• Blitz Shadow Player
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Surviving IS-2s ???
04-06-2010, 03:21 AM,
#11
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
Interesting discussion.

I have never been able to master the Crisis on the Oder scenario so maybe take what I say with a grain of salt....

Krazy Kat - Like Larry said the goal for the Germans is to use the panzer's longer effective range. German infantry can help stop the IS-S from getting in to close. They'll pay a price to do so but better you lose some infantry than your mobile panzers.

Kool Kat - The opposite is true for you. Get those IS-2's in close to the enemy panzers. Mass them and try to use the terrain and smoke to cover your advance as much as possible. Be patient and wait for a turn in which your horde of armor can strike from close range.

Huib brings up a good point but I prefer armor facing. I tend to play the Russian side and as it now stands in scenario design armor facing is a saving grace for Russian tankers. Based on historical data CS has built in longer effective ranges for German panzer direct fire and, I believe, there is usually greater strength factors for German panzers versus Russian tanks for the same caliber of guns (note I have not researched this) probably representing better German command and control and tactics.

As I type this I'm getting depressed thinking about some of these scenarios with a bunch of Tigers faced by T-34's. The T-34's pay a heavy price to get in close, all just to face 360 degrees of thick armor....

Now in a battle I would guess a tank commander wanting to retreat would not turn around but retreat by backing out. My mental image when I play is that when a tank unit retreats it represents a side gaining a local advantage in a skirmish. In the case of a rear shot one side has either surprised another side or has gained a great initiative. After all a turn represents all types of tactical maneuvering and micro terrain being used all within a very large 250 meter hex .

Just like the debate on how many minutes each turn is supposed to represent I guess the only answer with CS is to play with one's preferences that most coincide with your mental image of what the game is representing.
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 04:04 AM,
#12
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
Actually, I prefer armor facing and I'll tell you why: at the scale of this game (which I tend to view pretty flexibly anyway) the "retreat" rules make sense. This has been endlessly discussed but I'll put it in a nutshell here. On the scale of 250 meters per hex, in a buttoned up tank (particularly WWII vintage) you're going to have a really hard time localizing armor firing on you from say 1000 meters away. When rounds start landing close or glancing off that plate it will be very easy to inadvertantly turn and present a side or even rear shot to an enemy. This is not Combat Mission where each vehicle is uniquely represented on detailed terrain (with bogs! which I think CS needs to have, we don't have armor getting stuck like it did in reality, but that's another story). Communciation between and within tanks of this era was very problematic and trees, walls, small houses, streams, bogs, etc... will make any moving tank have to change orientation while moving inside the area represented by a "hex." Armor does not simply drive backwards and forwards like it's on rails during combat. In fact, many of the retreats would likely represent a tank backing out of "hide" or hull down position ("holy cow, those last two rounds were dead on!"), thinking that they have the reseverse slope, trees, buildings, whatever between themselve and the enemy and either misjudging that (turnint to early) or inandvertantly presenting a side shot while traveling to a new position (i.e. tank backs away, turns, drives past several building and an alert enemy gets a side shot as the tank drives past the break in two bulidings, bushes, rises in the ground, etc... I don't think the retreat means they just pivot and show their ass to the enemy (though of course, some crews may panic and do just that, but it would be a small number). Lastly, I think it is well to keep in mind that tanks do have to be pointed in the direction they are driving for the driver to do teh best job possible, and to attain maximum speed. To reinforce this, go get in your car in the driveway, paint over all the windows except a little slit in front of you and then try backing down your street as fast as you can while someone is shooting at you. Retreating as a result can also come about if a tank has gotten itself wedged against terrain or a manmade object and is stuck and has to maneuver to free itself. Despite popular opinion, tanks are not indestructable building demolition machines - there are places they can't go and things they can do, or should only do really carefully. One of my favorites is the APC that tried to drive through this old abandoned house at a fairly good clip and found out the hard way the place had a basement.

Anyway, in short, I don't consider it "gaming the system." As far as fixes, I think it would do far more for CS to fix one the largest glaring errors in the entire game: the highly flawed indirect fire system. For example, you cannot lay down effective barrages. Infantry can walk right up to the beaten zone, wait for their turn, and then walk through unscathed even though the enemy has kept that location under "continuous" fire. This, and some problems with the use of smoke in the system, are far more injurious to the realism of the game than retreats.

LR
If you run, you'll only die tired.

One hand on the wheel, and one in the flame,
One foot on the gas, and one in the grave.
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 06:12 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-06-2010, 06:13 AM by Mike Abberton.)
#13
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
(04-05-2010, 11:45 PM)Krazy Kat Wrote: That is a good point. I have been thinking about the AF and whether I like it or not...

Question: When AF is not used, how is the defence value calculated?

Is it the mean average of all values, or is there special weight used for e.g. the frontal armour?

When AF is off, the defense rating for the unit from all arcs is the basic defense rating shown in the data table or on the unit's data view in the upper right that pops us when you select it. That's also the value that is used in assaults.

In general, the armored vehicle will be easier to hit from the front (sometimes much easier), a little harder or about the same from the side, and harder to hit from the rear.

For me, I can see the accuracy/inaccuracy of both methods and will play with either.

With Armor Facing on, you do get some representation of the advantages of thick frontal armor in a long-range duel. I don't have too much heartburn about the turn-around-to-retreat behavior. Many tanks had terrible vision for the driver to the front when buttoned up, let alone to the rear, so backing up hundreds of meters just isn't all that realistic.

With Armor Facing off, you lose the advantages of thick frontal armor, but probably get a better representation of close to medium range combat.

I've always thought that a good compromise would be keeping armor facing, but reducing the frontal and rear "arcs" to a much smaller number of hexes, particularly the frontal arc. Depending on how exactly the armor facing arcs are determined (If you look at the chart in the manual, I don't think it is purely which hexside the fire comes from), you could even limit the "rear" arc to certain ranges, so you don't have 3 km laser-guided hits to the engine compartment lid. The "side" arc would use the basic defense rating of the unit. That way you'd still get some benefit to heavy frontal armor, but it would be much easier to "flank" the armor, since you could get side shots without being effectively behind the enemy unit.

Mike
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 06:47 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-06-2010, 06:48 AM by Huib Versloot.)
#14
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
(04-06-2010, 06:12 AM)Mike Abberton Wrote: With Armor Facing off, you lose the advantages of thick frontal armor, but probably get a better representation of close to medium range combat.


Mike

True.
In my experience loss rates are closer to historical numbers (in my scns at least, but these are all WF) when played without armor facing. Sherman and 57mm/ 6pounder behaviour versus Panthers is also more realistic when played without; can't rely on frontal armor.
A problem is the extra frontal protection that can suddenly turn in total weakness when a tank platoon suddenly turns it's back (which never happened). Overall, due to the latter, tank losses in the game are higher when played with armor facing "on" in my experience.
If it weren't for the retreat bug, I would have a much lesser problem with armor facing, but then it might become clear that players are going to rely on frontal armor much more than real tankers hardly ever dared to do. But then again most players will force their troops to take enormous risks anyway.

Huib
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 08:41 AM,
#15
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
I do prefer playing with armour facing on not just because of retreat shots but also if forces the player to think about position of attacking forces more and drawing fire to have the enemy face the way you want, skirting a few units within cover either side of an opponents armour drawing the facing the way you want with op fire and then taking a rear shot takes planning and skill.

I find with armour facing off it’s not as important to try and out think or out manoeuvre your opponent.

If you want to stop an opponent making you retreat and then hammering your rear, make sure you leave your armour at the edge of a tree line, on the outskirts of a village or elevation drop off so when it retreats it moves out of line of sight of the attackers. Not easy or always practical to do I will admit but it does work very well when you can.
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 10:25 AM,
#16
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
(04-06-2010, 06:47 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: In my experience loss rates are closer to historical numbers (in my scns at least, but these are all WF) when played without armor facing. Sherman and 57mm/ 6pounder behaviour versus Panthers is also more realistic when played without; can't rely on frontal armor.

I did not know this about armor facing off. I assumed it was just a frontal armor factor all over. Like your point about historical averages also. Makes me more willing to try it next time.
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2010, 10:51 PM,
#17
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
Playing Combat Mission made me much more aware of the overall armor scheme on tanks. In fact, Panthers in CM are generally not that difficult to kill as long as you use the right tactics. Attack them from multiple separated points and you will eventually get shots at side armor or the side of the turret (which is well sloped but fairly thin). So even though all your tanks are in what CS considers the "front arc", you don't have problems penetrating given a little bit of time (but still in what CS considers a turn or two).

Also read Don Fox's book on the 4th Armored division. When properly used, the 4th's tank regiments (and attached TD battalion) were able to handle Panthers at very sustainable loss ratios (i.e., in the US' favor as often as not). The Panther in particular was not an unbeatable opponent from the "front".
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2010, 02:01 PM,
#18
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFn1S5Erm...re=related


IS 2
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2010, 07:59 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-11-2010, 11:11 PM by Crossroads.)
#19
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
What an excellent discussion!

(04-05-2010, 11:45 PM)Krazy Kat Wrote: That is a good point. I have been thinking about the AF and whether I like it or not...

I have Thought About This and accordingly, I have come into a Conclusion. :smoke:

This:

(04-06-2010, 10:51 PM)Mike Abberton Wrote: Playing Combat Mission made me much more aware of the overall armor scheme on tanks. In fact, Panthers in CM are generally not that difficult to kill as long as you use the right tactics. Attack them from multiple separated points and you will eventually get shots at side armor or the side of the turret (which is well sloped but fairly thin). So even though all your tanks are in what CS considers the "front arc", you don't have problems penetrating given a little bit of time (but still in what CS considers a turn or two).

Also read Don Fox's book on the 4th Armored division. When properly used, the 4th's tank regiments (and attached TD battalion) were able to handle Panthers at very sustainable loss ratios (i.e., in the US' favor as often as not). The Panther in particular was not an unbeatable opponent from the "front".

It comes down to this, doesn't it? First of all, are the tanks themselved properly modelled, but equally importantly: do the same tactics work out as worked at the time? Of course keeping in mind the level of abstraction with platoons, 250 hexes and the famed 6 minute turns.

In this case: is it possible to have a better kill ratio when having Shermans against Panthers. Answer, I believe is: yes it is! :thumbs_up:

:soap:

I recently read a book about the Assault gun battalion during Summer 1944, the day to day events described based on their original war diaries. More info on this later, but the interesting point to discuss here is the fact they ended up with a quite amazing kill ratio of 89 enemy tanks vs a loss of 8 own tanks.

- Out of 8 losses one got stuck and the ground was lost, two drove into mines, the other one even into a friendly minefield, 3 were knocked down by enemy tanks and two by enemy AT guns. All 8 were lost on counter-attacks.

- The 89 kills were mostly T-34/43s with some -85s thrown in. A few KV-1s, and IIRC three IS-2s and two ISU-152s. Most kills from distances bw 150(!) - 600 meters, often from camouflaged, even prepared defensive positions. The typical terrain was either open fields with some villages, or very narrow curvy roads where movement outside roads was not possible. Vast unfriendly forests outside the few agricultural areas. On small roads, especially when on counter-attack, they were often fighting at very short distances, 15 - 150 meters (!that's how to kill an IS-2: fire away from the same hex!), and said it often felt like at wild west books where one needed to be both quick and accurate.



As the above actually happened, the next question is: would that be possible with EF II?

With the proper map and terrain, with AF=on, with right tactics, and finally with some lucky dice every now and then, I come into an assumption that : yes, it just might. This is great news, isn't it!

Of course, if StuGs could routinely have a 1/10 kill ratio against T-34s the game engine would be seriously flawed, but that is not the case here at all. With two equally skilled players and AF off it could never happen?

As written in this thread, the tanks of the time were pretty much blind as bats. Additionally, they had to come into a complete halt before they could fire accurately. The co-operation between tanks was mostly based on tactics and that the crews were properly trained.

Larry made a good point as how it was with manouvering at the time.

Another :soap: :

I noticed the infamous Tali Ihantala 1944 (TI44) movie is back on Youtube. As a movie, I hated it and felt let down with it. Small budget, amateurs, etc. My score: 3/10. Being generous there...

I later saw an interview with director where mr Lindman said that he did not want to direct a movie as such, but a movie-like documentation of some key battles and on units. He wanted to represent to young generations how things were then, and how the fiercest fighting at the time unfolded and was felt by the troops. For an example, he wanted to tell the story of a full battalion of Swedish volunteers and how they did their job as bravely as any native there. For an example you see the scene where the Panzerfaust were just made available to front line troops (end of clip 4 and into clip 5) and how after a 30 second training they were left to their own. The problem was that the Swedes did not understand a word of Finnish...

They did a lot of research of events, and I have now warmed up a lot to TI44, not as a movie but as a WW II re-enactment. They aimed for 100% accuracy on equipment, contemporary tactics, etc.. As a WW II re-enactment available on DVD format, it cannot pretty much come better as it comes here? Acting still sucks, but hey: how often do you get a cool 2 mill to film a series of re-enactments with HD cameras, directing, proper editing and cutting? My score with this point-of-view? 9/10 !!!


Clip 2: Battle as seen from inside a StuG III
Clip 3 (the latter half) to Clip 4: Battle as seen from inside a T-34/41 (not sure about the model?)
Clip 5 and into Clip 6 as the infantry pulls back: Counter attack as seen by eyes of infantry. They are blind as bat? The tanks I mean.

And now back to JTCS and AF with some historic cases. All situations were described in the book in detail in a way the authors intepreted the situation from the unit's war diary. I know these situations are almost too small to be discussed in the scope of JTCS, but that was my intention: only a couple of dice rolled per scenario.

Case 1 (TI44 / clip 2, see above): A StuG platoon (2 tanks) bumps into a T-34 platoon (5 tanks) having a break.

Historically: the leading StuG gets the first action, fires at the first T-34 (eliminated), fires at the second T-34 (eliminated), fires at the third retreating T-34 (eliminated). The fourth T-34 charges forward but does not stop and misses. The leading StuG fires (T-34 is eliminated). Their gun jams, - and this is not in the film but happened: the accompanying StuG comes forward, stops, fires at the retreating T-34 from behind and kills it.

5 T-34 knocked down by two tanks with no losses.

JTCS? Since a TD cannot move and fire twice, I assume we would have to picture a SP2 StuG hiding in a forested hex. A probing T-34 platoon SP5 bumps into them.
- StuG op. fires, result: A disruption. T-34 platoon fires twice. First shot, no results. Second, shot no results, StuG op.fires again: loss of 1 SP.
- Axis player turn: StuG has 100AP, fires once, loss of 1SP + retreat, rear side vulnerable. Fires again. The remaining 2 T-34 SP killed and unit eliminated.

Conclusion: Loss of 5 T-34 SPs by 2 StuG SPs, from adjacent hexes, with no friendly losses... Hmmm, very lucky dice? But just might happen?

Historically, they lads considered themselves quite lucky as the Russian tank crews were caught on having a short break to discuss tactis or avenue of advance or something.

Case 2 (TI44 / clip 5, see above)
Historically: A Finnish counter-attack. In this particular location by the main road it meant advancing against some 20+ T-34s spread out into defensive formation accompanied with infantry, no friendly artillery available. Results: two StuGs knocked down, quite heavy casualties for infantry who were not able to advance close enough to use panzerfausts and shrecks. Counter-attack fully repelled and quickly abandoned. 1 T-34 was seen having been knocked down.

JTCS? Russians: Four platoons of T-34/43s (5SP each) spread out on forest hexes vith a good view to an open field and to road in it. Each tank platoon has an accompanying rifle or SMG platoon. Full op. fire available with all units set on defense. No time to have made any IPs though.

Finnish player brings forward his first StuG platoon (2SP) and moves towards the Russians with four to five panzer grenadier platoons. The accompanying StuG platoon (SP2) is kept on reserve for now (or was it a T-34 + KV-1, does not matter though).

StuG platoon moves into open, fires once, knocks down one T-34 SP. Resulting op.fire eliminates the unit.

Russian turn: panzer grenadiers that have come into open are properly blasted from all directions and all hostile units are seen retreating back having taken some heavy losses.

Finnish player decides not to bring his another StuG platoon (SP2) into play at all, and retreats his disrupted infantry. Decides not to try again.

Conclusion: What were they thinking (the units at the time and the guy playing the axis side) !?!?

Case 3 (no clip, but this is from the war diaries from the same sector). Five T-34s had breached the lines. The accompanying infantry did not make it. They set to spend a night on an isolated batch of forest, to move out in the morning. A StuG platoon (2 tanks) with accompanying infantry is ordered to destroy the tanks.

Historically: Having assessed the situation, they noticed there are only two obvious routes into the woods. They split, one StuG covering each route, with infantry w/ panzerfaust spread around in some advantegous locations.

In the first light of morning, the T-34s indeed break out using one of the available routes. The hidden and camouflaged StuG, from the preferred position, fires once - knocks the leading T-34 down. The second T-34 fires back from the move, aims too high and misses. It is knocked down with the second grenade of the StuG. The third T-34 fires from the move, but aims too low. The third grenade from the StuG knocks it down. The two remaining T-34s break to left, but on a difficult terrain the infantry squad promptly destroyed them both with panzerfausts. No friendly losses.

JTCS? A T-34 platoon (SP5) drives into open from forest. A StuG platoon (SP1) op. fires from close distance, from a forest hex or village hex? Result: disrupted. T-34 fires once, no result. StuG op. fires again, knocks down 1 SP) T-34 fires again, no result. All APs used.
Axis player: StuG fires once, knocks down 1 SP, fires twice, knocks down another SP1, T-34 (2SP) still disrupted retreats to left.

Panzergrenaried platoon (SP4) moves in, has APs for one shot at the rear of T-34: loss of 2SP, T-34 eliminated.

Conclusion: Hmmm... Some lucky dice initially, but could happen? Especially as there is capable infantry available.

:soap:
The 'Krazy' Conclusion: The armour is pretty well modelled and the AF rule is "spot on". Score: 9,5 / 10

If any changes are to be done, perhaps when a tank retreats there would be a random dice for which of the eight direction the tank ends up facing.

IMHO a "bug fix" where a tank would always retreat in an orderly fashion would be not a good solution, it could even be a step to wrong direction? If you looked at the clips I provided, perhaps you would agree there is no way the tanks of the time would reverse more than a few dozen yards most before they would be stuck or worse.

(On a separate notice I was quite suprised how incredibly fragile the Stugs were at 1944, after all the pzkpw III chassis had been mass produced for several years... especially when compared to T-34s. However the crews absolutely loved the long 75mm cannon it carried.)

Besides, just imagine Crisis on the Order where seventy IS-2s could just pound it forward, relying that even when hit they would just retreat one hex with their strong side still facing the enemy? I liked the comment above as how the AF as it currently stands forces the player to carefully consider how to bring the armour into a fight.

As for the statistics and strategies Huib mentions, I know you guys have made your homework and there is a lot of consideration put into this game. The conclusion must then be that for certain scenarios: AF must be OFF?

The good thing is that the scenario designer can nowadays include the proper recommendation into scenario description?

End of a long rant... Next time I have an extra 60 minutes I will create a new thread giving my 0.02 as how spot-on the current indirect arty implemention is! (pun intended yes, but I am serious here :smoke: )

cheers
Visit us at CSLegion.com
Quote this message in a reply
04-13-2010, 09:37 AM,
#20
RE: Surviving IS-2s ???
As far as retreating goes, you should have the option of retreating in reverse gear, and for example, you just pop the tank in reverse, and retreat but at a movement cost price, say instead of retreating 6 hexes, you can only move 3 hexes because you are moving at a much slower speed than if you were moving forward. If you are forced to retreat 1 hex because you were shot at, it would be nice if the AI would allow you to retreat in reverse.
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)