Login

russian armor

Should OKW get a heavy artillery piece?

PAGES (7)down
1 May 2015, 17:31 PM
#41
avatar of Wygrif

Posts: 278



In regards to heavy arty for OKW, NO..

In regards to your 'historic' claim:

Never heard of the hummel, nebelwerfers,or the schwere gustav, the multiple railway guns and their other heavy mortars?

in regards to the nebelwerfers, where do you think the term firestorm came from?

And if history counts here? Hmm let us have 5 t34s to every panther for the same amount of fuel, let us have soviet artillery spam (just the way the soviets liked it), let us have the IS2 mod 1944 one shot tigers, panthers and kingtigers with ease, let us have only one 76mm long barreled sherman with every 3 to 4 other short barrel shermans and the list goes on...

:)


Well a quick google search informs me that the word "firestorm" comes from the late 16th century, so it sure as hell doesn't come from the Wehrmacht.

As for your other claims, you might want to re-read what I wrote. First, it contained the phrase "in the ardennes." The schwere gustav was a too-expensive impractical piece of shit, and it wasn't at the ardennes. You know what else wasn't at the Ardennes? Meaningful quantities of German artillery pieces or ammunition(1). It's pretty easy to achieve radical superiority in artillery when your enemy started with less than half of the pieces that you had, then has to abandon half of those due to lack of ammunition.

Second, yes, obviously balance > history. You may have noted that the first reason I gave was balance related. That doesn't justify actually misrepresenting history in the way that OP proposes.


(1) http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.htm#p656
1 May 2015, 17:36 PM
#42
avatar of AssaultPlazma

Posts: 300

Why should they get a non doctrinal heavy arty when no other faction has one?


The same reason they get a non doctrinal heavy tank Kappa.
1 May 2015, 18:22 PM
#43
avatar of Jackiebrown

Posts: 657



Not really, the only Axis howitzer sucks because it was nerfed into the ground. It originally was quite good.

All factions should have the same tools open to them, USF not getting heavy tanks is dumb, OKW not having artillery or mediums is dumb, Soviets having crap stock units is dumb.

Factions shouldn't have abitrary weakness's players can do nothing about, because it means the game becomes a match of rock paper scissors with one faction always beating another but being beat by a separate faction; which isn't fun.



Not with the fuel penalty.



Are you seriously implying the Sturmtiger is an artillery piece? I'm pretty much the only one who uses it because it's probably one of if not the hardest unit to micro in the game.
Exactly, commanders are for giving you units/and or abilities that your faction usually lacks. Good examples, OKW lacks medium tanks, Elite Armored gives you Pz4 Battlegroup and Infantry Company for USF provides mortar unit with the half track and gives you access to LMGs.
1 May 2015, 18:30 PM
#44
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

OKW base faction wont magically get a nondoc artillery piece.

Itll probably come via commander.
1 May 2015, 19:56 PM
#45
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

I'll never understand why people feel OKW is so impacted by having reduced resource income. When you take into account the ability to convert income, it alleviates most of the impact in almost every respect.

Converting fuel income into muni income and vice versa is as much an advantage as reduced income is a disadvantage. They effectively cancel each other out.

It's not like their manpower income is reduced or anything and that's what matters in most games. (Especially since most factions are often floating a great deal of resources anyway, due to the call-in meta.)
1 May 2015, 20:15 PM
#46
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

I'll never understand why people feel OKW is so impacted by having reduced resource income. When you take into account the ability to convert income, it alleviates most of the impact in almost every respect.

Converting fuel income into muni income and vice versa is as much an advantage as reduced income is a disadvantage. They effectively cancel each other out.

It's not like their manpower income is reduced or anything and that's what matters in most games. (Especially since most factions are often floating a great deal of resources anyway, due to the call-in meta.)


Conversion hurts you more than it helps you. Reducing an already reduced resource to improve another gives a short term bonus but significant long term harm. The shrek is necessary to ward off medium armor rushes and converting to fuel drastically reduces the amount of shreks you can get out, as well as mines you can place and nades you can throw.

The thing with fuel and muni caches is that your turning a NON map control dependent resource IE manpower into additional map control dependent resource such as fuel. With OKW your turning a map control dependent resource into another map control dependent resource.

Pretending like the fuel income doesn't matter when it drastically reduces the amount of armor OKW can field relative to your opponent is dumb considering the point of the faction is that armor is hard to come by.

1 May 2015, 20:18 PM
#47
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578


210mm morser 18
1 May 2015, 20:25 PM
#48
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post1 May 2015, 17:31 PMWygrif


Well a quick google search informs me that the word "firestorm" comes from the late 16th century, so it sure as hell doesn't come from the Wehrmacht.

As for your other claims, you might want to re-read what I wrote. First, it contained the phrase "in the ardennes." The schwere gustav was a too-expensive impractical piece of shit, and it wasn't at the ardennes. You know what else wasn't at the Ardennes? Meaningful quantities of German artillery pieces or ammunition(1). It's pretty easy to achieve radical superiority in artillery when your enemy started with less than half of the pieces that you had, then has to abandon half of those due to lack of ammunition.

Second, yes, obviously balance > history. You may have noted that the first reason I gave was balance related. That doesn't justify actually misrepresenting history in the way that OP proposes.


(1) http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.htm#p656


I missed this but how could you seriously not know that the Battle of the Bulge involved immense amounts of artillery?

On 16 December 1944, at 05:30, the Germans began the assault with a massive, 90-minute artillery barrage using 1,600 artillery pieces
1 May 2015, 21:44 PM
#49
avatar of DakkaIsMagic

Posts: 403

They do have a Heavy Artillery piece.

Its called the Walking Stuka.



1 May 2015, 22:35 PM
#50
avatar of Wygrif

Posts: 278



I missed this but how could you seriously not know that the Battle of the Bulge involved immense amounts of artillery?



Yes, it involved lots of artillery. The vast majority of which was American not German. The Germans started with 1,600 artillery pieces, which sounds impressive until you remember that they had to abandon half of them almost immediately due to lack of ammunition and what wasn't abandoned struggled mostly couldn't keep up with the advance of the German Army. I'd respectfully suggest that you check the section labelled "the artillery arm" in the cite previously provided.

There was a whole lot of battle after December 16. From Dec. 23 to January 25 (most of the battle) the Americans had 4,155 artillery pieces--more than double what the Germans started with, and much, much more than the Germans could actually bring to bear.
1 May 2015, 22:45 PM
#51
avatar of gokkel

Posts: 542

I'll never understand why people feel OKW is so impacted by having reduced resource income. When you take into account the ability to convert income, it alleviates most of the impact in almost every respect.

Converting fuel income into muni income and vice versa is as much an advantage as reduced income is a disadvantage. They effectively cancel each other out.

It's not like their manpower income is reduced or anything and that's what matters in most games. (Especially since most factions are often floating a great deal of resources anyway, due to the call-in meta.)


How is it cancelling it out? If you transfer one ressource into the other, you will have even less resources in total because the conversion rate is unfavourable. In the case of munition to fuel it is not even enough to get to 100% fuel income still if I remember right.
1 May 2015, 22:51 PM
#52
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

They do have a Heavy Artillery piece.

Its called the Walking Stuka.





I didn't know the Stuka cost only manpower, required no teching, and was capable of being re-crewed once killed?

Much like "b-b-but Germans didn't use artillery" guy, do you seriously think rocket artillery=heavy artillery?

Yes, it involved lots of artillery. The vast majority of which was American not German. The Germans started with 1,600 artillery pieces, which sounds impressive until you remember that they had to abandon half of them almost immediately due to lack of ammunition and what wasn't abandoned struggled mostly couldn't keep up with the advance of the German Army. I'd respectfully suggest that you check the section labelled "the artillery arm" in the cite previously provided.


wow it's almost like a rapid advance geared towards taking as much ground as possible before favorable weather conditions was to fast for the slow moving artillery. Do I also seriously need to bring up the immense amount of artillery utilized on the Ost front as well?

There was a whole lot of battle after December 16. From Dec. 23 to January 25 (most of the battle) the Americans had 4,155 artillery pieces--more than double what the Germans started with, and much, much more than the Germans could actually bring to bear.


This can be said of literally everything ever in regards to the war, the allies had more, the germans had less.
1 May 2015, 23:48 PM
#53
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

As an OKW player, I can decide which I need more: munitions or fuel.

As a Soviet, Ostheer, and American player, if I don't have enough of a resource there's nothing I can do about it without a doctrine choice.

But honestly, OKW doesn't translate from 1v1s to team games without the faction design going completely bonkers. Anything that's true for OKW in 1v1s is a completely different matter for team matches. Any argument anyone makes about OKW for 1v1s will be beset by the realities of how broken they are in team games. Anything addressing team games will be complained about because OKW functions very differently in a 1v1 environment.

It's lose-lose discussing OKW's resource management design. They're largely a broken faction as a result.
2 May 2015, 00:09 AM
#54
avatar of G4bb4_G4nd4lf
Donator 33

Posts: 658

I'd say yes. Doctrinal and static just like the ML-20/B4/LeFH.

Inb4 relic is working on a commander featuring...




60-cm mortar "Karl" :D
2 May 2015, 00:24 AM
#55
avatar of DakkaIsMagic

Posts: 403



I didn't know the Stuka cost only manpower, required no teching, and was capable of being re-crewed once killed?

Much like "b-b-but Germans didn't use artillery" guy, do you seriously think rocket artillery=heavy artillery?


The Russians did with there vast array of Katushas with rockets ranging from 82mm to 300mm, on many platforms.

But I await the cherry-picking.





Also, not everything the OKW has needs to be some big sized weapon or something. Too many of them and it tends to get stupid.
I'm looking at you King tiger/Sturmtiger/Jagdtiger.







I also believe the 15 cm Nebelwerfer 41 is what they need.
2 May 2015, 00:35 AM
#56
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

As an OKW player, I can decide which I need more: munitions or fuel.

As a Soviet, Ostheer, and American player, if I don't have enough of a resource there's nothing I can do about it without a doctrine choice.

But honestly, OKW doesn't translate from 1v1s to team games without the faction design going completely bonkers. Anything that's true for OKW in 1v1s is a completely different matter for team matches. Any argument anyone makes about OKW for 1v1s will be beset by the realities of how broken they are in team games. Anything addressing team games will be complained about because OKW functions very differently in a 1v1 environment.

It's lose-lose discussing OKW's resource management design. They're largely a broken faction as a result.


Yes you can, it's called making caches. Resource conversion doesn't give you more fuel or munitions out of thin air, how much you get is entirely dependent on map control and even then the conversion isn't 100% efficient.


The Russians did with there vast array of Katushas with rockets ranging from 82mm to 300mm, on many platforms.

But I await the cherry-picking.


Okay that's great but rocket trucks are not artillery pieces. An artillery piece has a distinct definition.



Also, not everything the OKW has needs to be some big sized weapon or something. Too many of them and it tends to get stupid.
I'm looking at you King tiger/Sturmtiger/Jagdtiger.


You can never get all those together, and are you seriously hung up on the caliber of the gun? Because the caliber of a gun has little relation to it's effectiveness. Not to mention all 3 of those tanks all have different rolls.

I also believe the 15 cm Nebelwerfer 41 is what they need.


How about instead we make the ISG not shit so OKW has a good support indirect weapon and keep the Stuka as the premier OKW rocket artillery piece? OKW is missing a howitzer, and should get one.

(and before you say it yes USF is missing a rocket artillery piece and I support giving them one).
2 May 2015, 07:18 AM
#57
avatar of DakkaIsMagic

Posts: 403

Rocket Artillery is still Artillery.

Please. Explain to me why this is not the case. I want a good laugh.

(Called it on the cherry-picking).
2 May 2015, 07:35 AM
#58
avatar of Jackiebrown

Posts: 657

ar·til·ler·y
/ˌärˈtil(ə)rē/
noun: artillery
large-caliber guns used in warfare on land.
"tanks and heavy artillery"
synonyms: ordnance, (big) guns, cannon(s); battery
"the relentless sound of artillery"
a military detachment or branch of the armed forces that uses large-caliber guns.
plural noun: artilleries
2 May 2015, 07:45 AM
#59
avatar of DakkaIsMagic

Posts: 403

I'll just drop this here and watch the cherry-picking from a good distance.
2 May 2015, 07:56 AM
#60
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

I'll just drop this here and watch the cherry-picking from a good distance.


Rocket artillery =/= heavy artillery piece. In game heavy artillery is MP based, and has a crew. It's not cherry picking.

Rocket Artillery is still Artillery.


wow it's almost like an artillery piece is a specific descriptor.

PAGES (7)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

677 users are online: 677 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49065
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM