Availability PP costs not working as intended

[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

[Malevolence]

You're the one advocating "realism".

Here is realistically what would have happened in that game we had.

1) We advance on the town with some tanks and infantry, and promptly the tanks get blown up, the infantry scatter for cover.

2) The infantry call in fire support missions and the entire town is leveled by artillery and close air support missions.

3) We go clear the rubble that used to be the town.

But you don't actually want "real", you want what plays into your specific doctrine, which is support weaponry out the ass. Artillery is designed with the purpose of destroying entrenched positions, your company is one big entrenched position. What would really happen is your entire company would get bombed to the stone age, you'd pull back, and the enormous US army would take the town.

But this isn't realistic, now is it. If it was you would never play because you hate artillery, and if it was realistic then there'd be such an ENORMOUS artillery discrepency on the allied side it would be ludicrous. You're LUCKY the game isn't any more realistic than it is now or you'd die of boredom watching your soldiers explode from 105 shells. To cap it all off that tiger ace of yours would then be destroyed by a close air support run, and you'd go run off and complain about it being "too realistic" because you didn't camo net your tank and it got bombed. This is not a tactical encounter, this is a multi-regiment engagement complete with attached support columns.

[scrapking]

Ya no offense scrapking, but if historical accuracy is what you're aiming for, your company is completely inaccurate.

A historical company would consist of mostly infantry, and a tiger ace would be a rare sight indeed, in fact I don't think there were any tigers outside of panzer divisions, which had pretty much only tanks and mechanized infantry.

No offense, but you are completely wrong.  I'm not the person you want to have THIS argument with if you aren't well versed.

Tigers were fielded in Heavy Tank Companies AND Heavy Tank Battalions.  Consisting of 2 - 3 platoons per company and 3 - 5 vehicles per platoon.  Any given Company would have 2 - 4 HMGs and a mortar section of 2 - 4 mortars, but a Battalion would be composed of 4 - 5 companies.  Every infantry platoon would have an LMG.  So this begs the question as to whether our forces are truly company sized, or battalion sized.

Also, panzer divisions would typically be something like 1 armored battalion (2 armored companies, 1 mech. inf.), 1 mechanized infantry battalion (1 armored company, 2 mechanized inf.), and a horsedrawn infantry battalion ( with divisional support, like arty, atg, engineeers, supply units, C3I etc.).  Modern U.S. divisional structure prior to converting to British style brigades for flexibility, was modeled highly after WW2 wehrmacht divisional structure.


Anyway, if its battalion, our units are all understrength, and if its company a little overstrength.  More like an understrength battalion composed of an infantry company with a platoon of armor and some battalion level attached support.

[gamesguy1]

Ya no offense scrapking, but if historical accuracy is what you're aiming for, your company is completely inaccurate.

A historical company would consist of mostly infantry, and a tiger ace would be a rare sight indeed, in fact I don't think there were any tigers outside of panzer divisions, which had pretty much only tanks and mechanized infantry.

No offense, but you are completely wrong.  I'm not the person you want to have THIS argument with if you aren't well versed.

Tigers were fielded in Heavy Tank Companies AND Heavy Tank Battalions.  Consisting of 2 - 3 platoons per company and 3 - 5 vehicles per platoon.  Any given Company would have 2 - 4 HMGs and a mortar section of 2 - 4 mortars, but a Battalion would be composed of 4 - 5 companies.  Every infantry platoon would have an LMG.  So this begs the question as to whether our forces are truly company sized, or battalion sized.

Also, panzer divisions would typically be something like 1 armored battalion (2 armored companies, 1 mech. inf.), 1 mechanized infantry battalion (1 armored company, 2 mechanized inf.), and a horsedrawn infantry battalion ( with divisional support, like arty, atg, engineeers, supply units, C3I etc.).  Modern U.S. divisional structure prior to converting to British style brigades for flexibility, was modeled highly after WW2 wehrmacht divisional structure.


Anyway, if its battalion, our units are all understrength, and if its company a little overstrength.  More like an understrength battalion composed of an infantry company with a platoon of armor and some battalion level attached support.

Except you have what?  50 soldiers in your company?  Thats not even a full company, more like half a company.

Whats the ratio of tigers to infantry in the wehrmacht army?   A couple of million men to what?  A thousand tigers?   So every 20 of your companies you'd have a tiger.

[scrapking]

You're the one advocating "realism".

Here is realistically what would have happened in that game we had.

1) We advance on the town with some tanks and infantry, and promptly the tanks get blown up, the infantry scatter for cover.

2) The infantry call in fire support missions and the entire town is leveled by artillery and close air support missions.

3) We go clear the rubble that used to be the town.

But you don't actually want "real", you want what plays into your specific doctrine, which is support weaponry out the ass. Artillery is designed with the purpose of destroying entrenched positions, your company is one big entrenched position. What would really happen is your entire company would get bombed to the stone age, you'd pull back, and the enormous US army would take the town.

But this isn't realistic, now is it. If it was you would never play because you hate artillery, and if it was realistic then there'd be such an ENORMOUS artillery discrepency on the allied side it would be ludicrous. You're LUCKY the game isn't any more realistic than it is now or you'd die of boredom watching your soldiers explode from 105 shells. To cap it all off that tiger ace of yours would then be destroyed by a close air support run, and you'd go run off and complain about it being "too realistic" because you didn't camo net your tank and it got bombed. This is not a tactical encounter, this is a multi-regiment engagement complete with attached support columns.

Telling me what "I really want" is making you even more of a smartass.  If you want to continue discussing this with me, you're going to need to stop that - I didn't take an attitude with you, it would be nice if you didn't with me.  You are also either intentionally or ignorantly entirely missing my point.  So I'm not about to let you strawman me I'm afraid (construct a false version of my argument, then defeat it easily, since you created it).

The notion of realism that I am looking for has more to do with OOB than unit behavior.  OOB can be attained with this system, unit behavior cannot - beginning with map scale and engagement ranges alone.  Tabletop games, miniatures, Squad Leader / ASL worked fine without emphasis on the air and artillery superiority that the Allies actually enjoyed.  But they represented small unit tactics, firefights, armored engagements, within historical OOB guidelines.  

Not as many flammenwerfers, or rangers, or stuhs, or shreks, or whatever that you could cram into your unit for as little points as possible.  Its nowhere near regimental, or even really battalion level combat.  4 squads / vehicles per platoon, 4 platoons per company, 4 companies per battalion, 2 Battalions per Regiment, 3 per Brigade, 4 per division, depending on what the highest level used was.  Do the math and tell me we are Battalion or Regimental level.  Overstrength / supported company at best.

Again, one of us is missing the point, and throughout my life its seldom been me.  Vegas odds agree.

[scrapking]

Except you have what?  50 soldiers in your company?  Thats not even a full company, more like half a company.

Whats the ratio of tigers to infantry in the wehrmacht army?   A couple of million men to what?  A thousand tigers?   So every 20 of your companies you'd have a tiger.

Well an actual squad is closer to 8 - 10 guys.  4 vehicles / squads per platoon, 4 platoons per company.  But an infantry company wouldn't have a full platoon of vehicles either.  So most of our units are more like 2 platoons of infantry working alongsides 1 armored platoon, with company and sometimes battalion, or even divisional level support.  That's company level.  Just not "the same" company.

The lack of realism regarding the Tiger is there would never be just 1.  It would have 2 - 3 other Tiger friends.  And yeah, out of all of us playing, maybe 1 or 2 people would be allowed to play Tigers at all.  Everyone else would have P4s, or perhaps multiple Panthers.  I can accept the breech in reality in having less, just not more.  And you cant fix availability to affect everyone at the same time, or it ruins the game.  One person having Tigers or Panthers can't prevent someone else from having them.

But while I enjoy this, it has absolutely nothing to do with my original point, so please get back on topic.

[acker]

Tigers were fielded in Heavy Tank Companies AND Heavy Tank Battalions.  Consisting of 2 - 3 platoons per company and 3 - 5 vehicles per platoon.  Any given Company would have 2 - 4 HMGs and a mortar section of 2 - 4 mortars, but a Battalion would be composed of 4 - 5 companies.  Every infantry platoon would have an LMG.  So this begs the question as to whether our forces are truly company sized, or battalion sized.

Also, panzer divisions would typically be something like 1 armored battalion (2 armored companies, 1 mech. inf.), 1 mechanized infantry battalion (1 armored company, 2 mechanized inf.), and a horsedrawn infantry battalion ( with divisional support, like arty, atg, engineeers, supply units, C3I etc.).  Modern U.S. divisional structure prior to converting to British style brigades for flexibility, was modeled highly after WW2 wehrmacht divisional structure.

I would somewhat disagree with at least some of your information. Modern US divisions were attempted to be modeled after Wehrmacht divisions. However, this was a mere attempt, and did not follow real Wehrmacht divisional structures very well at all; the Americans overestimated the armor distribution in said Wehrmacht divisions, and consequently "overarmored" their divisions.

After mock combat in the States demonstrated that armor-heavy units were prone to heavy losses from AT weaponry, the US divisions were scaled back from the battalion-level down in terms of armor quantity, and scaled up the amount of mechanized infantry. In other words, though the US initially tried to follow Wehrmacht divisional structure, they actually didn't. And ended up with a different structure.


I think that the rest of the information is accurate. Though, to be sure, this game is definitely not modeled after traditional battalion/company-level combat. And, to be even more sure, is unrealistic to the point that such organization would be futile in terms of "realism".


In terms of "Out Of Supply"...this is difficult. A company with quite a few "Out Of Supply" units should be cut down to normalcy in about a dozen games or so if not wielded by a skilled player...or if noobstomping. I'm thinking about an exponential "Out of Supply" scale, so that the eighth Ranger squad costs 10 PP or so, yet the fifth costs 2.

Of course, we need doctrines in first. Doctrines are going to be a huge PP soak, and should curtail spamming to a large extent. Right up to the point that someone maxes out a doctrine...but I'm sure that they'll think up something for that, too. If they ever need to, it's going to take forever to completely max out a doctrine.

[MannfredvonRitter]

You're the one advocating "realism".

Here is realistically what would have happened in that game we had.

1) We advance on the town with some tanks and infantry, and promptly the tanks get blown up, the infantry scatter for cover.

2) The infantry call in fire support missions and the entire town is leveled by artillery and close air support missions.

3) We go clear the rubble that used to be the town.

But you don't actually want "real", you want what plays into your specific doctrine, which is support weaponry out the ass. Artillery is designed with the purpose of destroying entrenched positions, your company is one big entrenched position. What would really happen is your entire company would get bombed to the stone age, you'd pull back, and the enormous US army would take the town.

But this isn't realistic, now is it. If it was you would never play because you hate artillery, and if it was realistic then there'd be such an ENORMOUS artillery discrepency on the allied side it would be ludicrous. You're LUCKY the game isn't any more realistic than it is now or you'd die of boredom watching your soldiers explode from 105 shells. To cap it all off that tiger ace of yours would then be destroyed by a close air support run, and you'd go run off and complain about it being "too realistic" because you didn't camo net your tank and it got bombed. This is not a tactical encounter, this is a multi-regiment engagement complete with attached support columns.

It was the Americans who fought like that. Hence why the majority of mainland Europe still holds a grudge against them. When conquered by Germany most of Europe was in-tact, when liberated by America, it was annihilated. I did a large part of masters studies on the bombing campaigns in Europe so please don't humour me with your lack of knowledge.

[scrapking]

Tigers were fielded in Heavy Tank Companies AND Heavy Tank Battalions.  Consisting of 2 - 3 platoons per company and 3 - 5 vehicles per platoon.  Any given Company would have 2 - 4 HMGs and a mortar section of 2 - 4 mortars, but a Battalion would be composed of 4 - 5 companies.  Every infantry platoon would have an LMG.  So this begs the question as to whether our forces are truly company sized, or battalion sized.

Also, panzer divisions would typically be something like 1 armored battalion (2 armored companies, 1 mech. inf.), 1 mechanized infantry battalion (1 armored company, 2 mechanized inf.), and a horsedrawn infantry battalion ( with divisional support, like arty, atg, engineeers, supply units, C3I etc.).  Modern U.S. divisional structure prior to converting to British style brigades for flexibility, was modeled highly after WW2 wehrmacht divisional structure.

I would somewhat disagree with at least some of your information. Modern US divisions were attempted to be modeled after Wehrmacht divisions. However, this was a mere attempt, and did not follow real Wehrmacht divisional structures very well at all; the Americans overestimated the armor distribution in said Wehrmacht divisions, and consequently "overarmored" their divisions.

After mock combat in the States demonstrated that armor-heavy units were prone to heavy losses from AT weaponry, the US divisions were scaled back from the battalion-level down in terms of armor quantity, and scaled up the amount of mechanized infantry. In other words, though the US initially tried to follow Wehrmacht divisional structure, they actually didn't. And ended up with a different structure.


I think that the rest of the information is accurate. Though, to be sure, this game is definitely not modeled after traditional battalion/company-level combat. And, to be even more sure, is unrealistic to the point that such organization would be futile in terms of "realism".

Yeah Acker, I agree with everything you've said for the most part, although you are splitting hairs on modern divisional structure, and we are saying the same thing.  Yeah modern pre-brigade combat team restructuring, a U.S. armored division was 2 armored battalions with 1 mech inf, and a mech inf division was 1 armored battalion with 2 mech inf.  Even on the battalion level an armored battalion was never pure armor as well.  An Armored Battalion was similarly structured with 2 armored companies and 1 mech. inf. company and vice versa.  

Again, interesting discussion, but back on topic, please.

The organizational structure of our units while maybe wishfully and ideally closer to historical OOB...  my concern here is specifically the spamming of specialized or elite unit types.  As was more or less stated in my OP.  Unit types that are intentionally limited by our availability / PP system now.

Not so much forcing X infantry and Y tanks, as restricting X Rangers, Y StuHs, Z Flammenwerfers, etc.  For example... I don't want to imply that only those units should be limited more.  There are probably others that are even not considered so specialized which muck with game balance when they are too "available".  For example, mortars - at 4 available are not entirely OOB inaccurate, yet still create game balance issues when more than 1 or 2 are fielded.  Sometimes even 1 or 2.

I'm not here to pick on specific units here anyway, but more the concern that availability is now too easily bypassed entirely, and I am voicing concerns that without an aggressive and universal PP sink, will continue to be.

I've said all I need to say, I've received the answer I hoped to from a DEV, and received the answers I expected from the people I expected them from who prefer gimmickry, min-maxing, and gaminess.

No surprises all around.

[31stPzGren]

Here is realistically what would have happened in that game we had.

I think only the Americans do that.

[DasNoob]

You're the one advocating "realism".

Here is realistically what would have happened in that game we had.

1) We advance on the town with some tanks and infantry, and promptly the tanks get blown up, the infantry scatter for cover.

2) The infantry call in fire support missions and the entire town is leveled by artillery and close air support missions.

3) We go clear the rubble that used to be the town.

But you don't actually want "real", you want what plays into your specific doctrine, which is support weaponry out the ass. Artillery is designed with the purpose of destroying entrenched positions, your company is one big entrenched position. What would really happen is your entire company would get bombed to the stone age, you'd pull back, and the enormous US army would take the town.

But this isn't realistic, now is it. If it was you would never play because you hate artillery, and if it was realistic then there'd be such an ENORMOUS artillery discrepency on the allied side it would be ludicrous. You're LUCKY the game isn't any more realistic than it is now or you'd die of boredom watching your soldiers explode from 105 shells. To cap it all off that tiger ace of yours would then be destroyed by a close air support run, and you'd go run off and complain about it being "too realistic" because you didn't camo net your tank and it got bombed. This is not a tactical encounter, this is a multi-regiment engagement complete with attached support columns.

It was the Americans who fought like that. Hence why the majority of mainland Europe still holds a grudge against them. When conquered by Germany most of Europe was in-tact, when liberated by America, it was annihilated. I did a large part of masters studies on the bombing campaigns in Europe so please don't humour me with your lack of knowledge.

We should just give it back to the neo-nazi then if Europe is so "ungrateful."  Don't know where you got your masters, but it probably isn't worth the paper it is printed on

[Malevolence]

It was the Americans who fought like that. Hence why the majority of mainland Europe still holds a grudge against them. When conquered by Germany most of Europe was in-tact, when liberated by America, it was annihilated. I did a large part of masters studies on the bombing campaigns in Europe so please don't humour me with your lack of knowledge.

We were Americans. Your appeal to authority and ad hominem is pointless.

Telling me what "I really want" is making you even more of a smartass.  If you want to continue discussing this with me, you're going to need to stop that - I didn't take an attitude with you, it would be nice if you didn't with me.  You are also either intentionally or ignorantly entirely missing my point.  So I'm not about to let you strawman me I'm afraid (construct a false version of my argument, then defeat it easily, since you created it).

I'm tired of you being a fucking two face. What you claim to want and what you actually want implemented are two different things - you're not a bad person, but what you keep complaining about is stupid. It's not a strawman because your argument is you want realism. Your company is in no way realistic, this game is not realistic, this game is not intended to be realistic. Every time a dev is asked about realism they say the same thing - "this is a game, not real life - balance first".

The notion of realism that I am looking for has more to do with OOB than unit behavior.  OOB can be attained with this system, unit behavior cannot - beginning with map scale and engagement ranges alone.  Tabletop games, miniatures, Squad Leader / ASL worked fine without emphasis on the air and artillery superiority that the Allies actually enjoyed.  But they represented small unit tactics, firefights, armored engagements, within historical OOB guidelines.

Good, Americans get three howitzers per division offmap attached as per historical OOB for regimental sized forces. This is not a tactical simulation like tabletop games often represent, this encompasses battles generally comprising a thousand men or more.

Not as many flammenwerfers, or rangers, or stuhs, or shreks, or whatever that you could cram into your unit for as little points as possible.  Its nowhere near regimental, or even really battalion level combat.  4 squads / vehicles per platoon, 4 platoons per company, 4 companies per battalion, 2 Battalions per Regiment, 3 per Brigade, 4 per division, depending on what the highest level used was.  Do the math and tell me we are Battalion or Regimental level.  Overstrength / supported company at best.

Regiments are several hundred to several thousand soldiers employed for a specific purpose - most of our "companies" would be considered small armored regiments. 200 men+ in the case of US for most of my builds.

Again, one of us is missing the point, and throughout my life its seldom been me.  Vegas odds agree.

The point is you're complaining about people creating unrealistic scenarios by using a very specially designed game mechanic. You are arguing against the intended purpose of the availability system, which is to create SOFT caps on units. You want hard caps on units, the devs don't, and neither do the majority of players because we want the freedom to make what company we want to make, not what company the dev team wants us to make.

Then you mask your argument with some realism red herring which doesn't even apply because the game isn't now nor will it ever be about realism.

The irony is apparent, the logical progression is flawed. Your entire argument is worthless.

[Scyntos]

I can't even be bothered to read this thread anymore.. every post in here is a god damn essay. Good day to you all.

[31stPzGren]

We were Americans. Your appeal to authority and ad hominem is pointless.

So that means by default Americans always bomb innocent bystanders and civilian structures? I would hardly think its "ad hominem", its happening in Iraq right now sixty years later...

[acker]

It's an adopted German practice from 1915. Americans are traditional that way. No, seriously, Iraq is a POS, though few could argue that removing Saddam was a bad thing. It's probably some sort of imperialism...I haven't been able to find out what kind, though.


This practice of annihilation was also followed by the British, Germans, French, Russians, Italians, and Japanese. Not a simple "American" massacre, as you imply. It just happens to be that the Americans and British had the most ammunition and guns. The Germans (not the SS, not the Milice, the Germans) had "better" means to keep down resistance. And the French didn't exactly fight town-to-town in 1940-44 (when they did...the Germans did the "American" fashion, it sure as hell happened in Warsaw/Guernica, too).

And, judging from the conspicuous lack of an Anti-American partisan movements throughout Europe (even Germany had a pathetic resistance force), something tells me that the Europeans of the time preferred "American" destruction to German "intactness".

The difference between thousands of bombers killing thousands of civilians to knock out railroads and a single Panzer division burning down a small town due to the assassination of an officer...there was a difference to the people of Europe. One was unavoidable, not done in malice. The other was not. That's why they fought against the Germans, though some definitely housed resentments for the Allies.


And yes, what Malevolence is suggesting is perfectly realistic. Except for the part about air support...air support seldom kills tanks directly, a kills-to-claims overstatement of something close to 20 to 1. Air support kills armor divisions, not armor. There's a difference.

[Malevolence]

So that means by default Americans always bomb innocent bystanders and civilian structures? I would hardly think its "ad hominem", its happening in Iraq right now sixty years later...

Read that again.

It was the Americans who fought like that. Hence why the majority of mainland Europe still holds a grudge against them. When conquered by Germany most of Europe was in-tact, when liberated by America, it was annihilated. I did a large part of masters studies on the bombing campaigns in Europe so please don't humour me with your lack of knowledge.

He says the Americans fought like that. We played as Americans, so, yes we would in fact fight like that. The bolded section is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy coupled with an ad hominem attack by calling me stupid.

And yes, what Malevolence is suggesting is perfectly realistic. Except for the part about air support...air support seldom kills tanks directly, a kills-to-claims overstatement of something close to 20 to 1. Air support kills armor divisions, not armor. There's a difference.

Usually they would target larger formations, you are correct, but assuming air support is available they would very well target two tigers engaged in battle over a small hamlet - isolated, very powerful targets easy to destroy? They'd jump all over it.

[gamesguy1]

The notion of realism that I am looking for has more to do with OOB than unit behavior.  OOB can be attained with this system, unit behavior cannot - beginning with map scale and engagement ranges alone.  Tabletop games, miniatures, Squad Leader / ASL worked fine without emphasis on the air and artillery superiority that the Allies actually enjoyed.  But they represented small unit tactics, firefights, armored engagements, within historical OOB guidelines.  

Not as many flammenwerfers, or rangers, or stuhs, or shreks, or whatever that you could cram into your unit for as little points as possible.  Its nowhere near regimental, or even really battalion level combat.  4 squads / vehicles per platoon, 4 platoons per company, 4 companies per battalion, 2 Battalions per Regiment, 3 per Brigade, 4 per division, depending on what the highest level used was.  Do the math and tell me we are Battalion or Regimental level.  Overstrength / supported company at best.

Again, one of us is missing the point, and throughout my life its seldom been me.  Vegas odds agree.

Well then where are the artillery companies?   In our you complained about us having a single howitzer and a single calliope, but in real life there were much more artillery than there are in EIR.  You can't have it both ways.  You said you wanted a realistic OOB which means very very few tigers and panthers and tons of artillery and infantry.

Uh, rangers, stugs, shreks, etc all those things you listed were far far more common than tigers, let alone tiger aces.   Stugs were the most ubiquitous tank in the wehrmahct army.   Shreks and such were fairly common as well.   So the companies you think are gimmicky are in fact historically accurate while your company is completely inaccurate.

[scrapking]

Malevolence, Gamesguy, good day to you both.

You'd rather tell me what my "real issue is", or tell me to "L2P" than you would engage as an intelligent human being.  I didn't call out anybody in this entire thread, I called out what I perceived as a flawed game mechanic.  You both decided to turn the discussion into criticizing me personally and how I am somehow a hypocrite, or have some hidden agenda to serve the legions of secret nazi support unit teams.  Its obvious that you are both nerd raging on the interwebs and here to do nothing but argue with no substance or valid points to make.  Talk about tired of "you being fucking two faced".  Talk about "ad hominem".  Stop being a fucking smartass and pulling things out of your ass and selling them as fact. 

I had my say, I know the people who actually make decisions understand me, and to some extent agree with me.  Possibly fully agree with me.  You both like using internet cliches, here's an old school, pre internet cliche for you -

"This is mind over matter.  I don't mind, because you don't matter."

Good day.

[acker]

Usually they would target larger formations, you are correct, but assuming air support is available they would very well target two tigers engaged in battle over a small hamlet - isolated, very powerful targets easy to destroy? They'd jump all over it.

I don't know about the accuracy, though; there's a reason why artillery and planes had a dead zone of around 400 meters. With WWII equipment, accuracy was pretty difficult. MY 20-to-1 ratio is probably on the mark, though I'd have to recheck my sources.

A standard fighter-bomber has 2 500-pound GPHE bombs attached to it. Trying to hit a target the size of a tank, even at low altitudes and relatively low speeds...very difficult, even if the target is plainly visible. Hitting with rockets would be slightly easier, yet still difficult; dumb-fire, inaccurate, small blast radius.

Firing at tanks with .50 cal can knock out said tanks, but would be very unlikely. I think that hitting tanks with 20mm cannon would have higher chances, but would still be difficult. Knocking out APCs, trucks, etc. would be much, much easier.

But I agree that a squadron would definitely target a tank if they saw one. And that the tank crew would probably bail out, or GTFO. It's still more likely for a bunch of infantry/trucks to die, rather than the tank.


Artillery caused something like 40% of all military casualties in WWII. Hell, artillery knocked out more tanks than did dedicated AT guns (or even other tanks). I sincerely hope that this game does not follow realism.