Always more axis

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Baine]

Easier to vet up rangers than axis infantry. At least at the moment with no terror grens.

[TheArea]

To Deutscher:  Grats that you can win withuot T17 "spam", but im figuring inorder to do that youre spamming M10s, M18s, or Shermans along with ATGs.  Dont see how you beat Axis tanks otherwise.  So you may avoid the T17, but not the "spam".

To Groundfire:  Not sure if last war's experience helps too much in this war with the doc rework.

In terms of the importance of the T17, if you look at the armor doctrine trees, you basically have an AT branch, an AI branch, and a generic light vehichle/calli/repair branch.  If the main threat from Axis is their armor, then it seems that most folks will either go the AT branch with T17s, or the generic branch (for extra survivability) which includes T17s and something else.  I dont know if anyone is going the AI branch, if someone is Id like to know how effective it is.  In other words, T17 are central to the armor doc, whether you spam them or not.

[Mgallun74]

To Deutscher:  Grats that you can win withuot T17 "spam", but im figuring inorder to do that youre spamming M10s, M18s, or Shermans along with ATGs.  Dont see how you beat Axis tanks otherwise.  So you may avoid the T17, but not the "spam".

To Groundfire:  Not sure if last war's experience helps too much in this war with the doc rework.

In terms of the importance of the T17, if you look at the armor doctrine trees, you basically have an AT branch, an AI branch, and a generic light vehichle/calli/repair branch.  If the main threat from Axis is their armor, then it seems that most folks will either go the AT branch with T17s, or the generic branch (for extra survivability) which includes T17s and something else.  I dont know if anyone is going the AI branch, if someone is Id like to know how effective it is.  In other words, T17 are central to the armor doc, whether you spam them or not.

All this arguing over a unit that didnt even serve with the US Military.. lololol.

[Smokaz]

Panther stretches the definition of a medium tank the same way the churchill croc does. And your right leaderboards prove nothing.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Panther stretches the definition of a medium tank the same way the churchill croc does. And your right leaderboards prove nothing.

 And yet it is still a medium tank, and therefore the contention that allies are "winning the tank on tank" department remains as equally incorrect and fundamentally unsupported as before.

 And in regards to the leaderboards, we agree they do not prove anything. They merely support what is already evident through more substantive channels, and in this case they serve that function quite admirably.

 -Wind

[Smokaz]

Okay, anyone else than wind consider panthers and churchill crocs to be medium tanks?

[TheArea]

I dunno, but Wind told me an M10 isnt a tank either.  So I guess US only have Pershings as tanks?  Im confused. 

[TheWindCriesMary]

I dunno, but Wind told me an M10 isnt a tank either.  So I guess US only have Pershings as tanks?  Im confused.  

 An m10 is a tank destroyer mate.

 But we should get back on topic: Always more axis.

 The fundamental point of this thread is correct, but we need to figure out the exact causes.

 -Wind

[Mukip]

The population disparity has been worse than it is now at various points throughout EiR history, things aren't so bad right now.  There's no good reason not to have multiple accounts either, so that if there's a lot of players on you can switch to the other side. 

[Sixpack]

Okay, anyone else than wind consider panthers and churchill crocs to be medium tanks?

Yes. The Panther is "only" a medium tank.
That is one of the reasons you allied players have upgunned shermans and pershings
(Because when they encountered them in France and heard of them being medium tanks they became scared headless chickens )

Though I would classify the churchill as Infantry Tank and nothing else.

[TheWindCriesMary]

 Yep you're right on the money Sixpack.

 Some further reading if anyone is interested in the tank itself:

Panther: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank (note it's type is "medium tank").

Churchill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_tank (note it's type is "infantry tank")

 Also I would tend to agree with Mukip aswell. Having an axis and allies account definetely helps mitigate the problem of one side having more players at any given time. You can get games at all hours more quickly that way.

 -Wind

[Jinker]

You know that the OP, and through that the whole thread in and of itself, is largely an argument based on opinions. Despite this, i see (and no offense meant) Wind bringing his "terror doctrine", zealous arguments in. Just because you put blinders on a horse does not mean the horse next to it does not exist. Throwing large words around, and refusing to acknowledge other parties' arguments simply makes your own look foolish. Citing a wiki isn't solid evidence. Even if it is easy to get to. I have seen little to no evidence in this thread at all to support either side's points, beyond the fact that some people that play many games, say this or that.

If you were to ask my opinion, the argument that axis units are far superior to their allied counter parts is not applicable in this mod at all. In 1944, sure. Not in this game. Some units are stronger than others, and for the most part they cost accordingly.

Furthermore, please try to take the other person's argument(s) in a friendly manner, and pay attention to what they say. If they might have a good point, maybe people should admit that. To paraphrase Voltaire, witty statements are worthless.

[TheWindCriesMary]

 Ah Jinker I think there might have been some confusion about why wiki was brought in. It wasnt about proving which side was better etc, just as some interesting reading to give context to what Sixpack said about the churchill and the panther and their appropriate designations(he was adding in some historical information aswell for interest's sake). I apologize fully if this was at all misleading. I can see where the misinterpretation might have come from (Sixpack and I could have made it clearer we were discussing something of mutual interest).

 And in terms of whether I think axis units are far superior, I think you might have come into this thread expecting me to be counter axis (if this was not the case, again my apologies for the confusion). But I think you might be pleasantly surprised to find I'm actually pro-both sides. If you reference my post about the dynamic of Allied tanks vs axis tanks, you will find I am actually arguing that the balance is good at the moment (the axis getting sturdy, but fewer tanks, and the allies being able to field a wide variety of hand held at, effective and mobile tank destroyers, combined with light vehicles and at guns to counter them).

  I think the best way to sum this up, would be to quote an earlier post I made (which I think maybe you might have missed. [no problem I do it all the time too])

Axis tanks have been, and remain superior (and rightly so) performing far more cost-effectively for their price. The best indicator of this is the phenomenal performance panthers are currently outputting in the current metagame. Tank for tank, the allies continue to be (accurately) inferior.

 Instead, it is the combination of numbers, mobillity, and handheld AT that allows the allies to compensate for their shortcomings in the tank-on-tank department. This is especially evident when the recent replays are reviewed, which serves to further reinforce what should already be obvious.

 So actually as can be seen here we are actually in full agreement that the axis units are not "far superior" and that this is "a problem". Instead it is seen that I am arguing that their superiority is an essential component of proper balance. I would definetely agree with your response if someone had made a claim to otherwise as, because like you said it would be completely unfounded. That is why I said that it is both accurate, and reasonable for the axis tanks to be the way they are in the current state of balance.

 Essentially, this is because the allies excel in the areas they are supposed to, and this perserves the character of the mod/game by keeping the armies with their respective strengths and weaknesses. The allies have their pros and cons, just as the axis excell in the areas they are supposed to. Its the beauty of the mod.

 I think its a safer bet if we stop and really read what is being posted, because heaven knows there are enough things to disagree on without adding extras lol.

 -Wind

[wildsolus]

how can you say the italians armor is superior to the british??? t17's need more hp

[acker]

Yep you're right on the money Sixpack.

 Some further reading if anyone is interested in the tank itself:

Panther: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank (note it's type is "medium tank").

Churchill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_tank (note it's type is "infantry tank")

 Also I would tend to agree with Mukip aswell. Having an axis and allies account definetely helps mitigate the problem of one side having more players at any given time. You can get games at all hours more quickly that way.

 -Wind

Wikipedia is correct only in that it lists Tank classification by the nationality of the tank, of the time period. This means that A German tank will be classified by the Germans in the relevant time period. Makes it easier to generalize across time periods for obvious reasons (ensures the M1 Abrams does not equate the King Tiger).

On the other hand, this means that it's impossible to classify tanks with such sweeping generalizations across nationalities. Observe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_97_Chi-Ha

Note how it's classified as a Medium Tank. Note how it weighs less, packs less, and handles less than a Stuart light tank (let alone the M26 "light" tank). The Allies would classify such a tank as a operational light tank (by the end of the war, perhaps even ultralight), and plan against it accordingly. The Japanese would classify this tank as a medium tank, and utilized it accordingly.


In short: the Germans considered the Panther a medium tank that weighed ten tons less than the Tiger. The Allies considered it a heavy tank that weighed ten tons more than the Sherman, twenty tons more than the Panzer IV. Both sides planned on their independent conclusions, and treated the Panther differently.

[gamesguy2]

If you were to ask my opinion, the argument that axis units are far superior to their allied counter parts is not applicable in this mod at all. In 1944, sure. Not in this game. Some units are stronger than others, and for the most part they cost accordingly.

Furthermore, please try to take the other person's argument(s) in a friendly manner, and pay attention to what they say. If they might have a good point, maybe people should admit that. To paraphrase Voltaire, witty statements are worthless.

In 1944 American units are generally superior to their axis counterparts.  It's this myth that has built up around the German army from their early victories against the French and the Polish.

Historically the sherman was one of the best tanks of WWII.  A late model sherman is superior to all aspects compared to the panzer IV, and the pershing was superior to the panther/tiger.   The tiger II was a piece of shit waste of money, bigger is not necessarily better.

In EIR wehr units are generally superior per popcap compared to American units.  Paks are better than 57mms, 81mm mortar is better than the 60mm, etc.   Americans has always had stronger special abilities like stickies to compensate for their weaker units in straight up combat.

And yes wehr is more newbie friendly, but the balance is fairly good at higher levels at the moment.   Allies have better W/L on the leaderboard for the simple reason that there have always been far more axis players, and thus allied players can afford to be picky about which games they join and typically allies are the stronger team as a result.

Not to mention all the good players pretty much all play both allies and axis now.   There used to be a few axis only players who were quite good, no longer.

[Demon767]

They arnt necessary at all. I ran M8 spam last war which was the shit, but what most people dont understand is that US's strategy for combating armor really hindges on being able to disable enemy tanks because axis tanks are generally better and more numerous than allied tanks.

I could choose any wehr doctrine and 5 P4s will fit in pefrectly. You will never see a 5 sherman army outside of armor doctrine.

Now what happens when 3 werh armies do this. You have 15 P4s, and then stickies, stun and numerous AT guns become manditory.

This is the way allies deal with armor, it's part of the design and i dont think most people understand that, which is why we see all the T17 op threads.

Edit- oh and IMO, everyones idea of what "spam" consists of is inhearantly different and changes on a whim when they have a bad game. Ex. Player A accuses Player B of spamming T17s when in reality, Player B has just been using 2 T17s all game and they havent died, thus confusing player A into thinking he's dealing with more T17s than there actually are.

Because of this, I would say that building your company to avoid spam is redundant and you shouldnt worry bout it. Just make your co. in any way that you see fit regardless of what someone else considers as spam.

listen to the man. he knows what hes talking about

+1

[TheWindCriesMary]

 Acker, I found your post a pleasure to read and very interesting. There isn't enough historical discussion in this forum (as a whole) and this topic in particular is one I find very interesting. What a good topic to exchange ideas on.

 
 Your reference to the Japanese Type 97 is definitely a valid one, and it is definetely true that the classifications of tanks varies greatly over time periods and between nationalities (even in the same time period).

 With that being said, however, this is more an interesting observation than it is an argument that the panther was not, and is not still considered a medium tank. It is a nearly universal designation (in every reference work, or historical database I have encountered) simple for the fact that if you are working within the realm of late world war 2, it still fits the description of a medium tank (between the largest and heaviest tanks fielded by the Germans, and their smallest and lightest). To this day American sources still cite it as a medium tank. So yes, while it may be a medium tank by nationality rather than blanket application, because the nature of the classification is inherrently nationality based this does nothing to change the fact that it was a medium tank. It just gives the classification context (though very interesting context at that).

 Now you did also mention that the allies calling it a heavy tank in WW2, and in that regard you are correct. Upon first learning of the Panther, the allies believed it was going to be a heavy tank made in small quantities. However, when they discovered that the panzer divisions they were encountering were 50% or more composed of Panthers, this designation fell out of popular use. The direct counters to Panthers then became the upgunned Sherman, and to the lesser extent the Pershing. So far in my research I can only find references to the Panther being considered a heavy tank by allied sources reaching no later than early 1944, once it was realized that the panther design and production numbers suggested it was in fact a medium tank.

 
 Thus the allies did consider the Panther a heavy tank, but historically this seems to have been a shortlived phenomena. And as I said earlier, even to this day both American and British sources still define the tank as medium. (which is logical given as it was designed as a direct counter to T-34's, which are also considered medium tanks). To this day it retains that classification.

 -Wind

[Demon767]

frikken awesome reads

[NightRain]

Without Resource Advantages you can only have 4 P4s

With Resource Advantage of Fuel you can have 5 P4s
With All Fuel advantages you can have max of 6 P4s while paying some PP for it.

No one can get 5 P4s at the start. Only 4 P4s.

For axis part I do like playing with them (far more interesting than playing as Allies and building companies that contain max 3 units. Riflemen, sherman and 57mm

Sometimes allies tend to be too easy mode for me, imo Axis tend to be harder to play due to small squad sizes and weaker artillery. All they have is nice steady armored units- which are countered by stun, 57mm, and stickies and from Brit side, Firefly, Button and 57mm.