Just concede a scenario as the allies against the Germans. The scenario had a point limit o 2500. Now the basic sherman cost 99 points whilst the Panther cost 240 points. So effectively the allies could get 5 shermans for two panthers. But two panthers are much better than five shermans. If the panther hits it kills a Sherman, whilst the allied player has to try and swarm the panther.
If have seen this it many scenarios, and the allies though out numbering the Germans, is not enough. The battle field is soon littered by allied wreaks.
The points seem off and I for one am getting frustrated with the game.
Am I missing something? Doing something wrong.?
Vehicle costs and scenario balance
Moderators: Slitherine Core, BA Moderators
-
- Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:47 pm
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:44 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: Vehicle costs and scenario balance
Once again we BA is going for historically balance and if set up 1 or 2 Shermans In a good ambush zone and the Panther shows its rear/side armor it's done for. The Allies can NEVER do a head on attack. They must Reilly on Artillery and Airstikes as well as infantry. That's how things were done back on the days of WWII. Sometimes you have to lure the tanks into a Killzone and it does mean sacrificing some units.... But hey 2 Shermans is worth a Panther right?
-
- Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:47 pm
Re: Vehicle costs and scenario balance
I was playing a scenario called woods. The allies had no option to purchase air or off board artillery. I did lay ambushes. The panther comes into view, Sherman misses panther turns around shoots kills. Even a Jagdpanther did the same. And a king tiger. So yes losing two shermans to get a panther is worth it, but aim losing much more. It gets frustrating.
The allies DID take on the Germans by ATTACKING them, but you advocate defensive play, but if objectives need to be captured then you need to attack.
So I will try early war, see if that restores my faith in this game, but late war it sucks to be the allies, to the point of tedium.
The allies DID take on the Germans by ATTACKING them, but you advocate defensive play, but if objectives need to be captured then you need to attack.
So I will try early war, see if that restores my faith in this game, but late war it sucks to be the allies, to the point of tedium.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9702
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:35 pm
Re: Vehicle costs and scenario balance
Unfortunately the late war was indeed pretty much one of attrition - rough for the poor Sherman crews for sure...
As has been said, always aim for side or rear shots on the Axis heavy armour - ideally with multiple attackers from short range with no accuracy penalties.
Cheers
Pip
As has been said, always aim for side or rear shots on the Axis heavy armour - ideally with multiple attackers from short range with no accuracy penalties.
Cheers
Pip
follow me on Twitter here
-
- Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
- Posts: 1423
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:02 am
- Location: Bradenton, Florida
Re: Vehicle costs and scenario balance
The WOODS scenario offers the M8 to the Allies, which allows on-field indirect (bombardment) fire. Very useful in tactics for the Allies, and very frustrating for the Germans to receive the fire that can sometimes destroy a Panther from above. Still, the main point is to pound him into suppression and then take flanking shots at him; frontal assault is of no use with an ordinary Sherman, which was not a tank killer by any means. I enjoy the realism and the challenge of using proper tactics although it takes many games to get the hang of things sometimes, for example I have certainly played over 200 multiplayer games probably more, and I still get beat by human opponents, that is war.
=)
=)
Re: Vehicle costs and scenario balance
From my limited experience, broadly the way the game balance seems to work is if the Allies have M8s and/or Priests they probably have the advantage. But if it an all armor scenario the Germans seem to have the edge, as well as those only featuring mixed armor/infantry. Comments in other threads question the cost of German tanks relative to the Allies, and I tend to agree at this point that they aren't quite right. I think you might make the same argument for costs of mobile artillery, certainly if the Axis don't have access to any and the Allies do.jcb989 wrote:The WOODS scenario offers the M8 to the Allies, which allows on-field indirect (bombardment) fire. Very useful in tactics for the Allies, and very frustrating for the Germans to receive the fire that can sometimes destroy a Panther from above. Still, the main point is to pound him into suppression and then take flanking shots at him; frontal assault is of no use with an ordinary Sherman, which was not a tank killer by any means. I enjoy the realism and the challenge of using proper tactics although it takes many games to get the hang of things sometimes, for example I have certainly played over 200 multiplayer games probably more, and I still get beat by human opponents, that is war.
=)