So, ive gotten this game rather recently so im sure there may be some finer points I dont understand yet. I have been trying to use my units in the roles suggested by the helpful text files in the encyclopedia...but after playing around with the germans a bit in a couple of campains in the early war, and confirmed by individual testing of various units against eachother on a bare scenario test map, It seems like a huge number of units perform every role far superior to any other unit which is supposed to be 'specialized' for that role, and at a cheaper cost.
The pzIVc is supposed to be a CS-tank...'nearly useless' against tanks, only good to help infantry kill infantry (i dont understand why infantry need help killing infantry, they perform that role fine on their own. if they need help use some extra machine guns not a tank! its tanks that infantry have trouble killing. So this 'role' already is confusing to me but thats another topic)
The truth in the game at least is, the pzIVc is far better than its contemporary pzIIIe tank at killing tanks, as well as staying alive against tanks. This is true at any range. Indeed it is also better against infantry, like it should be. It is far better at taking out any unit that is entrenched or dug in. the pzIV can carry a full squad and the pz IIIe cant. It has equal range and is slightly more accurate. They are equally manouverable, equal size and spottability. I dont understand why anyone would waste money on a pzIIIe.
By the time germany can get the stug...its just a joke. First of all, i dont understand how the role of a 'support gun' differs from a cs-tank...but again, its irrelevant. The stug so far outclasses any of the cute armored options that germany might use at the time that its rather insane to think of using anything but a stug to do anything involving armor, unless you count the flak trak as armor. Id even prefer using a stug as transport than waste money on halftracks. Its faster than the medium tanks, it 1 hit kills the heaviest tanks of all other nations (and 1 hit routs most infantry), it carries a full squad, it can absorb by far the most damage, its size is 2 (its harder to spot than a pzIIIe, not that this matters-even if the other guy spots it he will never kill it), and this again does not matter with range. Not having a turret is soooo silly irrelevant. Its not complicated to point in the right direction. I have confirmed that against my AI opponent battles are tooo easy no matter what advantage you give the AI with an army of about 4 snipers and the rest stugs (well, and you must have your stupid HQ unit). A human opponent might try to counter with an army of all AT guns or something. I think it would be insufficient, honestly. If the Germans had realized this, im sure they wouldve conquered the world by 1941.
Any thoughts?
Why do pzIIIe exist?
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
This is just a game and you can do a lot of things against the AI that wouldn’t work against someone with neurons. No one really knew how to use armor in the thirties when these tanks were designed. The Pz IV had a low muzzle velocity 75 mm gun which was good against infantry and anti-tank gun crews. The Pz III had a high velocity 37 mm that was good against armor (sort of). Together they were a good combination. However, their guns were useless against the T-34. Neither the Pz IV nor the Pz III at the time could support a high velocity 75 mm gun because the recoil would wreck their turrets. However, an armored vehicle without a turret could, so vehicles like the Stug were built. Not having a turret is a big problem in the real world if you have to practically aim your whole vehicle in a duel with someone who is just rotating his turret.
Also, in the real world infantry don’t ride on tanks in a fire fight, for obvious reasons. Tanks need infantry support, but if the infantry can’t keep up (like in half-tracks) then the blitzkrieg slows to a walk. A tank carrying an infantry squad and towing a howitzer doesn’t work in real war.
Also, in the real world infantry don’t ride on tanks in a fire fight, for obvious reasons. Tanks need infantry support, but if the infantry can’t keep up (like in half-tracks) then the blitzkrieg slows to a walk. A tank carrying an infantry squad and towing a howitzer doesn’t work in real war.
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
-
Five_of_Swords
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:44 am
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
oh I thought my sarcasm was obvious. of course I know its silly in the real world. My real question was, why is the pzIIIe eclipsed in its role by a tank with a different role in the actual game.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
altho the PZ IV is classed as a CS tank, it can effectively kill other armor especially at closer ranges with its 75mm gun...the Brits and other used tanks they classed as "infantry" tanks, but some models actually fired only AP ammo with the 2 Pound gun.....to support the infantry against enemy armor, so....sometimes a name or class doesnt really represent the actual role all that accuarately.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
ORIGINAL: Five_of_Swords
oh I thought my sarcasm was obvious. of course I know its silly in the real world. My real question was, why is the pzIIIe eclipsed in its role by a tank with a different role in the actual game.
Eventually, the Germans figured out the guns they were using weren't strong enough to be tank killers as armor technology improved. To put guns on a tank that have a higher muzzle velocity and caliber, basically you need a larger turret. Without this, the recoil of the gun will slam the breach into the back of the turret wall. Not a good thing. Consequently, to put a larger turret on a tank, the chassis design needs to support a larger turret. Turns out the PzKw IV chassis allowed room for a larger turret, where the PzKw III chassis didn't. That's why their roles actually reversed.
Many of the tank destroyer models the German created did use the PzKw III chassis because with open top vehicles, turret size isn't a factor.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
The HE shells of the 75 mm howitzer on the Pz IV weren’t armor piercing. The shell exploded with such force that a direct hit shattered the bolts that originally held the armor together on early tanks. Thus the tank’s armor was “torn apart”. Also, the Germans found that a hit on the rear manifold of the T-34 would stall the engine for a mobility kill. The game just represents this with an armor piercing number.
Astrologers believe that your future is determined on the day that you are born.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
Warriors know that your future is determined on the day that your enemy dies.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
The 75mm L/24 actually did have anti-tank rounds (K. Gr. rot Pz - Armor Piercing Capped) that were different than the normal HE rounds (7.5cm Sprgr.34 - HE). Being a low muzzle velocity gun, the AP rounds didn't go through much (41mm, 30 degree slope at 100m) As the war progressed, they developed HEAT rounds for the gun (Gr.38 Hl, Gr.38 Hl/A, Gr.38 Hl/B, Gr.38 Hl/C) which improved on penetration.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
I have to admit, my first thoughts when I read your initial post were along the lines of... "Are you a kook?" or "Is WWII nothing more than a game to you?".ORIGINAL: Five_of_Swords
Any thoughts?
Then you said it was all sarcasm... [:D]
Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Five_of_Swords,
There are aspects of the PzIIIe, PzIVc, and StuGIIIb that you are missing.
The PzIVc has very weak side and rear armor that even an antitank rifle can kill. This means that the PzIVc will suffer enemy opportunity fire (which can be fatal) that will not happen against the PzIIIe. Also, the PzIVc does not have many AP rounds which puts it at a disadvantage in tank-vs-tank combat.
The StuGIIIb has no machine gun. This is bad. Why? Because if the vehicle suffers a weapon malfunction, then the vehicle is screwed for the rest of that battle. Further, the StuGIIIb has only a few AP rounds and a slow rate of fire. As far as I'm concerned, the StuGIIIb is next to worthless and I will never use them.
The PzIIIe is the best all-around AFV of the three you mentioned in your original post. It has enough side and rear armor to be immune to antitank rifles. It has plenty of AP ammunition. It has two co-axial MGs. This is really good. Two co-axial MGs means that the PzIIIe is extremely effective when overrunning enemy soft targets.
Of the three AFVs you originally discussed, in a long or generated campaign: A) I won't even use the StuGIIIb; B) I will have about as many PzIVcs as PzIIIes in my core, but I will upgrade my PzIVcs first because they are not as well balanced as the PzIIIes; and C) I will occasionally keep a PzIIIe or two around without upgrading them (this way they will become elite and are extremely effective in a mop-up, overrun role) even into 1942-43.
From your original post, I think that perhaps you are a relatively new and inexperienced player. I am a very experienced veteran player. Take it from this "power gamer", the PzIIIe can be quite effective when used properly, and it is the most well-balanced of the three AFVs you discussed in your original post.
There are aspects of the PzIIIe, PzIVc, and StuGIIIb that you are missing.
The PzIVc has very weak side and rear armor that even an antitank rifle can kill. This means that the PzIVc will suffer enemy opportunity fire (which can be fatal) that will not happen against the PzIIIe. Also, the PzIVc does not have many AP rounds which puts it at a disadvantage in tank-vs-tank combat.
The StuGIIIb has no machine gun. This is bad. Why? Because if the vehicle suffers a weapon malfunction, then the vehicle is screwed for the rest of that battle. Further, the StuGIIIb has only a few AP rounds and a slow rate of fire. As far as I'm concerned, the StuGIIIb is next to worthless and I will never use them.
The PzIIIe is the best all-around AFV of the three you mentioned in your original post. It has enough side and rear armor to be immune to antitank rifles. It has plenty of AP ammunition. It has two co-axial MGs. This is really good. Two co-axial MGs means that the PzIIIe is extremely effective when overrunning enemy soft targets.
Of the three AFVs you originally discussed, in a long or generated campaign: A) I won't even use the StuGIIIb; B) I will have about as many PzIVcs as PzIIIes in my core, but I will upgrade my PzIVcs first because they are not as well balanced as the PzIIIes; and C) I will occasionally keep a PzIIIe or two around without upgrading them (this way they will become elite and are extremely effective in a mop-up, overrun role) even into 1942-43.
From your original post, I think that perhaps you are a relatively new and inexperienced player. I am a very experienced veteran player. Take it from this "power gamer", the PzIIIe can be quite effective when used properly, and it is the most well-balanced of the three AFVs you discussed in your original post.
-
Five_of_Swords
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:44 am
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Well I appreciate the insight vanhouser(Its funny how you noticed that im new when thats the 1st thing i said), and indeed since the post, and messin around with it some, the pzIIIe does appear quite useful against the more typical enemy forces, i.e. mass infantry and lighter tanks. the stug is king against single target kills and stayin alive against heavy fire which imo makes the stug indispensible for a good frontal assault. the pzIIIe machine guns are quite nice against infantry masses, but its amazing how quickly and easily a stug will dispatch a pzIVc which in turn will dispatch a pzIIIe. the problem with stug vs most targets is its only gonna kill one thing a turn and very quickly runs out of shots and ammo, at least, esp vs lots of infantry (ive never had the gun break...i really think different weapons have different reliability values or something...for example i always get malfunctioning artillery and machine guns but never saw a stug break and very rarely see main guns on tanks break except in the pzII series). The problem is that in the early part of the campaign a lot of nations have units that a pzIIIe simply cannot scratch, from the char bis to the t 34 (even the t26e, if you cant manage to flank it), matilda, and even the us mae west. if u want to take those units out reliably you gotta have some stugs imo, since the jpz, tho nice, are too thin skinned to be reliable.
but yeah, in the real, typical situations, where u are fighting infantry and bt-7s or somethin, the pzIIIe is probably best. So question answered thanks heh.
you might wanna give stugs a try vanhouser, i find they work excellently....I tend to use them with a sniper spotter and a platoon of 4 ss mmg carried by halftracks. The sniper finds and enemy position, the stugs charge and take out any enemy armor as well as supress or kill dangerous stuff like machine guns, and then the half tracks follow up, deploy the mg, and in a couple of turns the whole area tends to be completely wiped out. iin my experience, preliminary artillery barrage is not even usually needed this way. Meanwhile, the pzIII and IV tanks seem better used for flanking operations or heavy probing recon.i have no sucess trying to knock down the front door with them like i do with stugs.
but yeah, in the real, typical situations, where u are fighting infantry and bt-7s or somethin, the pzIIIe is probably best. So question answered thanks heh.
you might wanna give stugs a try vanhouser, i find they work excellently....I tend to use them with a sniper spotter and a platoon of 4 ss mmg carried by halftracks. The sniper finds and enemy position, the stugs charge and take out any enemy armor as well as supress or kill dangerous stuff like machine guns, and then the half tracks follow up, deploy the mg, and in a couple of turns the whole area tends to be completely wiped out. iin my experience, preliminary artillery barrage is not even usually needed this way. Meanwhile, the pzIII and IV tanks seem better used for flanking operations or heavy probing recon.i have no sucess trying to knock down the front door with them like i do with stugs.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Five_of_Swords,
None of the three AFVs in this discussion are much good against thick enemy armor (T-34, Char-bis, KV-1, Matilda, etc.). That's what the 88s are for.
In general, I will not use turretless AFVs, period. They are not cost effective (in terms of SPWaW build points). They shoot too slow and they don't have enough ammo. It's also easier to get flank shots on them since they have to turn the whole vehicle to face. And I assure you that there is no difference in the weapons breakdown algorithm for different weapons systems. The weapon breakdown algorithm works the same for everything. Sorry, most turretless AFVs (especially ones like the StuGIIIb) are simply not versatile enough.
I did mention that I usually buy roughly equal numbers of PzIVc and PzIIIe in my core when starting a generated or long campaign. Both of those tanks have value. But as I mentioned previously, the PzIIIe is a better all-around tank, and so I upgrade my PzIVcs first in a generated or long campaign.
In terms of tactics, I don't employ my AFVs in roles for which they ill-suited. And I pretty much always use healthy doses of combined arms when dealing with difficult situations (like an assault). The Poles/Belgians/Dutch in 1939-40 are fairly easy to beat with almost any core you choose (these nations are simply outclassed by the German OOB). The French in 1940 are more difficult, but are still pretty manageable. The British in 1940-41 are a challenging and dangerous opponent, but a capable German player can overcome them. The true test against a formidable opponent starts in 1941 against the Soviets. The Soviets separate the pretenders from the contenders in terms of German player skill. To recall a quote from the movie Cross of Iron: "You fight on the Western Front to get the Iron Cross. You fight on the Eastern Front to get the Wooden Cross."
None of the three AFVs in this discussion are much good against thick enemy armor (T-34, Char-bis, KV-1, Matilda, etc.). That's what the 88s are for.
In general, I will not use turretless AFVs, period. They are not cost effective (in terms of SPWaW build points). They shoot too slow and they don't have enough ammo. It's also easier to get flank shots on them since they have to turn the whole vehicle to face. And I assure you that there is no difference in the weapons breakdown algorithm for different weapons systems. The weapon breakdown algorithm works the same for everything. Sorry, most turretless AFVs (especially ones like the StuGIIIb) are simply not versatile enough.
I did mention that I usually buy roughly equal numbers of PzIVc and PzIIIe in my core when starting a generated or long campaign. Both of those tanks have value. But as I mentioned previously, the PzIIIe is a better all-around tank, and so I upgrade my PzIVcs first in a generated or long campaign.
In terms of tactics, I don't employ my AFVs in roles for which they ill-suited. And I pretty much always use healthy doses of combined arms when dealing with difficult situations (like an assault). The Poles/Belgians/Dutch in 1939-40 are fairly easy to beat with almost any core you choose (these nations are simply outclassed by the German OOB). The French in 1940 are more difficult, but are still pretty manageable. The British in 1940-41 are a challenging and dangerous opponent, but a capable German player can overcome them. The true test against a formidable opponent starts in 1941 against the Soviets. The Soviets separate the pretenders from the contenders in terms of German player skill. To recall a quote from the movie Cross of Iron: "You fight on the Western Front to get the Iron Cross. You fight on the Eastern Front to get the Wooden Cross."
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Five_of_Swords,
Here is a link to a thread I started over a year ago that has a very difficult campaign format. If you want to try it, I'll be happy to offer comments/suggestions/advice. However, I must warn you that the campaign format in that thread is extremely challenging. I'm not joking.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1572034&mpage=1&key=core�
Here is a link to a thread I started over a year ago that has a very difficult campaign format. If you want to try it, I'll be happy to offer comments/suggestions/advice. However, I must warn you that the campaign format in that thread is extremely challenging. I'm not joking.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1572034&mpage=1&key=core�
-
Five_of_Swords
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:44 am
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
but seriously, the stugs really can kill the char bis and matilda and even the t 34. I do it all the time. Even from the front there is a reasonable chance. I really do appreciate yr input and i think you have more experience than me but you may have gotten set in your ways over this because of traumatic past experience 
. The 88 can of course kill the heavy tanks but its not always logistically possible, due to LOS, etc issues. I dont know how you keep the pzIIIe and make it work, honestly, but you must do something special, I upgrade to the 77 penetration asap and thats good enough.
anyway, in a sense you are right, im likeing the stugs less and the pz more only because the pz are good against infantry while the stugs are rather slow against them. But this is greatly mitigated by the fact that i accidentally happened to get a ss mmg platoon in halftracks
It looks like you spent a lot of effort going through this AI campaign thing. Ive been simply limiting myself to much less battle points (1800) while giving the comp extra (2400). This seems to work ok. This way i really have to rely on support points to make my cannon fodder and I pretty much never lose my core units. The amount of core build points im accumulating during the campaign is absurd, and unspendable. What i really want to do is play humans actually, for a challenge, playing the AI is just to learn the details of the game. (I really, really wanna be able to use my 4xFT engineer platoon against humans tho haha, does this work? or i gotta use the crummy built-in oob)
. The 88 can of course kill the heavy tanks but its not always logistically possible, due to LOS, etc issues. I dont know how you keep the pzIIIe and make it work, honestly, but you must do something special, I upgrade to the 77 penetration asap and thats good enough.anyway, in a sense you are right, im likeing the stugs less and the pz more only because the pz are good against infantry while the stugs are rather slow against them. But this is greatly mitigated by the fact that i accidentally happened to get a ss mmg platoon in halftracks
It looks like you spent a lot of effort going through this AI campaign thing. Ive been simply limiting myself to much less battle points (1800) while giving the comp extra (2400). This seems to work ok. This way i really have to rely on support points to make my cannon fodder and I pretty much never lose my core units. The amount of core build points im accumulating during the campaign is absurd, and unspendable. What i really want to do is play humans actually, for a challenge, playing the AI is just to learn the details of the game. (I really, really wanna be able to use my 4xFT engineer platoon against humans tho haha, does this work? or i gotta use the crummy built-in oob)
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Five_of_Swords,
Heh. Set in my ways, eh? A "power gamer" can never get set in his ways because then he will lose his edge.
Yes. Support troops as cannon fodder. You sound like a "power-gamer-in-training" to me. Welcome. There aren't too many of us on this forum. We are frowned upon by the "historical" thought police around here. Anyway, you have discovered one of the reasons that that generated campaign format I linked you to is so difficult--it penalizes players for buying support troops to use as cannon fodder.
Also, there is a group of players who play online. I think there is a guy whose username is Krec who plays in an online multiplayer game every week. Alby knows him and can probably tell you how to contact him. They do not use customized OOBs, though, as far as I know. Frankly, I don't think you'll find too many players who will agree to using customized OOBs. Customized OOBs cause more problems than they are worth.
Finally, the PzIIIe does have 4 rounds of APCR ammo which gives it a greater penetration than the 75/L24 used by the StuGIIIb. So, it is theoretically possible to kill some of the heavier enemy tanks in 1939-40 using the PzIIIe. However, it's likely that you and I play under different game conditions (for one thing, I don't use custom OOBs) and settings, so we are most likely debating something that cannot be compared, much less resolved. As long as you are enjoying yourself, that is the main thing. And since the SPWaW gaming community is shrinking every year, then it's always a good thing to see a new player come along.
Heh. Set in my ways, eh? A "power gamer" can never get set in his ways because then he will lose his edge.
Yes. Support troops as cannon fodder. You sound like a "power-gamer-in-training" to me. Welcome. There aren't too many of us on this forum. We are frowned upon by the "historical" thought police around here. Anyway, you have discovered one of the reasons that that generated campaign format I linked you to is so difficult--it penalizes players for buying support troops to use as cannon fodder.
Also, there is a group of players who play online. I think there is a guy whose username is Krec who plays in an online multiplayer game every week. Alby knows him and can probably tell you how to contact him. They do not use customized OOBs, though, as far as I know. Frankly, I don't think you'll find too many players who will agree to using customized OOBs. Customized OOBs cause more problems than they are worth.
Finally, the PzIIIe does have 4 rounds of APCR ammo which gives it a greater penetration than the 75/L24 used by the StuGIIIb. So, it is theoretically possible to kill some of the heavier enemy tanks in 1939-40 using the PzIIIe. However, it's likely that you and I play under different game conditions (for one thing, I don't use custom OOBs) and settings, so we are most likely debating something that cannot be compared, much less resolved. As long as you are enjoying yourself, that is the main thing. And since the SPWaW gaming community is shrinking every year, then it's always a good thing to see a new player come along.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Those guys who play online use a version of Enhanced, not sure which one...
[&:]
KREC posts in the opponents wanted forum from time to time...look him up.
[&:]
KREC posts in the opponents wanted forum from time to time...look him up.
-
Five_of_Swords
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:44 am
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
I dont change unit stats in the oob, jsut formations, cause the formations given in the stardard oob are, imho after messing with the game a few weeks, totally retarded. FT engineers need their own platoon. they do not function like regular engineers. If forced to use the normal oob i would get like 4 regular engineer squads, put ft together and just deal with them not having a nearby platoon leader. The benefit of this would be greater than the loss. Because the situation and terrain etc that ft engineers perform well in is so completely different to the regular engineer. Also, tanks being able to carry infantry is potentially quite useful. But you can never get a platoon of tanks to carry a platoon of infantry. Thats silly. My tank platoon consists of 4x pz IV and 2 x pz III...this can carry a normal platoon of 4x ss rifle squad with their mmg and mortar. A lot of formations are things you would never use...are ridiculous. For example, the massive swarm of like 20 jpz. stupid formations liek that just pollute my unit selection screen. Furthermore, some are actually broken. I had to fix the german scout selection because as it was you could only chose 1 scout team and 2 scout patrol or 3 scout patrol. Obviously is supposed to be, like all other nations, 3x scout team or 3x scout patrol. Also france had a funny issue with in certain years, they had more possible formations than actually fit on the stupid selection screen (most of them being idiotic formations). So thats all i fix with my oob. If theres an improved oob thats nifty, but the one that came with my gen edition was just sloppy and obviously done with extreme laziness.
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Five_of_Swords,
Which version of SPWaW are you playing? Are you playing Enhanced DVRN?
Which version of SPWaW are you playing? Are you playing Enhanced DVRN?
-
Five_of_Swords
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:44 am
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
whatever was the free generals edition. its v 8.403..i dunno what enhanced means and stuff maybe i have maybe not
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Five_of_Swords,
You are playing an older version of SPWaW.
You are playing an older version of SPWaW.
-
Five_of_Swords
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:44 am
RE: Why do pzIIIe exist?
Although i dont change the units in the oob, i assume some balancing work was done, I do notice they simply are not historically accurate. The pzIII was faster than the t-34, and much smaller. The pz IIIh and up never had the penetration power of stug ausf A which was killing heavy tanks all the way up to 1967 (yes, by nations which confiscated them and used them in their own army after the war). The flame tanks were much more heavily armored. (and this was for obvious reasons, i dont understand why that would imbalance the game, either). and there are countless other differences im sure, these are just the offhand things i happen to know about.