A historical comparison in the Game
14 Sep 2014, 06:18 AM
#21
Posts: 2070
that game looks interesting. is it a good game?
Axis doesn't have the best AT options in the game
14 Sep 2014, 06:32 AM
#22
Posts: 1571
Op: You should try MOW:AS2. I don't find it as fun to play, unfortunately.
A historical comparison? The last time the two sides were closer to equal was in Feb-March 1943. (the subject of act-acter's game, kharkov 1943) Both sides were exhausted although the soviets were still stronger due to their reserves in which they had no intention of using.
1944 just doesn't work if one is sticker for 'approx' accuracy. The germans are too weak at this point, and the game would literally involve them holding trenches and fortification lines that they took weeks/months to build and rationalize. Then they would have a small mobile reserve to use for a counterattack. Then the Soviets would attack with 2 x manpower, 3 x tanks, 3 x artillery, air supremacy vs LW air absence, etc. Not very fun.
A historical comparison? The last time the two sides were closer to equal was in Feb-March 1943. (the subject of act-acter's game, kharkov 1943) Both sides were exhausted although the soviets were still stronger due to their reserves in which they had no intention of using.
1944 just doesn't work if one is sticker for 'approx' accuracy. The germans are too weak at this point, and the game would literally involve them holding trenches and fortification lines that they took weeks/months to build and rationalize. Then they would have a small mobile reserve to use for a counterattack. Then the Soviets would attack with 2 x manpower, 3 x tanks, 3 x artillery, air supremacy vs LW air absence, etc. Not very fun.
14 Sep 2014, 06:43 AM
#23
Posts: 101
14 Sep 2014, 09:45 AM
#24
Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1
Op: You should try MOW:AS2. I don't find it as fun to play, unfortunately.It sounds very fun and exciting for the germans.
A historical comparison? The last time the two sides were closer to equal was in Feb-March 1943. (the subject of act-acter's game, kharkov 1943) Both sides were exhausted although the soviets were still stronger due to their reserves in which they had no intention of using.
1944 just doesn't work if one is sticker for 'approx' accuracy. The germans are too weak at this point, and the game would literally involve them holding trenches and fortification lines that they took weeks/months to build and rationalize. Then they would have a small mobile reserve to use for a counterattack. Then the Soviets would attack with 2 x manpower, 3 x tanks, 3 x artillery, air supremacy vs LW air absence, etc. Not very fun.
_____________________________________________________________________________
14 Sep 2014, 09:55 AM
#25
Posts: 1026
All joking aside though, it's really odd that the game's conceptual design is seemingly the opposite of reality - the Germans are strongest in the late game, while the Allies are strongest in the early game. For WFA, I mean. It would make more sense if the Germans started strong and had to drive the allies off before they inevitably succumbed to the "Allied Steamroller".
I would prefer the game to be even at all stages, of course, but I just found the design odd, it was there for USA vs Wehr in CoH1 too.
I would prefer the game to be even at all stages, of course, but I just found the design odd, it was there for USA vs Wehr in CoH1 too.
14 Sep 2014, 10:25 AM
#26
Posts: 747
This Game is based on the 1944's in the WW2
And Relic has the Claim of Historical Accurazy
Do they? I don't think so.
I don't get why people complain about factions not having certain stuff other factions have. You know, nobody forces you to play one faction only. If you bought WFA and vCoH2 you have access to the WHOLE gamecontent. So as milka said, instead of complaining that axis get all the "good" stuff you might wan't to play them for once.
But obviously some people can't distinguish the virtual from the real world and won't play "dirty nazies", "imperialist yankees" or "filthy communists".
If the barrier in your head limits you one side only, then that's your problem.
All joking aside though, it's really odd that the game's conceptual design is seemingly the opposite of reality - the Germans are strongest in the late game, while the Allies are strongest in the early game. For WFA, I mean. It would make more sense if the Germans started strong and had to drive the allies off before they inevitably succumbed to the "Allied Steamroller".
It's not like the whole war is represented within a 50min match. The engagements are centered around company level.
The game is actually even at all stages, the problem is, that the skill requirement to use a factions to it's full potential varies strongly.
14 Sep 2014, 10:42 AM
#27
Posts: 1026
It's not like the whole war is represented within a 50min match. The engagements are centered around company level.
The game is actually even at all stages, the problem is, that the skill requirement to use a factions to it's full potential varies strongly.
It's sub-company level really, more like platoon size. Over a long game you will get there but on the field at one time is usually less than 40-50 guys. But they certainly do try to model "world war II cliches" in this small a time scale. The Russians are all large squad sizes, their core infantry are poorly trained conscripts who use improvised weapons. The OKW are fuel constrained and have economic difficulties bringing units to bear, but have super elite soldiers and supertanks and high tech gear. Their units have five levels of veterancy instead of 3 for some reason. There's a new Wehrmacht commander modeled around the idea of encirclements and closing pockets. Closing a pocket in a Platoon sized engagement?! A lot of things in the game give this impression that they're trying to model strategic considerations and broader national stereotypes about the period that don't apply at this scale.
14 Sep 2014, 10:44 AM
#28
Posts: 752
It's sub-company level really, more like platoon size.
Full pop-cap represents about company size, per the name of the game.
"You are competitive if play to win and make efforts to improve." -Basilone
14 Sep 2014, 10:53 AM
#29
Posts: 1026
Full pop-cap represents about company size, per the name of the game.
Unless you fill it up just with core infantry you're not going to get to ~80 men, which is where company formations start at the low end.
14 Sep 2014, 10:57 AM
#30
Posts: 752
Unless you fill it up just with core infantry you're not going to get to ~80 men, which is where company formations start at the low end.
Including logistics and command staff (assumedly housed in the base structures) and vehicle crews its pretty much representative of company size.
"You are competitive if play to win and make efforts to improve." -Basilone
14 Sep 2014, 11:56 AM
#31
Posts: 978
All joking aside though, it's really odd that the game's conceptual design is seemingly the opposite of reality - the Germans are strongest in the late game, while the Allies are strongest in the early game. For WFA, I mean. It would make more sense if the Germans started strong and had to drive the allies off before they inevitably succumbed to the "Allied Steamroller".Actually late game in this game means tanks. And that´s where Germans were better in 1944. We have Su-85s with more range than a Panther despite better optics on the latter, IS-2s and ISU-152 firing super fast despite being able to lob a shell once or twice a minute. If you want Allies to have the number advantage, because of realism, their tanks should be way less effective. Especially the overrated Russian stuff (deficit in crews, optics, ergonomics, accuracy, reload speed) and so on. So German late game advantage is fine.
Also this game is set around a local engagement and with the right equipment (aka tanks) Germans achieved local victories. The thing is that on other fronts, where there wasn´t that equipment around, they would get overrun. But unless we don´t see horses in this game, the game is set at a place with a well equipped German force - so late game advantage isn´t illogical.
14 Sep 2014, 12:06 PM
#32
Posts: 1702
Actually late game in this game means tanks. And that´s where Germans were better in 1944. We have Su-85s with more range than a Panther despite better optics on the latter, IS-2s and ISU-152 firing super fast despite being able to lob a shell once or twice a minute. If you want Allies to have the number advantage, because of realism, their tanks should be way less effective. Especially the overrated Russian stuff (deficit in crews, optics, ergonomics, accuracy, reload speed) and so on. So German late game advantage is fine.
Also this game is set around a local engagement and with the right equipment (aka tanks) Germans achieved local victories. The thing is that on other fronts, where there wasn´t that equipment around, they would get overrun. But unless we don´t see horses in this game, the game is set at a place with a well equipped German force - so late game advantage isn´t illogical.
Which tanks exactly are too effective? IS-2s and ISU-152s have faster reload times, but their destructive power is alot weaker than it was in reality.
The superior optics thing has been disproven many times.
And better crews? This game is set in 1944, not 1941.
14 Sep 2014, 12:13 PM
#33
Posts: 747
It's sub-company level really, more like platoon size. Over a long game you will get there but on the field at one time is usually less than 40-50 guys. But they certainly do try to model "world war II cliches" in this small a time scale. The Russians are all large squad sizes, their core infantry are poorly trained conscripts who use improvised weapons.
Well actually the number of soldiers is a secondary indicator to determine the type of formation.
Much more important is how it's structured, equipped and led. In CoH2 you lead an infatry based "army" that uses a variation of different equippement and at some point gets supported with a few tanks.
That's imo what indicates that the game takes place on the company level.
The OKW are fuel constrained and have economic difficulties bringing units to bear, but have super elite soldiers and supertanks and high tech gear. Their units have five levels of veterancy instead of 3 for some reason. There's a new Wehrmacht commander modeled around the idea of encirclements and closing pockets. Closing a pocket in a Platoon sized engagement?! A lot of things in the game give this impression that they're trying to model strategic considerations and broader national stereotypes about the period that don't apply at this scale.
I do see what you mean, and you are right.
Also this game is set around a local engagement and with the right equipment (aka tanks) Germans achieved local victories. The thing is that on other fronts, where there wasn´t that equipment around, they would get overrun. But unless we don´t see horses in this game, the game is set at a place with a well equipped German force - so late game advantage isn´t illogical.
+1
14 Sep 2014, 12:14 PM
#34
Posts: 978
T-34/85s and SU-85s have roughly a 50% chance to go through Panthers frontal armor atm. In reality it was near impossible. Add to that that the Panther could take out T-34s from 2km + and the 85mm would struggle to go though the Panthers front at all you get the picture.
Which tanks exactly are too effective? IS-2s and ISU-152s have faster reload times, but their destructive power is alot weaker than it was in reality.
IS-2 and ISU 152 shots are tuned down? Well, so are the shots of a Panther. Both could take out with one shot. The difference is that the Panther has roughly its historic rate of fire, while ISU-152 reload 6x faster and IS-2s about 3x faster. Guess who is comes out of this worst?
No, it hasn´t. Add to that, that the gun of the IS-2 didn´t fit the turret and had to be readjusted to reload and it´s even worse.
The superior optics thing has been disproven many times.
14 Sep 2014, 12:22 PM
#35
Posts: 1702
T-34/85s and SU-85s have roughly a 50% chance to go through Panthers frontal armor atm. In reality it was near impossible. Add to that that the Panther could take out T-34s from 2km + and the 85mm would struggle to go though the Panthers front at all you get the picture.
IS-2 and ISU 152 shots are tuned down? Well, so are the shots of a Panther. Both could take out with one shot. The difference is that the Panther has roughly its historic rate of fire, while ISU-152 reload 6x faster and IS-2s about 3x faster. Guess who is comes out of this worst?
No, it hasn´t. Add to that, that the gun of the IS-2 didn´t fit the turret and had to be readjusted to reload and it´s even worse.
You are mistaking theoretical rate of fire with real combat rate of fire. Even modern combat tanks only have a rate of fire of only about 6 shots per minute. You can't just factor the reload rates, you also have to factor the fact that the crew has to aim.
These huge distance kilomer engagements rarely ever happened.
And ISU-152 rate of fire was 2-3 per minute. So according to you panther could shoot 18 times per minute? Wow.
Not really sure where exactly do you get these facts that soviet optics were inferior at all. Never heard about that IS-2 gun not fitting the turret either.
14 Sep 2014, 12:41 PM
#36
Posts: 978
I said the Panther in this game has roughly the rate of fire it actually had. Which is every 6 seconds ... 60 seconds (that´s one minute, Burts) --> 10 shots per minute. ISU-152 could fire once a minute. Ingame it does so about every 10 seconds ---> 6 shots per minute. That makes a factor of x1 for the Panther, and a factor of x6 for the ISU-152.
And ISU-152 rate of fire was 2-3 per minute. So according to you panther could shoot 18 times per minute? Wow.
Not really sure where exactly do you get these facts that soviet optics were inferior at all. Never heard about that IS-2 gun not fitting the turret either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjHkm-h_IJo#t=7m02s
"Don´t worry about the Russians, they always miss the first shot." I think they all made that one up.
14 Sep 2014, 12:47 PM
#37
Posts: 1702
I said the Panther in this game has roughly the rate of fire it actually had. Which is every 6 seconds ... 60 seconds (that´s one minute, Burts) --> 10 shots per minute. ISU-152 could fire once a minute. Ingame it does so about every 10 seconds ---> 6 shots per minute. That makes a factor of x1 for the Panther, and a factor of x6 for the ISU-152.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjHkm-h_IJo#t=7m02s
I think they all made that up.
Not really, like i said, even modern tanks only have a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute (M1 Abrams for example). And isu-152 had a rate of fire of 2-3 rounds per minute, not 1.
And i'd actually like a source of soviet optics being "bad" instead of a video and some saying that russians always miss the first shot.
Hell, even the americans admitted that the optics of the t-34 were superior to anything they had. And they were rather critical about the t-34. Mainly because the early t-34 models weren't exactly reliable.
14 Sep 2014, 12:56 PM
#38
Posts: 99
Not really sure where exactly do you get these facts that soviet optics were inferior at all. Never heard about that IS-2 gun not fitting the turret either.
The IS-2 ( and I guess the USI-152 ) had two-piece-ammunition ( of which it could only carry about 28 ). You basically had to load the weapon twice, to shoot once.
Also, as far as I know, to reload the gun it had to be lowered after every single shot for the loader to do his job; the turret didnt offer enough space for the reload mechanism I believe.
You could only load a fresh shell when the gun was in a certain position, ( which ment you had to take aim again after a reload ) -
I dont think IS-2 was really a Battle tank and more of a Break-through tank.
correct me if im wrong
14 Sep 2014, 13:02 PM
#39
Posts: 1701
And what do you want to prove that? Stalin comes to your house and says, *Yes, Burts, Cardboard is right*?? xD
Blaue Division - The best corp
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
14 Sep 2014, 13:18 PM
#40
Posts: 100
The IS-2 ( and I guess the USI-152 ) had two-piece-ammunition ( of which it could only carry about 28 ). You basically had to load the weapon twice, to shoot once.
Also, as far as I know, to reload the gun it had to be lowered after every single shot for the loader to do his job; the turret didnt offer enough space for the reload mechanism I believe.
You could only load a fresh shell when the gun was in a certain position, ( which ment you had to take aim again after a reload ) -
I dont think IS-2 was really a Battle tank and more of a Break-through tank.
correct me if im wrong
Yes you are right. It was designed not to fight other tanks but to help infantry advance and destroy mg nest etc...
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
68 | ||
 |
|
|
39 | ||
|
|
|
|
36 | ||
 |
|
|
103 | ||
|
|
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
21 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235
Board Info
939 users are online:
939 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM