Profile of AvNY

Jewish Partisans

That is the infamous D variant, with issues the A and G variants (the ones produced in more significant numbers and those who we see in-game) didn´t face.

Believe it or not: Tigers were actually reasonably reliable when maintained correctly. As the war went on however that became more difficult.

The best "tank" of the war is actually the StuG. It was the backbone of the German armored force and despite a conventional design its gun and small silhouette as well as the production cost made it perform exceptionally well before the German army collapsed totally and they were used as tank-substitutes.

Here is some more:
http://fprado.com/armorsite/tigers-02.htm

"Schwere Panzer Abteilung (Funklenk) 301 - sPzAbt (FKL) 301

Panzer Abteilung 301 returned from the Eastern Front to rest and refit with Tigers to use as control vehicles for the BIV Sprengladungsträger and was organized with a headquarters and three companies each with 10 Tigers. A total of 21 more Tigers were shipped from the ordnance depot between 25 August and 15 September 1944 and an additional ten were taken over from the s.SS.PzAbt.103.

The 301st was first reported on the Western Front by the LXXXI Armee Korps on November 1944 as having 31 Tigers (27 operational) and 66 BIV (61 operational). Four Tigers were lost before the 301st was engaged in the Ardennes Offensive and at the beginning of the attack on 16 December 1944, the 301st reported 27 Tigers available of which 12 were operational. It still had 27 Tigers of which 21 were operational on the Western Front on 30 December 1944. The 301st remained on the Western Front until the end of the War."

So 4 (of 31? of 27?) were lost before the Battle of the Bulge started. Further, on Dec. 16 (first day of the battle) 12 were operational while on Dec. 30th 21 were, implying they were in and out of operation.


Here is another:

"Schwere Panzer Abteilung (Funklenk) 316 - sPzKp (FKL) 316

sPzKp (FKL) 316 was issued 10 Tiger Is in September 1943 and five Tiger IIs in March 1944, which they did not use in combat. Attached to Panzer Lehr Division and engaged in Normandy, the 316th had six out of eight Tigers undergoing repair on 1 July 1944. By 1 August 1944, the 316th was no longer with the Panzer Lehr Division."


And here is a different drawback.. the weight meant the Tiger could not cross most bridges of the time (and Europe is criss crossed by rivers):

Schwere Panzer Abteilung 509 - sPzAbt 509
Tiger I, sPzAbt.509, Russia, 1943.
Tiger I, sPzAbt.509, Russia, late 1943.

"...It must have been an impressive sight as 45 King Tigers started the mission (WILBECK, Christopher W., op cit).

The battalion successfully penetrated the first echelons of the Soviet defenses during this day's operations. There was no intact bridge capable of holding the Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.B, however, so the German attack continued without sPzAbt.509 for the next few days. During the attack on 18 January 1945, the battalion lost seven King Tigers and destroyed at least 20 Soviet tanks and numerous other antitank guns.

After that, the battalion was engaged in a number of battles in Hungary, supporting the third German offensive toward Budapest and then went to Austria. sPzAbt 509 surrendered to American troops on May 9, 1945, near Linz. The battalion had no tanks - its motorized component was one Schwimmwagen, one radio car, and one truck."

I could be wrong about chess, but beyond the well-known strategies it seems to me that it mostly rewards the player with the patience and/or capacity to mentally trial and error a good number of moves ahead. I guess this is intellectual in a way but certainly not what I'd ever describe as 'deep'.

On the other hand there are stories of grandmasters who are able to beat many opponents simultaneously, implying much less time to think. However this sort of intuition (situations triggering memory) develops through vast experience just as it would in any activity.

It is true that Grand Masters can take on a room full of people. They are not playing 50 games. They are playing each board as they get to it from the position given. But because of their experience, study and mastery of the game they will beat the opponent 99 times out of 100. But on any given Sunday they would beat every one of the 100 players in that room in a match 1 on 1. But they aren't playing those players, they are playing that one position, on 50 boards, each time they move on to the next player.

I had also heard that the death of Brian Wood badly affected the quality. But I wasn't here at the time.

True, but CoH2 is a bit more grounded than CoH1 was, for the most part.

And yet, COH1 generally plays more like a WWII simulator, with lots of infantry combat, combined arms, flanking, less cheese and not every game devolves into swarms of supertanks rolling over everything. (Yeah, that sometimes happened with vet3 Wehr armor, but it wasn't a given and it didn't show up at the 20 minute mark).

If that wasn't the case, why are so many complaining about the gameplay in COH2?