevent early rape,
  due to other faction not having AT yet. You want to keep
  it PE-Infantry style blob style as a CON to get a 'PRO'
  That of buffing the rather 'weak' MTB to decent levels.
  I hadn't understood that. In fact, I even wanted to
  limit to 2, and/or include the StuGIII to remove the con.
  and/or for further upgrades to remove this con. But you
  kept insisting on it, and I couldn't understand why.

    Essentially, you were saying that if you take the time
to build a Panzer Armored Fist, it should behave like one.
While I understood that you were saying that all German
Panzers should be uber AND more numberous, because
it's what would be fun. Now, that's completely different.
I still think StuGIII should count as a PzIII towards
remove this con, then. I think we are in agreement
(3 PzIII, or 2x PzIII and 1x StuGIII for example)
* Actually, now that I understand it better, I am
totally for it. Perfect for trapping Panzer armies if
they lose too many units in a 'spear', too. It's a
substantial con, that warrants a sizeable PRO I can
agree to.

5) I want Stug3 being an assault-gun and tankdestroyer.
    -> Ausf. G (7.5cm StuK40 L/48)
    (To work as infantry-support -> mobile "infantry-cover")
* Me too.
6) I want pricing + pop be based on balance-testing
* Me too.
Now some additional things: Pz3 is only effective as a group. This doesn't mean they should be spam-tanks. I'll make an example to help you understanding it:
If a SU-player has 3 T-34, he can use them everywhere on their own to support infantry or do attacks.
If a OH-player has 3 Pz3, he can use them only in a group to do attacks.
Therefore, if 3 Pz3 encounter a lonely T-34, they'll win, because they're more and can circle-straf him, whatever.
If 3 Pz3 encounter all 3 enemy T-34 in one place, they'll lose.
* That's not what I understood. I understood that German
should have 3 PzIII by the time Soviets come out with their
first T34, and that PzIII should win 1-on-1. 'Because
Germans are Uber'. / Do you understand my reaction now?

Now, the other things depend on how the Pz3/Stug3 are added.
If they're reward-units, Pz3 should be upgradeable to Ausf. J¹ (5cm KwK39 L/60) for better AT or Ausf. N (7.5cm KwK37 L/24) for better AI.
Stug3 should start as version with short 7.5cm StuK37 L/24 for AI and later be upgradeable to Ausf G with StuK40 L/48 for AT.
* Yes.
If they Stug3 is Pz3-upgrade, Stug3 shouldn't have the StuK37. Because that's the Pz3 Ausf. N's role.
* Yes.
Or forget about Ausf. N and make Stug3 with StuK37 and later upgrade. However, as we've seen a WIP-model of "N", it would be dump to not add it in.
* Yes.
* Dumb, not Dump :)
If they're added through unit-pools, we can have them the first way, both with all upgrades. However, the "tank-branch" should get PzJ Marder II as tankdestroyer, since Pz3 lacks proper AT-capabilities against later tanks and "artillery-branch" should get PzH Wespe, because after all it's the artillery-section.
* Oh, this I like.
* Actually, I'll even agree extra, because the
StuGIII was part of the Artillerie korps, not the
Panzer Korp.
* Didn't know the Pool system.
For all three possibilities there should be still some heavier tanks, may they be buildable or through doctrine.
* Well, er... duh ;) Of course.
Panther/Tiger/NashHorn/JagPanther lots of candidates.
I shudder at the thought of PzIII as heaviest tank :p

And now, please stop talking bullshit about "what Aouch thinks/wants".

* Aouch wants most of wha was linked above in this post.
I can prove it :D

---

Post Merge: [time]1284588109[/time]

---

Ryousan wrote:

QuoteThird Tank? Panzer 4 or Panzer 5?
With Panzer4, don't need Panzer3. With Panzer5 Panther,
you don't need StuG3F (So you have a MOST numerous
tank that was NEVER represented in all German armies,
and Panther/Panzer4 that was in all 3 factions).

My bad, didnt express myself correctly. I meant a HEAVY OPTION. Which can be a Tankdestroyer, a Battlegroup or sorts. Tank are not a must
- Well, every faction/doctrine has a game winner power.
(Tiger, King Tiger, V1, Pershing, God of War, IL2, etc)

Quote- Yes, you methodically say my ideas are bad :p

Nope, Just didnt agree with some of them.
- You don't agree with any of them :p
- I'll prove it, too, by saying OstHeer should have PzIII.
You won't be able to control yourself ;) I can prove it!!

Quote
For all three possibilities there should be still some heavier tanks, may they be buildable or through doctrine.

I vote for a heavy buildable. In addition to the ones that will be doctrine specific.

- Hmm... so you want OstHeer to have a JS-2.
Wehr have Panther.
PE have Panther.
Hmm. Americans have Sherman76, Brits have
Firefly (Non-doctrinal, we said)(Churchill don't count).

Should OstHeer ALSO have Panthers, or do you think
they should have default buildable Tigers?
(I think soviets should have an upgradeable non
- doctrine T34 call-in)(Up to 2x T3485+2x Strelsky
squads). Eh.

Ok, you said not necessarily Tanks.
What do you propose?

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM by Loupblanc

Now I'm happy that we understand each other.  :)
I'm sorry if I write some of my posts in a way, which could be easily misinterpreted. After all, English isn't my native language either.  ;)

I'll just say something further to make sure everything is clear.

QuoteYou want to keep it PE-Infantry style blob style as a CON to get a 'PRO'.
That of buffing the rather 'weak' MTB to decent levels.

I don't know what exactly you mean, but I don't want a group of Pz3 gaining any advantages. They just lose a disadvantage this way. OK, maybe PE-style vet-sharing, but not making them deal more dmg or something alongside these lines.  :)
Stug3 counting as Panzer to remove this con is just fine.

Quote * That's not what I understood. I understood that German
should have 3 PzIII by the time Soviets come out with their
first T34, and that PzIII should win 1-on-1. 'Because
Germans are Uber'. / Do you understand my reaction now?

Oh. Now I really understand why you reacted like that.  ;D
To be a bit more accurate, I actually thought about that:
The first Pz3 "J" (L/42) arrives before the first T-34 and a bit after T-70 or Stuart. However, its use is very limited due to its slow movement in ET. The second Pz3 should arrive about the same time as the first T-34. Therefore the both Panzer still have a slight con but however are able to take out the T-34 if on own territory or better micro'ed.
When the third Pz3 arrives, which enables the OH to drive a first attack towards enemy lines, the second T-34 is being made/already drove out of factory.
After that third Pz3 (if you only produce Pz3 in that time), assuming we're talking about the Pz3-Stug-upgrade-system, the first Stug3 is being built to counter effectively the T-34, since Pz3 won't be able to stand a chance if engaged in a 3v3-situation.


Again, I'm really glad we can understand each other.
I know that we've two different opinions about the whole thing, but I accept your ideas and you accept my thinking.  :)
Great!

@Aouch :
- We both converse in a language which is neither mine
or your native language (Although, to be fair, I was born
in Scotland, but... brogue is still different). Lol
How could we *NOT* expect misunderstandings?
* SNAFU -Situation normal : All fucked up.
- PzIII blob con/pro.
Hmm, well, getting a pro, or losing a con. Either way,
it's an operational improvement. But we're fencing (swords
play term)(or dancing) with details. Lol. But, fine.
I'd actually be willing to let you get away with a genuine
PRO, if you're willing to let this CON hamper you.
- Well... yea. I don't just explode and turn nasty for
no reason, you know. Now you really understand :)

- PzIIIL42, 2PzIIIL42-1T34, 3PzIIIL42-2T34. Then...
Could sort of work, yea. I was thinking of something
very similar. I think there's like a 10% disagreement,
but it's essentially that, yup.
- I thought J was the L60 ?

* See, I can give you stuff too ;) I'm glad you accept
the StuGIII as a PzIII for the blob thing.
* BTW, I agree your PzIII blob should share xp. In this
case, it warrants it.
* Yup! :)

*** BTW, now that you've explained the Tank/Artillerie
pool, I really like it, too. PzIII/MarderII or StuGIII/Wespe.
(Since StuGIII belong to Artillerie-Korps)

Should StuG be submitted to same non-blob speed
limitations?

I was thinking of something...
Why not give it speed limitations *BUT* it's released
from it, if 2 infantry groups follow it? :) You like?
Again, gameplay-wise, it's a con to help justify a further
Pro. It also works with the PzIII-ideology, and goes with
German doctrine.

Quote
    I don't want PanzerIII to be equal to PanzerIV.
    I don't want solution to be 'make tons of PanzerIII'
    (More than T34/Sherman)
    I want more StuGIII than PanzerIII
    I want PanzerIII to come earlier than StuGIII.
    I don't want StuGIII to be AWESOME. Between a
    StuGIV and a Weak MarderIII (PanzerIII convertion too!)
    (The Marder is)

*Loups proposal, I agreed with all of it.

The things in which I did not agree Were StuartIII and Bergepanzer.

Quote- Hmm... so you want OstHeer to have a JS-2.
Wehr have Panther.
PE have Panther.
Hmm. Americans have Sherman76, Brits have
Firefly (Non-doctrinal, we said)(Churchill don't count)

Ok, you said not necessarily Tanks.
What do you propose?

-I voted for buildable Nashorn.

-Another thing could be a specialized pioneer squad that can build nerfed 88s. Many limitations though

-Panzer IV Battlegroup.

-StugIII Battlegroup.

-A single Tiger Call in.

Make your call  ::)

Ryousan wrote:

-Another thing could be a specialized pioneer squad that can build nerfed 88s. Many limitations though

-Panzer IV Battlegroup.

-StugIII Battlegroup.

-A single Tiger Call in.

Make your call  ::)

I think because 88s are already used by the two existing german factions and i wish stugIII will be buildable, i would vote for panzerIV battlegroup (wich should actually be 3) or even the single tiger. It happend often too me, that i was overrun by some dirty spammers with a bloody blob of whatever ist was units, and then i called the tiger and won immediately.. ;)

Is it my imagination or is there a huge chunk of the conversation
missing?

Its because of the new webdesign, you werent able to access the forum for a while 'because of maintenance' what it said.
But what would you like to have as an alternative to stugIII or pzIII in fighting enemy armour?

MaxiKing6 wrote:
But what would you like to have as an alternative to stugIII or pzIII in fighting enemy armour?

I don't think we need any "alternative" to StuG III and Pz III. What we need is something heavier for the heavier enemy tanks.
I would like if that's added through doctrines, though. Therefore one doc has Elefant, another maybe a Tiger or a Panther-call-in.
However, I also think that not every doctrine should have a heavy tank or tank-destroyer. For example, another doc could be based around the Luftwaffe and have a StuKa-attack, with a Ju 87 coming in and dropping one single heavy 500 kilo bomb to destroy tanks from above (after all, most WW II-era tanks had rather weak top-armor).
Or something based around static warfare with a PaK40-emplacement.  :)


One thing to the new design: I really like the new Homepage-design, however the way it's put into the Forums looks like someone threw literally a gigantic shitload over it. This brown is just a no-go in my opinion. It makes it very, very difficult to read posts.
Also, the few "white places" and letters still existing is really hurting my eyes.  :(

I don't care if you make it look like someone shit on every post and topic, but then at least don't make it that dark-brown. 

Aouch wrote:

MaxiKing6 wrote:
But what would you like to have as an alternative to stugIII or pzIII in fighting enemy armour?

I don't think we need any "alternative" to StuG III and Pz III. What we need is something heavier for the heavier enemy tanks.
 

Thats exactly what i meant. In one doctrine there will be the ferdinand/elefant tank destroyer, i think Pak40 emplacement is a good idea. StuKa attack should also be included, and the panzer battlegroup too.

MaxiKing6 wrote:

Aouch wrote:

MaxiKing6 wrote:
But what would you like to have as an alternative to stugIII or pzIII in fighting enemy armour?

I don't think we need any "alternative" to StuG III and Pz III. What we need is something heavier for the heavier enemy tanks.

Thats exactly what i meant. In one doctrine there will be the ferdinand/elefant tank destroyer, i think Pak40 emplacement is a good idea. StuKa attack should also be included, and the panzer battlegroup too.

Panzer battlegroup? Whats that?
Id rather have a buildable vet 0 Tiger with 1 on the field limit.
Panther turrets will be better than unrecrewable emplacemests.
Nashorn should also be buildable while Ferdinand will be a heavy call-in.

MaxiKing6 wrote:
Its because of the new webdesign, you werent able to access the forum for a while 'because of maintenance' what it said.
But what would you like to have as an alternative to stugIII or pzIII in fighting enemy armour?

- PzIV, PzV, and JagPanzer (Long nosed)
(But mind you, it's already in OstHeer, now)(Reward unit)
(Although semi short barrel)

---

Post Merge: [time]1284739876[/time]

---

Eh. If someone has a multiple tank call-in, it should be the
soviets. Not the Germans.

I'm totally for the Stuka Junkers dropping 500kg bombs :)
Make it dive-scream, though. There's already one in a COH
mod, too. So it can be done allright.

I like the idea of a buildable-1 limit Vet 0 tiger on battlefield.
They were certainly more numerous in the East than in the West.

Last edited September 17, 2010 at 4:11 PM by Loupblanc

Paciat wrote:

MaxiKing6 wrote:

Aouch wrote:

MaxiKing6 wrote:
But what would you like to have as an alternative to stugIII or pzIII in fighting enemy armour?

I don't think we need any "alternative" to StuG III and Pz III. What we need is something heavier for the heavier enemy tanks.

Thats exactly what i meant. In one doctrine there will be the ferdinand/elefant tank destroyer, i think Pak40 emplacement is a good idea. StuKa attack should also be included, and the panzer battlegroup too.

Panzer battlegroup? Whats that?
Id rather have a buildable vet 0 Tiger with 1 on the field limit.
Panther turrets will be better than unrecrewable emplacemests.
Nashorn should also be buildable while Ferdinand will be a heavy call-in.

Panzer Battlegroup is that what PE already has, the Panther Battlegroup. Dont know if this is correct, i only own the german version..

@Loup: When we use PzIV and Panther again, then maybe in the battlegroup. Then two PzIV and one Panther. Ive already seen the video about the StuKa mod, i think it looks well but a bit laggy-unrealistic, the turn it does when throwing the bombs. Id like to hear the Stuka sirene and would like to see something like the pinned down effect when the stuka with sirens flies above them ;)
Tiger souns also good

Last edited September 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM by MaxiKing6

"One of our tigers was worth 10 of your shermans" Said the German. "However, you always had the 11th"

http://ruse.wikia.com/wiki/

... This is what I meant in saying that Americans/Russians should
always have more tanks than Germans. The -1 pop of Russian tanks
helps in that direction. I like.

  But it's also why I'm uncomfortable with Germans being able
to have a lot more Tanks on the field than allies, see? That'S
what I was referring to.

----
Maxiking6 : 
- Battlegroup of 2PzIV and 1PzV : WAaaaayy stronger than the
1 Tiger call-in, wouldn't you say? If anyone should have a multiple
tank call-in, it should be the Soviets.
- Ya. I like the 1 tiger capped buildable. Vet0 though. Michael
Wittman was an ace when he fought in the West, but he got his
Ace status in the EAST. Not a legend there... yet. There were a
lot more Tigers in the east than in the West.
- Crush those red idiots...
... No racism, this is not a political debate. We're discussing gameplay.

Loupblanc wrote:

Maxiking6 : 
- Battlegroup of 2PzIV and 1PzV : WAaaaayy stronger than the
1 Tiger call-in, wouldn't you say? If anyone should have a multiple
tank call-in, it should be the Soviets.
- Ya. I like the 1 tiger capped buildable. Vet0 though. Michael
Wittman was an ace when he fought in the West, but he got his
Ace status in the EAST. Not a legend there... yet. There were a
lot more Tigers in the east than in the West.
- Crush those red idiots...
... No racism, this is not a political debate. We're discussing gameplay.

It was just a little joke about the soviets.. When you look around in the farum, you'll see many of those phrases.
And the I would resize my battlegroup to one PzIV and one Panther, i dont want to exaggerate ;)

Aouch wrote:
Loupblanc, seriously, why the hell do you keep on writing in this strange, sarcasm-style-way?
Since you don't get it, I'll have to repeat myself, now in short phrases, maybe you are now able to get it and stop to troll, because that is exactly what you are doing in the moment:

1) I want Stug3.
2) I want Pz3.
3) I want Pz3 being a gap-filler between the Stuart and
    Sherman -> Ausf. J (5cm KwK38 L/42).
4) I want Pz3 to be the MTB of the OH. A rather "weak" MTB.
    (Should only be effective as a group -> 2-3 Pz
    needed to gain full movement-speed in enemy territory)
5) I want Stug3 being an assault-gun and tankdestroyer.
    -> Ausf. G (7.5cm StuK40 L/48)
    (To work as infantry-support -> mobile "infantry-cover")
6) I want pricing + pop be based on balance-testing

Now some additional things: Pz3 is only effective as a group. This doesn't mean they should be spam-tanks. I'll make an example to help you understanding it:
If a SU-player has 3 T-34, he can use them everywhere on their own to support infantry or do attacks.
If a OH-player has 3 Pz3, he can use them only in a group to do attacks.
Therefore, if 3 Pz3 encounter a lonely T-34, they'll win, because they're more and can circle-straf him, whatever.
If 3 Pz3 encounter all 3 enemy T-34 in one place, they'll lose.

Now, the other things depend on how the Pz3/Stug3 are added.
If they're reward-units, Pz3 should be upgradeable to Ausf. J¹ (5cm KwK39 L/60) for better AT or Ausf. N (7.5cm KwK37 L/24) for better AI.
Stug3 should start as version with short 7.5cm StuK37 L/24 for AI and later be upgradeable to Ausf G with StuK40 L/48 for AT.
If they Stug3 is Pz3-upgrade, Stug3 shouldn't have the StuK37. Because that's the Pz3 Ausf. N's role.
Or forget about Ausf. N and make Stug3 with StuK37 and later upgrade. However, as we've seen a WIP-model of "N", it would be dump to not add it in.
If they're added through unit-pools, we can have them the first way, both with all upgrades. However, the "tank-branch" should get PzJ Marder II as tankdestroyer, since Pz3 lacks proper AT-capabilities against later tanks and "artillery-branch" should get PzH Wespe, because after all it's the artillery-section.

For all three possibilities there should be still some heavier tanks, may they be buildable or through doctrine.

And now, please stop talking bullshit about "what Aouch thinks/wants".

I totally agree with you there, i like everything! :)
And for a heavy/call-in unit i think we should have the Nashorn buildable or 3 x Panzer III/IV as call in; and i think not many where built but it would be nice to see something new unlike the Tiger, Panther, Panzer IV call-in!
Panzer III/IV: http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Axis/1-Germany/02-mPanzers/PzKpfw3-4/PzKpfw3-4.htm

PS: If the Nashorn is doctrine specific and you don't want the Panzer III/IV since it wasn't very used at least go with Panzer IV Battlegroup of 2 newer versions either the same or one Anti Tank and one Anti Infantry! ;D

Yeah i though so since WW2 Drawings doesn't even specify if there was a prototype and after a long search in google nothing showed then it was never used, and if it's not on google, it isn't anywhere! ;D But what about the Panzer IV battlegroup of a Stubby(AI) and a long barrel(AT)?

Last edited September 19, 2010 at 9:24 AM by Cozmin95

Just one note:
Your Panzer III/IV wasnt never used in combat ( no Prototype was build ).

- Sigh. a 3 PzIII battlegroup call-in? Why not make it a 12x Tiger
call-in battlegroup? If someone should have something like this, it
ought to be the Russians.
- Pz III/IV was not 'rarely used'. It was never used.
- As for Nashorn, it's too powerful. It would be akin to a Tiger
call-in and doctrinal and capped. I don't see it as a 'standard' unit.

- Who said anything about a Panzer III Battlegroup call-in?
- Yeah i eventually found out Panzer III/IV was never used!
- And yes Nashorn is too strong to be a buildable unit but they still need another tank other than StuG III, Panzer III and Panzer II(Luchs or Ausf. C)
- Can you stop with your obsession for the Russian to get a battlegroup?The Soviet faction is done so move on and think about the Ostheer!

@Cozmin95
Noone wanted to change or discuss the soviet faction, and noone wanted them to get the tank-callins. I think Loup just wanted to say that the Germans are not about a huge tankarmy-callin -> quantity, but about fewer units and quality, who its reallife counterpart was.
Look, the soviet union had, in any situation in the war, more tanks than germany, but german crews were more skilled, every tank (if i remember right) had radio equipment, ans the sights were much better. also the german weapons where better ( in late-war).

Exactly as Maxiking6 said.
Americans have a multi-tank callin (Infantry, call in battlegroup)
(Infantry and M10s/Greyhounds).
PE has a multi-tank calling (2x Panthers)
Wehr... No.
British... No.
If someone really ought to have the American infantry doctrine
battlegroup calling ability, it ought to be the soviets, seriously.

Now you describe the OstHeer having a multiple-tank BG calling
in ability? Seriously, I think not.

It's like giving Protoss ability to call-in Zerg-style 30 Carriers
all at once. Quality and quantity AND speed?
For those who are acquainted with Starcraft.

I like idea of a BUILDABLE core Tiger. Tigers were often seen on
Eastern Front. Perhaps a weaker Tiger? Perhaps capped to 1 ?
Starts with Vet0 at any rate.
How about paired with earlier, weaker PzIII's? (Weaker than PzIV)
I like Aouch's idea that grouped, they are stronger. The need to
mass them to use 'em well is a nice con. Illustrates the fact that
German commanders all had RADIOS and better group-training.

As for the soviets, they had a major revision not long ago.
It's never too late to change them again. I seriously think it would
make them into a better faction.

  But my main beef here, is that OstHeer shouldn't have a soviet-
like ability that the Soviets can't themselves use!. That's what I
really say.

  Who is with me on buildable-capped-Tigers?
Actually, eh. Wehr can mass Panthers. You could fudge Tiger
stats a bit and make 'em OstHeer 'Panthers' with a 'Tiger' model.
Of course, it would have to be tweaked :)
 
  But anything that makes OstHeer few but strong has my vote.
Make 'em slightly weaker individually but stronger collectively than
Wehr, and it could be a 'OstHeer core flavor'. I like this 'zeal for
tanks' idea. Make 'em weaker individually, but being with other
units in proximity gives them a nice buff.
PzIII/StuGIII/Tigers? Could share this (And be considered similar
to PanzerGrenadiers Ge43, STG44, Shrek, K98 all being 'same' for
Zeal purposes)

That way, we could have 'German 'Zug' like Lord Rommel asked for.

Now, I'm not saying specifically 'Make Tigers weaker'. I'm saying
buildable tigers could be part of the equation of weaker PzIII, if you
cap them (tiger) and require Zeal as part of their 'ultimate' strenght.

  If the 'Tank army' is defeated, it's harder to bring them back up-
strenght again. Historical.

Loupblanc wrote:


  Who is with me on buildable-capped-Tigers?
Actually, eh. Wehr can mass Panthers. You could fudge Tiger
stats a bit and make 'em OstHeer 'Panthers' with a 'Tiger' model.
Of course, it would have to be tweaked :)
 
Now, I'm not saying specifically 'Make Tigers weaker'. I'm saying
buildable tigers could be part of the equation of weaker PzIII, if you
cap them (tiger) and require Zeal as part of their 'ultimate' strenght.

Me. And I totally agree with this because it balances gameplay AND is historical correct. Few, strong german units to shred soviet blobs.
I also like your idea of the group strengh. Its a nice gameplay feature.

About all this call-in ideas:
U want that Ostheer use quality instate of quantity.
But keep in mind that CoH represent army formations
up to a regiment - not a hole army! So; Wehrmacht preferred
quality but in small areas Wehrmacht had quantity like all other
armys ;)

So keep the dimensions in mind  ;)

I think Panthers and Tigers must be doctrinal units, without doctrine OH just have early Stug III that is upgradeable to time as a mobile AT gun, Panzer III is the main attack tank with later upgrades (armour skirts and tungsten AP round), and with vet system can help strengten youre strike force. It would be more tactical than the other Factions. Remember that Rommels Ghost division fought in the east and they proved wery well, thoug everybody joked Rommel's forces. I'd be more like a Panzer elite faction, light and mobile force but not with hardly micro manageing Marder 3, or Paper Halftracks. With Doctrinal Panther and Tiger, the player can play as a regular WE the more tactical options I think must be the other two doctrines. Lufwaffe and something else Kampfgeschwader 200 (that was a secret inteligent service) support or something else.

Lord wrote:
About all this call-in ideas:
U want that Ostheer use quality instate of quantity.
But keep in mind that CoH represent army formations
up to a regiment - not a hole army! So; Wehrmacht preferred
quality but in small areas Wehrmacht had quantity like all other
armys ;)

So keep the dimensions in mind  ;)

---------
Sigh. You miss my point completely.

Fine. The German idea is "Local superiority' to have superiority.
I know this. But why does it have to be the whole 6th Panzer
elite army against a lonely T70 because T34's are now reward units?

It doesn't work from a game play point of view.
You want early, you want elite, you want powerful AND you want
quantity. Essentially, you are saying that if a German plays chess,
their board side ought to be all Queens (and 3 rows of it). Because,
well, Germans are just that superior.

1 zealot = 2 marines = 4 zerglings. Take your pick. You can't have
4 zealots = 4 zerglings.

---

Post Merge: [time]1284946976[/time]

---

Lord wrote:
About all this call-in ideas:
U want that Ostheer use quality instate of quantity.
But keep in mind that CoH represent army formations
up to a regiment - not a hole army! So; Wehrmacht preferred
quality but in small areas Wehrmacht had quantity like all other
armys ;)

So keep the dimensions in mind  ;)

========
Are you saying that because germans prefer local superiority,
(As what their tenet, I won't take that away). Ever chess game
where germans play should be 100% queens (3 rows of them)
(That's 17 queens, 1 king), against 1 soviet pawn and king?

---

Post Merge: [time]1284947084[/time]

---

--------
He just said that OstHeer should have QUALITY *AND*
Quantity. Can'T someone see a problem here?

From a gameplay point of view?

---

Post Merge: [time]1284948414[/time]

---

@TheReaper :

Ah, but you heard LordRommel...
Germans must win every fight. It's not about making a side
interesting or even different. That's why no finnish, rumanian
or anything. That's why Pacific Expansion will be about Tiger
Armies racing atop the oceans sinking flying B17 formations :p
Remember, pearl harbor was about Germans attacking.

  Didn't you hear? WW2 was about Germany against the World.
No Italians, no Japanese, No Finnish, No Rumanians, no Bulgarians,
no Croatians, no Spaniards, no nothing. Only JaegerTigers and
Maus and LandCruzer1500 arriving in the enemy's HQ before
he's finished making his 2nd Engineer.

-----
As for the StuGIII? Didn't exist.
Might be a reward unit for the Elefant. (1 on 1). Maybe.
PanzerIII can defeat Pershings 1 on 1. First shot, first blow.

------

He's not about balance or gameplay.
He's not about being innovative.
He's about heavy tanks and Germans winning all the time.

-------
I heard Germany had 5000 Tigers in every fight, every squirmish,
Every fist fight in bars. Why? Well, that's because Germans are
like that. They should have local superiority in - every - fight.
That's just how it happenned.
--------
Now that I'm done with my little rant for the moment.
The ... shit, forgot the name. The tank 'group bonus thing'
ZEAL. Thank you. is a good way to get both quality and quantity.
PzIII/StuGIII groups, for example. Throw in Tigers (Or whatever)
to the Zeal rule, and you can have it both ways.

But there's a couple of Cons to consider :
(It's all about spending ... points. Like creating a character.
It needs flavor, it needs balance, it needs an historical slant).

And it needs to be more than just 'Germany is Uber'.

What cons would you consider?
I'd offer individually weak German units (tanks). Radios,
Group tactics, etc. They were geared to fight as a hard core.
It's a little similar to the British uber blob, but with armor, and
with being hard to make up for losses rapidly.

This gives us possibility of buildable Tigers in numbers. No initial vet.
But they'd have to be nerfed individually in a crippling manner.
The 50% speed (50% attack speed?) when in enemy territory, and
when not in a Zug? (Is that the term?) Germany Panzer squadron.
Works for PzIII also.

With sidegrades that are myopic (Crippling upgrade one way or the
other), individually weak PzIII, you can keep the PzIII while making
it replace the PzIV.

The zeal rule also means no OstHeer Battlegroup call-ins, though.
Because that goes against the 'Strong when grouped, but fucked
as soon as they lose their bonus'. BG call-ins means instant
formation bonus. And there HAS to be an inherent weakness.

No weakness means no flavor.

-----
Sorry for the rant, but when someone says :
Germany only has quality AND quantity in every single battle...
I go nuts.

Last edited September 20, 2010 at 2:06 AM by Loupblanc

Umm... lol?

He just said that Germans had strategic numerical superiority within a local region. He also said that CoH is a game where a single company engages in a skirmish with the enemy and, in such a small-scale conflict, the Blitzkrieg style local superiority wouldn't be seen down on the tactical level but on a grander, strategic scale (which this game doesn't represent).

Overreact much?

Eh, I'm not perfect, I know.

He said German units had quality advantage over their opponents,
as well as having quantity advantage over their opponents. The
ratio of 3 PzIII over each T34 was mentionned.

Which brings us USA-like early game advantage *AND* Wehr-like
Late game advantage. Best of both worlds, anyone?

Loupblanc wrote:
He said German units had quality advantage over their opponents,
as well as having quantity advantage over their opponents. The
ratio of 3 PzIII over each T34 was mentionned.

Who compares T-34 to a PzIII? Its like comparing a Panther to a Sherman.
PzIII should be compared to BT-7 tanks, PzIV to T-26, Pz38(t) and PzII to T-26.

The truth is in 1941 Soviets had 23,106 tanks (more than rest of the world combined), of which about 12,782 were in the five Western Military Districts. Wehrmacht had about 5,200 tanks overall, of which 3,350 were committed to the invasion. About 1000 of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks had no German counterpart. ZiS-2 and ZiS-3 AT guns were better than any German PAK. Soviet 152mm guns (1938) were the best in their class. PPSH and SVT-40 were common. MiG-3, Jak-1 fighters, Il-2, PE-2 bombers were as good as Me-109e, Ju-87D and Ju-88a.

QuoteI like idea of a BUILDABLE core Tiger. Tigers were often seen on
Eastern Front. Perhaps a weaker Tiger? Perhaps capped to 1 ?
Starts with Vet0 at any rate.

How about a Single Tiger Call in? Which works pretty much as the PE Panther call in. Because make it buildable, to be capped to 1, just doesnt really make much sense. 

A  two Panzer IV Call-in could also work.

Paciat wrote:

Loupblanc wrote:
He said German units had quality advantage over their opponents,
as well as having quantity advantage over their opponents. The
ratio of 3 PzIII over each T34 was mentionned.

Who compares T-34 to a PzIII? Its like comparing a Panther to a Sherman.
PzIII should be compared to BT-7 tanks, PzIV to T-26, Pz38(t) and PzII to T-26.

The truth is in 1941 Soviets had 23,106 tanks (more than rest of the world combined), of which about 12,782 were in the five Western Military Districts. Wehrmacht had about 5,200 tanks overall, of which 3,350 were committed to the invasion. About 1000 of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks had no German counterpart. ZiS-2 and ZiS-3 AT guns were better than any German PAK. Soviet 152mm guns (1938) were the best in their class. PPSH and SVT-40 were common. MiG-3, Jak-1 fighters, Il-2, PE-2 bombers were as good as Me-109e, Ju-87D and Ju-88a.

No one said anything about a ratio of 3 Pz.III to T-34, the idea that was presented was about a call in of "3 x Panzer III/IV". And that idea was already settled.

I think you're overreacting @Loupblanc, like will say in my country, you're making a storm in a glass of water.

- I prefer single Tiger call in. Maybe make it weaker, because it's
not 'doctrine'. Similar to IS-2. I don't want to see multiple Panzer
call-ins (Because it ought to go to Soviets). Might as well have a
multiple Tiger call-in. (And I'd rather reserve that for StuGIII) :)
(with the numbers built, they NEED their time in the light)
- PzIII compared to BT-7 tank... ugh. Weak armor, and 45mm
gun. Fast as hell, though. I'd say T-26, but... it's actually worse.
- True, in 1941 Germany raped Soviet army who was 2-3 times
larger. But as case in France and in Soviet Union, both have
horrible military leadership, and a doctrine of (similar to)
2 tanks per 100 men. The German Panzer army doctrine ripped
through that (Shouldn'T say that, someone might get ideas) lol.
They were caught napping.
On that assumption, Japanese were WAY better than anything
American at Pearl harbor. A pencil can kill a sleeping man, even
if he has laser guided sniper rifle. Is pencil better than laser
guided sniper rifle? No.

German planes caught Russian planes on ground.
A lot didn't have pilots.
Most Soviet generals were dead and in jail. Leadership nil (Local).
Then blitzkrieg set in, and they used FLAK88 in AT role to great
effect (as in France)(I think that was Rommel's idea).
(In Africa, too, mind you).

COH is set in 1943-1945. Not 1940-1941. Very VERRRRY
different war and setting.

Anyone have axis and allies? (The board game)
soviets can't attack on turn 1. Germans attack and decimate
them. It could be other way around if Soviets could've attacked
first, but they weren't ready.
Same for japanese at Pearl Harbor. Always useful when you catch
someone with their pants down ;)

SVT-40 and PPSH common in 1941? I think not.
But I know some german soldiers way preferred PPSH to Mp40.
SVT-40 is interesting, too. Ge43 had problem for years.
That gas cartridge was unreliable.

@Loupblanc:
I want to remember that CoH isnt a game about the hole eastern front. When u start a battle u play a company or a regiment and not more. About this scale it is problem to say that german army used quality instate of quantity.
When u watch the hole german frontline u will see that germans were outnumbered by enemy's weapons but when u watch some specific points u will see that germans were able to outnumber the red army.
When regiment fight against regiment like in CoH your "quality over quantity concept" wont work in every detail!!

So out of my view it could be possible that Ostheer could produce a lot of Panzer III during the game. It could be that early T-34s are outnumbered by german Panzers because the size of CoH allow such a scenario.