Shermans

[Zhukov]

Is it just me or are these Shermans tanks from Starwars or something? Were they insane!?!? I see that tank with potential to rip infantry to shreds and still do damage to vehicles. Im not sure about you but I think its overpowered.

The puma, I think its to expensive.

I might be wrong, what do you think? All I know is Shermans were to strong to begin with. I have lots of trouble with an army with X2 Croms, X2 Shermans 1 Easy Eight. Im REALLY unlucky with dice too. Compared to the lucky long range sherman knocks out a Tiger TWICE!!!

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Have you used Shermans in your mix very often?

[Stojakovic]

There a bit over powered but for playability reasons... I hope. But when they are on your side HELL YEAH they are fun!

[horacus]

yes, at your side, but when you paly against them their are a PAIN IN THE ASS¡¡¡¡¡

[Stojakovic]

yes, at your side, but when you paly against them their are a PAIN IN THE ASS¡¡¡¡¡

Yup. Unless you are doing a 500 pt. game and your nashorn is having fun sitting on a hill hex :D

[Sturmgrenadier]

Shermans (21 pts variant) are most unbalance thanks in this game, and yes, its pain in ass.

[CaptainToaster]

Yup. Unless you are doing a 500 pt. game and your nashorn is having fun sitting on a hill hex :D

Now that is real fun. I love in large games having a nashorn sit on a hill and blow the bajesus out of everything in site.

[Careos]

Disagree, Shermans are easily defeated by heavier war armor. In justification of their good anti-infantry skills, they were armed with both hull and coaxial machine guns, not to mention the additional MG that was sometimes used on the turret.

As far as its abilities...it could possibly be a bit undercosted as the Panzer IVg is similar. However, the Panzer IV does have the extended range which does count for alot in addition to its stronger attacks. If the Sherman is undercosted, I would only say by maybe 3 points.

[TomServo]

The M4A1 isn't undercosted, but German tanks like the IV G are overcosted when compared. The IV G is 1 better vs. armor at all ranges with extended range, but it has less armor, less vs. AI, and its slower, all for 9 points more than an M4A1.
Now that 105 Sherman-beast is definitely undercosted, by about 10 points IMO.

[Der Leiter]

I agree in normal games, but once you play in larger games (as my group prefers) the Axis vehicles start to shine - The Sherman Swarm isn't all over you on the 1st/2nd turn, and you're actually using extended range so it's not justwasted points.

[Careos]

I would totally agree with Der on this. I have always had more success with the German armor as opposed to the US armor. The German armor usually has extended range, which gives you a shot before you can be hit.

The problem with German armor IMO is they have to be played in more of a spread out manner so a flank is not exposed.

Everyone always raves about the Sherman swarm, while it is a good and realistic tactic, it is far from flawless and like most assaults, can be foiled if the German commander has the ability to read and react quickly.

[XAos]

I would totally agree with Der on this. I have always had more success with the German armor as opposed to the US armor. The German armor usually has extended range, which gives you a shot before you can be hit.

Are you playing on the standard 2x2 map or something larger.?
I have used exetended range (maybe) once ever on 2x2 maps.

[Der Leiter]

Are you playing on the standard 2x2 map or something larger.?
I have used exetended range (maybe) once ever on 2x2 maps.

In 2x2 games you don't generally get to use extended range, as I'm sure everyone has found out. You sometimes can make use of the Threat of extended range, but mostly it just causes your opponent to rush you.

In larger games (eg 3x4 or more) extended range definately comes into play. Again, more often than not, it forces your opponent to either Charge or Hide. If they attempt to hide you usually still get to pick off a few (or try to). If they charge then at least there is still a good distance between you, and you can have a unified but spread front set up as Careos mentioned.

In our D-Day games the Shermans were just .. ahem.. very explicitly defiled. For the Axis it was just a matter of sitting back and picking them off, even though the odds were something like 3 or 4 :1 for the tanks.

[Marquis]

Pet peeve #1: Costed is not a word. Priced is a word.

Here is my Sherman price theory: The price of the Sherman reflects it's mass production quanity, more Shermans cost less then the less producted Tiger which costs more.
I a 100pt game I played this week a Tiger took out my three Shermans without any trouble while Distrupting the infantry it overran. The game went to turn 10 and in a mircle second to last roll my M1 Garand, supported by a commander, got 7 out of 8 hits to destroy the damaged tiger on the objective.
Remind me again why you think the German tanks are inferior to the Americans? They seem win just as many battles as the Americans, Russians, and British. Now the Japanese - they have bad tanks....

[Canuck_Captain]

Shermans never pose that much of a problem to me...

I actually like when a player uses shermans rather than KV-1's...
11 dice against a sherman at long range has a much better chance than the shermans 9 dice at long range...
and the 105 is goin to be worse at shooting tanks(much worse) so that will be more fun to kill and easier... sure It can shoot infantry well, oooooooooh oh no...the sherman might take out my SSPG too bad I just blew the 105 apart at close - medium range and all he could do is shoot 10 dice...

Shermans can be good at swarms but also if I send in my troops with the Ober, you know that shermans toast...

Id trade 5 - 10 pts for 21 anyday...

[Redgar]

Hi Marquis,

The problem with the German tanks is not that they are of poorer/equal quality to other nations' tanks (German tanks are usually better machines), but the problem is they are usually heavily over-costed (especially for extended range), while the American Shermans are slightly undercosted, and are much more versitile (i.e. good AT & AI stats).

100 pt. play means that if you must dedicate 45 - 71 pts of your army to a specialized vehicle, if your opponent brings a non-matching build you are toast. A sherman build, meanwhile, can deal with both German Tanks (swarm) and German infantry (swarm).

Anyway, hopefully tournament play will become 200 pt... then the German units (with their VERY pricy extended range) will really shine (and the allies will be forced to play combined arms, because then the Axis can pay for support units.)

Just my 2 ep worth,

Redgar

[Photoner Hawkwind]

My belief is that to match the historical accuracy of Shermans outnumbering their German opponents, the Shermans are priced lower or the German tanks are priced higher so that you won't see historically inaccurate matchups of 5 on 5 instead of the more historically accurate matchups.

[fifleche]

Yes, but both sides need equal chances. As the rules are written, Allies (esp USA) dominate by a wide margin.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Tell you again: Production capabilitys make sense in a strategic game, but on tactical level 100 points should be the same for both sides. And that is not the case with US units in this game. I say US, because the other Allies have good/excellent units which are priced just right. There are some flaws *** Paratrooper, WM Expert Sniper, Engineer (costed to high IMHO),... but overall their armies are balanced. The US on the other hand has too cheap and too good to be true units - and often both combined.

The basic Sherman is a on the edge unit. You can beat it. But the Rhino and the 105 just are not right. The same holds true for the paratrooper (*** to a lesser extent), the BAR and to some other units.

But that has been discussed several times. ;)

[XAos]

Pet peeve #1: Costed is not a word. Priced is a word.

Here is my Sherman price theory: The price of the Sherman reflects it's mass production quanity, .

"Priced" is a word, with an already defined meaning. That relates to money. So semantically if I write the sherman is "underpriced". Everyone would read it as a refernce to the $'s costs of producing it. As your next sentence indeed does.
And while production costs absolutly should be incorporated in a strategic game (to get the balence correct) They equally should be utterly excluded from a tactical game (to get the balence correct).
So I use a different word. "Costed" to make it clear that I don't mean "$'s" but "points" i.e. game balence. Unsurprisingly the dictionary does not have a word for play balence in aam games. So I have to define a new word to do that.

[Frogslayer]

I agree with all that say that "factory production" should NOT be reflected in this game. I think the designers have made 2 big errors:

1) stupid american nationalism/sell strategy
(hey, we must have the best tanks, the best basic infantry, the best transport (jeep), the best mortar point-by-point, the best commander...and probably the best plane and MG too.)

2) Misjudged the cost/effect for extended range.

The basic sherman is the most broken, but both the rhino and the 105 sherman are too point/cost efficient.

By the way, I think that 4/4 or 4/3 would be a historically more correct armor rating for the sherman. It just wasn´t as good as the T-34, even considering the superior armor.

(and yes, the puma sucks. it´s a worse version that the hellcat at higher cost.)

[Autarch]

Or they can just take a normal unit like the Easy Eight and Monster Truck it up!

[Photoner Hawkwind]

OK, What stats and points would you make for Shermans and german Tanks to balance it to recreate historical scenarios where Shermans did outnumber German Tanks?

[fifleche]

OK, What stats and points would you make for Shermans and german Tanks to balance it to recreate historical scenarios where Shermans did outnumber German Tanks?IMHO, you get the wrong question; Shermans outnumbered German tanks because the Americans did field MORE points worth of units on the field. IMO, again, if both sides were fielding an equivalent number of "points", they should have been winning 50% of the time... Which did just not happen. They only won consistently at the start of the Battle of the Bulge, where they amassed troops, supplies and tanks.

Yes, the USA had better "fieldability" of units; i.e. easier to keep running, better supply lines & much more supplies in general. But in a 1 on 1 (skirmish)engagement, engine reliability shouldn't be factored in.

IMHO:

Sherman = Panzer IV
M4A3E8 Sherman = Panzer V Panther
M26 Pershing = King Tiger

[Danyel Phelps]

The Americans having an overwhelming battlefield population over the Germans is a myth. In large tank to tank engagements,there were likely to be something like 5 Shermans to every 4 Panzer IVs. That is hardly the 10 to 1 ratio that constantly gets totted about. America was just able to replace losses more quickly and readily than the Germans.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

The Americans having an overwhelming battlefield population over the Germans is a myth. In large tank to tank engagements,there were likely to be something like 5 Shermans to every 4 Panzer IVs. That is hardly the 10 to 1 ratio that constantly gets totted about. America was just able to replace losses more quickly and readily than the Germans.

I think I see your point as that the Sherman losses would be replaced quicker than the German losses. I'm just wondering though that if the German tanks weren't replaced as quickly, wouldn't they field fewer tanks then?

Even if you don't agree with my last statement, I do see your point and that would mean that some of us will just have to adjust points for house rules, as I suspect WOTC has made their decisions and will most likely stick to them.

[Photoner Hawkwind]

It sounds like the people who aren't happy with the Sherman points vs. the German Tank points need to play games not based on points but might want to play scenarios such as free ASL Scenario downloads from MMP at http://www.multimanpublishing.com/ASL/scenarios.php

You would may have to make a few adjustments, but otherwise you'd be making house rule adjustment to points. Just an alternative if you want.

I've also purchased ATS scenarios from Critical Hit to play some historical games.

[Danyel Phelps]

I think I see your point as that the Sherman losses would be replaced quicker than the German losses. I'm just wondering though that if the German tanks weren't replaced as quickly, wouldn't they field fewer tanks then?

Even if you don't agree with my last statement, I do see your point and that would mean that some of us will just have to adjust points for house rules, as I suspect WOTC has made their decisions and will most likely stick to them.
I feel like i'm supposed to argue with you, but for some reason I can't even force myself to. What gives? Who are you? what are you? You're not supposed to agree with me right off the bat, darnit.

[RobertVella]

I'm certainly not going to agree with you, especially with your Sherman- Panzer IV match up. The Germans only produced about 9000 Panzer IVs including the old variants, most of these being sent to the Russian front. The Americans in one year alone, 1943, produced 21 000 Shermans, more than double of the Panzer IV's whole war production. The Germans in terms of tank vs tank were outnumbered by 5 to 1 in western Europe, while the Americans had much greater manpower resources to replace killed and captured tank crews.

[Stojakovic]

NO NO NO you are going to cause a flame war!

[Lotus]

You're not supposed to agree with me right off the bat, darnit.

Listen to the man. ;)

[Photoner Hawkwind]

NO NO NO you are going to cause a flame war!

:D LOL falls out of chair :D

[Stojakovic]

:D LOL falls out of chair :D

Oh no they are laughing. may god help us all :(

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9382/25913kc.gif

[Lotus]

:D LOL falls out of chair :D

Not sure he was kidding...

but it was still funny.

[RobertVella]

Were all just having a friendly little argument. ;)

[Lotus]

Every forest fire man makes begins with a single book of matches...

[Stojakovic]

Not sure he was kidding...

but it was still funny.

I was being serious...http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7326/665yj.gif

[Lotus]

I was being serious...http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7326/665yj.gif

Thought mebbe.

[Stojakovic]

Were all just having a friendly little argument. ;)

Friendly...argument... :confused: Never heard about one of those...

Back on the topic train now

[Lotus]

Friendly...argument... :confused: Never heard about one of those...

Back on the topic train now

I came in late...thought arguing was the topic. :rolleyes:

[RobertVella]

Yeah a lot of debating always going on, its when it gets personal thats a worry.

[Danyel Phelps]

Production is one thing, what's fielded is another. America wasn't using all 49-some-odd-thousand Shermans produced at once.

[RobertVella]

Of course not but they fielded a hell of a lot more than the Germans, that had drastic manpower shortages, as well low production levels due to the complex designs of their tanks and the bombing of their industry. Plus you cannot forget that the Germans were facing huge numbers on the Russian front which they considered their main front so most of the tanks they produced went there.

[Lotus]

Yeah a lot of debating always going on, its when it gets personal thats a worry.

That is the trick oft missed. Debate w/o an overabundance of ego. And the ability to not read what isn't there in the first place.

And I think the argument is well put now. America out-produced, not outfielded until you look at the end picture. The winner always has the last useable tank on the field. That was the Sherman for the U.S.

[Danyel Phelps]

Yes, America DID field more tanks. They had more divisions, nevermind the allies as a whole. But in general, combat was waged on a Division vs. Division basis. In this scenario, you're not going to have 10 Shermans against every Panzer IV. You will have platoons of vehicles against one another, and the American/German armored divisions weren't so different in size as to create a 9-1 fight. In the middle of battle, it would be something like 1.5-1. Is this a numerical advantage? Yes, but not nearly as big as people seem to think. The real advantage in Allied production came from the ability to replace a vehicle and crew lost in combat in such a short time.

[RobertVella]

The numerical advantage is exaggerated a lot of the time to some extent, but the reality was that the Germans were heavily outnumbered and over extended. Don't forget that a lot of the divisions your refering to were only called divisions in name, by the end of June 1944 (even before this) they were very under strength.

[Danyel Phelps]

I can agree with that.

[RobertVella]

Cool. Good debating with you :)

[Lotus]

And there was peace in the valley.

[Stojakovic]

And there was peace in the valley.

What about frosty chocolate milkshakes?
I could not help my self I am watching the Simpsons DVDs :cool:

[RobertVella]

And there was peace in the valley.

LOL!! good one :D

[Andras]

Full strength German Panzer divisions had similar numbers of medium tanks (168) compared to US Armored Divisions (162), however, the German divisions were much less likely to be at full strength.

The German practice was to keep a division on the line without replacements until they pulled the whole division for refit. US practice was to feed relacement tanks into the fight as they were needed.

At the Start of Ardennes, on December 15, the 2nd Panzer had only 92 tanks, compared to 2nd US Armored 203 tanks. On January 1, the 2nd Panzer was down to 26 medium tanks, and the 2nd Armored was at 199 medium tanks, having replaced most of their losses with new tanks.

At the outset of the Normandy campaign, the German units were formidable when they were at full strength, however after the summer of '44 they were only a shadow of their former selves, frequently reduced to that of a weak infantry division with armored support.

From February to April '45 the US accumulated 600 75mm Shermans in depots in Britain that none of the combat units wanted, preferring to fight with 76mm tanks.

A post war analysis of the 129 identifiable skirmishes between the US 3rd and 4th Armored divisions and German Panzer units, only 10% were of company strength or higher, and half were of platoon or smaller.

with the exception of the surprise fighting for the beginning of Ardennes, every time the US fought large scale combat in Europe, they smashed the Germans, and that's what really mattered in the end.

When the 2nd Armored struck the 2nd and 9th Panzer divisions after they almost reached the Meuse, the Germans lost 40 tanks and 840 other vehicles by Christmas Evening, and over the next few days 82 German armored vehicles were killed to a loss of only 27 M4 and M5 tanks.

[Marquis]

I love all this talk about production and the out numbering of Shermans to Panzers in individual historical combat situations. It just illustrates my point:

The reason Sherman tanks are cost less in AAM is because the game designers wanted to depict the number of Shermans available in a battle compaired to the slightly less availble Panzer IV or the very rarly available Tiger or Panther or what ever. Given this perspective you see how the cost of the much more available Sherman tank is comparable to the over overtaxed less available Panzer.
If you think that a historical game should create apples fighting apples then you loose some of the history. AAM points the units so the player has to fight apples with oranges. If you want to fight equal units vs. equal unit you certainly can but I think it would be a bit boring.
I don't mind fighting 3 Shermans to 1 Tiger. Seems like a fair fight to me and no I don't agree that the Sherman is a broken unit.

[fifleche]

In large tank to tank engagements,there were likely to be something like 5 Shermans to every 4 Panzer IVs. That is hardly the 10 to 1 ratio that constantly gets totted about.Never mind the difference in stats modeling from AAM, some of which I do not agree with, this gives us:

5 Shermans: 105
4 PanzerIV: 120

So the ratio isn't historical, look at it the way you want.

[fifleche]

The reason Sherman tanks are cost less in AAM is because the game designers wanted to depict the number of Shermans available in a battle compaired to the slightly less availble Panzer IV or the very rarly available Tiger or Panther or what ever. Given this perspective you see how the cost of the much more available Sherman tank is comparable to the over overtaxed less available Panzer.So, by your opinion, the Screaming Eagles should cost like 75 pts each unit? And the M-1 Garand 1 pt?

There were much less PanzerII's produced than Shermans, yet the Panzer II costs less... The Panzer II should cost more, by your evaluation... It doesn't make any sense!

By the same token, the Flamingo should cost a bazillion points, since so few were ever made...

[RobertVella]

It does make sense in a way because the price of early war tanks are similar in this game, because production between these countries were similar. In the second half of the war after America entered and British and Russian production geared up their tanks become cheaper and the Germans who
start to focus on quality not quantity, their tanks become more expensive. This is shown in the game. The prices are pushed up in general. After the T34 came onto the scene tank design changed as it does in A&AM and players are less likely to use the obsolete tanks of 1939-1941 even though they cost less. Obviously this is not always the case, but my guess is that is what the designers were aiming at.

[fifleche]

The M3 Lee nor the M3 Stuart do not fit into your pattern.

There is a 4-pts difference between the Flamingo and the Char B-1bis, there were like 5 times more B1 than Flamingo's, yet the B1 costs more...

Nope, goin' nowhere...

[dudemaestro]

German tank production was never able to keep up with the German armies needs. This is in no small part due to the fact that the German tanks were built by Factories that built Heavy Tractors and other types of equipment in peace time. This is a logical thing to do, but not very effective. The reason being is that these factories were only producing a few specialized vehicles a year under normal conditions, now you ask them to mass produce and they cannot, they are just not set up for it. Now the Americans... their tanks were produced by Auto Manufacturers, who are used to pouring out units by the thousands. That’s why Allied Generals normally outnumbered axis armor in all engagements by 3 and 4 to one. The Sherman was no the greatest tank of the war... but it was the superior weapon system. Cheap, simple, effective. Just like the one in the game.

[RobertVella]

The M3 stuart does, cost 15 and prodiction levels for this tank in 1941 was not very high. The M3 Lee fits in more with later war tanks. About 5000 were build, a lot of which were used in north Africa in 1942 but after that were not seen much on the european battlefield in favor of shermans instead. Some were sent to the pacific, but in general was much more rare than the sherman or even German tanks like the Panzer IV which is why it costs 37.

[RobertVella]

German tank production was never able to keep up with the German armies needs. This is in no small part due to the fact that the German tanks were built by Factories that built Heavy Tractors and other types of equipment in peace time. This is a logical thing to do, but not very effective. The reason being is that these factories were only producing a few specialized vehicles a year under normal conditions, now you ask them to mass produce and they cannot, they are just not set up for it. Now the Americans... their tanks were produced by Auto Manufacturers, who are used to pouring out units by the thousands. That’s why Allied Generals normally outnumbered axis armor in all engagements by 3 and 4 to one. The Sherman was no the greatest tank of the war... but it was the superior weapon system. Cheap, simple, effective. Just like the one in the game.


All pretty much spot on.

[Danyel Phelps]

Again contrary to popular belief, German factories had no problem making enough equipment. I don't even know how the heck that one came to be. If you look at the Luftwaffe in late 1944, you'll see hundreds of planes that simply can't go anywhere because there were no pilots. Same deal with tanks. Germany's problem was a lack of manpower to operate what they had, not any lack of equipment.

Did they produce less than the Allies? Duh, but what's the use of producing 49,000 Tigers if there's not 245,000 people available to operate them? Ever since Speer took over German production, Germany had no problem filling the needs of their diminishing army.

[RobertVella]

It is true that German produced more in 1944 than any other year, but they were still far behind the allies in production. Germany made the step to total war production far to late, when their manpower resources were dwendleing. Speers drive to total war did not kick in until 1944 when the initiative was firmly on the allied side. At the same time it is still true that the Germans were very much outnumbered in tanks and equipment and that production of their tanks were slower because of the complex designs of their tanks and their want for quality in production.

[Danyel Phelps]

That's all well and good, doesn't change the fact that the remaining army had more than thy could possibly use at their disposal. Just because you make an airplane doesn't mean anything unless you have a pilot for it, which Germany didn't have. Was the same for tanks.

[RobertVella]

It's true that in produced more in 1944, but when Germany did have the manpower they didn't produce enough. Think of Germany's situation in 1942- 1943.

[666]

"Germany had no problem filling the needs of their diminishing army."

Oh Danyel, think twice before you post such a half-truth....

You are right, that Germans were short of manpower, but they were short of equipement as well! From 1939 wehrmacht was not satisfied with its obsolete equipement and the situation was going only worse during war.

Some examples:
Almost all panzer divisions were short of main battle tanks during whole war, filling this gaps with obsolete and captured ones (not even elite divisions like GD or waffen-ss divisions were satisfied with their equipement - in operation Zitadele all 3 w-ss divisions had significant nuber of PzIIIs and old PzIVs with L/24 cannon - they needed PzIVs with L/43 or L/48 cannon and more Tigers)

Schwer panzer batalions were short of heavy tanks filling this by PzIIIs

DAK was short of everything since 1942

Rommel wanted more equipement (especialy flak) building Atlantic wall

German officiers were short of pistols (not every german officier had a pistol, not even captured one (Czech, French, ...)

[Danyel Phelps]

The Germans wanted more? Well and good, but I can't think of any given army that didn't want more of something. The German lack of tanks came from lack of crews left to actualy man said tanks, not lack of tanks themselves.

However, 666, your statement about the primary battle tanks of the German army in 1944 being Panzer IVs with short guns intrigues me. Have a source so I can read up on it?

[Photoner Hawkwind]

I always thought that the Allied bombers affected German Factory production to some degree. Does anyone know how much that helped in creating shortages? :confused:

[RobertVella]

Some raids like the one on Hamburg in 1943 had short term effects and just when the allied bomber offensive was really starting to overwhelm the Germans by April 1944, they were slowed down so the US eighth army airforce and bomber command could support D-day. The interesting thing is German production was actually increasing in 1943- July 1944 because the German economy under Albert Speer was actually finally taking on a total war stance which was really starting to kick in in 1944 when the tide had overwhelmingly turned against the Germans. It was in late 1944-1945 that allied bombing really crushed Germany with the help of the mustang that had long range and great performance, which tore up the dwendling German fighter defences. (the German jet fighter threat could do little to tilt back this balance.)

[666]

Some of my sources:
Ivo Pejcoch: Armored vehicles of WW2
Horst Scheibert: German armored troops
Peter McCarthy & Mike Syron: Tank war

"However, 666, your statement about the primary battle tanks of the German army in 1944 being Panzer IVs with short guns intrigues me."

Maybe it is because of my bad english, but I am not saying, that German army's primary tank in 1944 was Panzer IVs L/24.

I said: in operation Zitadel -summer 1943- even elite and well equiped German tank and PzGr divisions used significant (but minor) number of old PzIIIs and PzIVs L/24 (about 10-15% of tanks of SS-Totenkopf division were PzIVs with short canon). German primary tank was PzIV aufs. G and better and Germans were short of these tanks filling gaps with old ones.

Source:
Chris Mann: SS-Totenkopf (I have some reservations about this book, but there are numbers of vehicles used in Kursk battle)

Another examples of bad equipement of German army:
In 1944, during invasion, defending troops used significant amount of old french tanks and PzIIIs (even obsolete ausf F!)
Source:
Ivo Pejcoch: Armored vehicles of WW2

PzI was not supposed to be battle tank, but it saw battles in Poland, France and even in Russia (!!!) just because Germans had not enough amount of real tanks.

So, German factories were not able to satisfy the demand of tanks (and another equipement like pistols for officiers or flak cannons for defending France) during whole war and German troops were forced to use obsolete and captured equipement. Germans were definitly short of equipement.

[Stojakovic]

I always thought that the Allied bombers affected German Factory production to some degree. Does anyone know how much that helped in creating shortages? :confused:

I think american/british bombers destroyed about 25% of german factories... but don't quote me on that.

[Wyldman]

The German production went up in 1944 because the Allies changed the direction of their bombings from Factories to Oil and transportation lines. Not that the movie Battle of the Bulge is very historically accurate, the part about the Germans running out of fuel is right on target. The tanks, planes and other transportation modes were their biggest problem in 1944-5. The Germans late in the war were making alcohol for fuel out of anything they could ferment, just to keep part of their army mobile. Just look at how much fuel a Tiger 1 & 2 sucked down and Panthers were not much better.

[Stojakovic]

Is it true the germans used coal to make butter?

[RobertVella]

mmmmmmm extra crunchy. :p

[Stojakovic]

mmmmmmm extra crunchy. :p

I like it creamy :cool:

[Lynx7725]

Just a random thought. Factoring production into a tactical game might not be too good an idea, but how about factoring maintenance costs into a tactical game?

Maintenance has a direct impact on the availability of units for battle, and it does seem to match the availability of, say a Tiger (which is reputed to be a maintenance hog) vs. say, a Sherman (which by accounts is an easy-going tank). It also accounts for the price differential after ability between a MG team and say, a mortar team. Having cleaned an MG in my times, I can say it is a pain in the posterior to keep it clean...

[Richter von Manthofen]

Letting historical accuracy out of sight.

This game should be BALANCED. That is with the same ability of a player each should win about half the time (Axis vs. Allies). That is not the case. :(

Still the game and its mechanics are great 95% the time. If we could downsize the US supremacy this game would be top notch - now its only top third ;)

[Marquis]

Richter von Manthofen,

Have you tried Chess? That Game is balanced perfectly. Axis and Allies, anyway you slice it, isn't balanced and I don't believe it was ever intended to be equal.

In a game that uses World War Two as it's basis you have to keep history in sight.

I agree with you this game's mechanics a great. It is an easy to learn hard to master, fun game to play. I used to try and get people to play Panzer Leader with me but to no avail. But with AAM I've got plenty of good opponents and a growing community.

[Gonash]

Main German battle tank in Poland was the Panzer I ( they wanted the panzer III ) was a fair tank battle until russian got in the fight.

Main German battle tank in France was Panzer II ( they wanted the panzer III ) Doctrines win the fight not tank, good Doctrines from German and Bad Doctrines from France.

Main German batlle tank in Russia was the Panzer III ( they wanted the Panzer IV ) History call the T-34 a Nasty surprise for the German when they take there Main tank the Panzer III agains the main russian one the T-34. Russian at that time also have the KV-1.

The Panzer III was also the main battle tank in afrika but at least there was no T-34 in afrika !

[Photoner Hawkwind]

Letting historical accuracy out of sight.

This game should be BALANCED. That is with the same ability of a player each should win about half the time (Axis vs. Allies). That is not the case. :(

Still the game and its mechanics are great 95% the time. If we could downsize the US supremacy this game would be top notch - now its only top third ;)

Statistically speaking 95% is fairly well balanced depending on how many times you've played it. I suspect if you keep playing it it will improve to 98% and most statisticians will accept that as balanced.

[XAos]

Statistically speaking 95% is fairly well balanced depending on how many times you've played it. I suspect if you keep playing it it will improve to 98% and most statisticians will accept that as balanced.

I don't think RvM's "Great 95% of the time ", can be translated as;
"Balenced 95% of the time"
I'd guess RvM meant "Fun 95% of the time".

aam played to standard rules/tournaments. Is certainly not balenced 95% of the time (more like 5%).
You have to use house rules;
a) Larger maps
b) Larger forces.
c) different game length.
etc...
To "balence" the game for the currently avaialble units.

[XAos]

I have played multi-player. with very large maps (5x3) with multiple objective hexes.

The Tiger tanks do much better in the early game (turns:1-6) Turn:7-10 still favours the allies. So overall it is a much closer game. However it also takes about 3 hours to play. So I don't expect to see games that large used for tournaments. Perhaps all units should have 2 points costs. One for large maps & a 2nd for small (tournament) maps.

[Richter von Manthofen]

95% Fun as suggested by Xaos ;)

AND YES THE GAME (EVERY GAME) IS PLANNED AS BALANCED.

The execution is not balanced.

[fifleche]

Look at it this way: if the game itself is 95% balanced, we have a 5% imbalance. Of this, about half is "better", while the other half is "worse". Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that the "better" is the M4 Sherman and the "worse" is the Panzer IIC; now, tell me, with as small an imbalance as 5%, how often do we see the 2.5% "better" unit in top-tier builds? You guessed it right, 100% of the time.

Problem is, "worse" pieces, or those that don't fit with current combos, won't simply be included in any builds; but "better" pieces will see constant use.

Now, IMHO, there is more than a 5% imbalance in the units. Look at those we see constantly:

Sherman
Sherman "Rhino"
Churchill "Crocodile"
Stuart
Humber

SS-Panzergrenadier
SS-Panther G
Tiger I
Brummbar
Wehrmacht Sniper

...to name just a few. But I could post quite the opposite, too. Pieces that are "worse" and thus never seen in competitive play.

To me, 80% of the pieces are balanced. But the "imbalanced-better" pieces see constant use, so the game is ALWAYS imbalanced.