Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Cybvep »

IRL heavy tanks were a precious commodity - their numbers were limited, as they were expensive to produce and maintain and hard to support logistically, but wherever they appeared in higher numbers they could add a solid punch both in offensive and defensive operations. Therefore, a HARM corps wouldn't make any sense, but I think that there is a way to represent the importance of heavy tanks without creating any new units. Basically, it would be possible to "convert" a MEC or an ARM into HARM or HMEC (in the same manner as we convert GARs into PARAs or create SS units,) which would represent heavy tank support (HTS). The process would cost PP and shock, defence, survivability, oil consumption and reinforcement cost of the unit would be increased and movement would be decreased (in order to represent higher mechanical breakdown and extensive logistical support). The number of conversions would be limited like in case of PARAs, but it would also be possible to "remove" HTS from the unit and add it to an another unit, like in case of leaders.

What do you think?
ncali
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by ncali »

I tend to prefer the existing upgrade system. One of the fun things about the game is that it is not overly complex. GS 2.1 has added some complexity, but I don't think it's overwhelming. I've always thought of research and upgrades as representing incremental improvements in all the aspects of a corps' weapons. I don't think the icon showing a heavy tank represents that the unit is comprised entirely of heavy tanks - simply that a number of them are available in units attached to the corps.
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Cybvep »

What would be so complex about this? :shock: Upgrades are cheap and generic and they are equally distributed, so it's a rather poor representation of heavy armour IMO.
pk867
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1602
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by pk867 »

There was not enough heavy armor of that type to make a difference in this strategic game. The real heavy tanks would not arrive with enough numbers in the timeframe of the game. If the war went into 46' and 47' maybe. But then Germany would not have the materials that late in the war for that.
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Cybvep »

Heavy tanks were important despite their low numbers. That's what made them strategic assets and IMO this is what HTS would represent.
ncali
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by ncali »

I guess I should mention that I also did not originally favor adding SS, paratroopers, and guards - although they give the gave a little bit of flavor! At the corps level, I just don't see that a special heavy tank upgrade (independent of the normal tank corps upgrade) would be a significant enhancement.

The Axis (or the Allies for that matter) can get the last level upgrades for tanks, including a significant armour enhancement, and then deploy them if they invest in the tech and have the time. The game does not necessarily follow a historical timeline as I think of these last "upgrades" as arriving very late in the real war (but potentially available a bit earlier if the Axis has invested in tank tech). I would think this represents having heavy tanks available, at least as a corps-level asset (even if not necessarily incorporated into every panzer division).
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Cybvep »

I guess I should mention that I also did not originally favor adding SS, paratroopers, and guards - although they give the gave a little bit of flavor!
Yet they work fine and add new gameplay options. I don't see how HTS would be any different and they would certainly work as corps-level asset, since the new semi-unit would represent higher concentrations of heavy armour. KV-1, Tigers etc. were major obstacles wherever they were encountered. One of the reasons for constant delays of Operation Citadel was the desire to concentrate heavy armour in one place... Anyway, standard upgrades just don't do heavy armour justice, IMO they represent just general advancement in tank (and tank destroyer) quality and numbers. Anyway, if there is no/little support for my idea, then I won't be aggressively supporting its inclusion.
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Plaid »

To start with - why only heavy armour attachment? If someone ever introduce upgrade system, there should be many variable upgrades availiable - combat engineers, bridge engineers, heavy artillery, reactive artillery, AA artillery and so on and so on.
The question is - do we need this batallion/battery sized units in corps level game. My answer is no, but thats only me.
Also I don't think that it is possible to "attach" bonus stats to unit other way, then making special leaders (like +1 attack +1 anti-tank with 0 leadership value) and purchasing them, but thats also can be hard to make.
Heavy tanks were important despite their low numbers. That's what made them strategic assets and IMO this is what HTS would represent.
Any proofs of this by the way? I don't know any single battle turned by heavy tanks. If we look say Citadel soviets ended victorious, despite quite poor quality of their tanks.
If we look Barbarossa soviet heavy armor didnt do any good on operational level aswell.
Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2292
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Morris »

Plaid wrote:To start with - why only heavy armour attachment? If someone ever introduce upgrade system, there should be many variable upgrades availiable - combat engineers, bridge engineers, heavy artillery, reactive artillery, AA artillery and so on and so on.
The question is - do we need this batallion/battery sized units in corps level game. My answer is no, but thats only me.
Also I don't think that it is possible to "attach" bonus stats to unit other way, then making special leaders (like +1 attack +1 anti-tank with 0 leadership value) and purchasing them, but thats also can be hard to make.
Heavy tanks were important despite their low numbers. That's what made them strategic assets and IMO this is what HTS would represent.
Any proofs of this by the way? I don't know any single battle turned by heavy tanks. If we look say Citadel soviets ended victorious, despite quite poor quality of their tanks.
If we look Barbarossa soviet heavy armor didnt do any good on operational level aswell.
Yes, USSR win the war is just because of the GDP & support from Allies ! But USSR had already achived the advantage of tank tec from 1941 when Germans still building Panzer 3D& 4A ,USSR had already built T34 & KV 1,KV2 !
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Cybvep »

To start with - why only heavy armour attachment? If someone ever introduce upgrade system, there should be many variable upgrades availiable - combat engineers, bridge engineers, heavy artillery, reactive artillery, AA artillery and so on and so on.
HARMs had a different role and were much more limited than the things you mention, which are already included in standard units.
Any proofs of this by the way? I don't know any single battle turned by heavy tanks. If we look say Citadel soviets ended victorious, despite quite poor quality of their tanks.
If we look Barbarossa soviet heavy armor didnt do any good on operational level aswell.
As mentioned before, it would work a bit like leaders and PARAs, so it would boost individual units. Oh, and the Soviets had better tanks in general in 1941 (just as the French and the British did in 1940) and this didn't prevent the Germans from being successful, so your point is moot here. The reason is simple - tank quality is just one factor out of many. However, heavy armour caused problems whenever they appeared, e.g. KV1 mentioned by Morris was a pain in the ass in 1941 for the Germans. Tigers were also feared by the Allies and in fact, mechanical breakdowns were often a bigger problem than enemy's attacks. It's also funny that you refer to "operational advantage", because the Eastern Front in CEAW is nothing like RL Eastern Front in 1941 - the Germans are winning because of better units, not because of operational manoeuvres. It's the same in France - a battle of attrition which the Germans win because they have much better units. When you look at it, CEAW represents the land war in Europe poorly in 1940-1941 on the operational level.

If we want to be fair, then there is more reason to introduce HARMs than "elite" SS divisions, which weren't really elites in most cases - it was propaganda. The performance of PARAs on the operational level also left much to be desired (they excelled in commando raids, which don't belong in this game), yet they are represented in-game and nobody complains.

However, this feature is not sth that is of utmost importance, so I won't be requesting its inclusion too aggressively ;).
Samhain
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:58 am
Location: Cork, Ireland

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Samhain »

The game doesn't distinguish between various types of fighter or carrier so I don't see why it should distinguish between types of tanks. I propose though that in research Blitzkrieg be replaced with Heavy Tanks as blitzkrieg is an idea and you can't research other ideas. Artillery had its uses in the war as well but either there weren't enough pieces and/or they weren't useful enough to be made into their own units in this game so they're a research area instead.
In spite of the Final Fantasy character it's pronounced sao-win after the Irish pagan god of death. I'm not a pagan but we're on a wargames website so I thought it fitting.
Plaid
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Plaid »

I strongly agree with Samhain on this one!
All other techs (apart from organisation, but well, this is ...mmm... organisation) represent some material equipment, while blitzkrieg is a military theory.
Its a bit odd, probably worth renaming into something more hardcore, related with heavy tanks or armaments.
(By the way blitzkrieg is mostly german approach on armour use, other powers, like UK, used armour in different way, as far as I know)
JimR
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:22 am

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by JimR »

While I agree that the "Blitzkrieg" focus might be renamed, isn't the present "Armor" focus in armor tech roughly equivalent to investment in the development of heavier tanks? "Blitzkrieg" might better be conceptualized as "firepower," or some such thing.
Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by Cybvep »

How about "Heavy Support"?
metolius
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:27 pm

Re: Heavy Tank Support - an idea for 2.2

Post by metolius »

The way to do this (similar things that have been suggested) is to have 'specialist' elements that can be attached to a unit.

The unit would get a little 'badge' to indicate that 'heavy tanks' or 'engineers' or 'anti-aircraft' have been attached to the unit.

In essence, I'm thinking that they would work much like generals work now, but on a parallel track.

The costs and benefits would be specific to the specialist element, and the specialists could be destroyed in combat, detached to the force pool, etc.
Post Reply

Return to “Commander Europe at War : GS Open Beta”