Troop Quality in preferences
 

What is default Troop Quality for USSR ?
I'm trying to make Russian campain more challenging, and just increase T-34/KV cost is not working for different reasons.
To increase all units costs is prone to errors.
So I'd like to check lower troop quality for Russians.
If I lower it, will cost of units lower too and AI will get less points ?(not what I want)

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

At what date?

If you need these figures, set up a battle and look at the base experience and morale values, which are printed on the main purcase screen, just below the points.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I checked it, but for campain Troop Quality affect only expirience, moral is not affected and remain 55 (Russia,June 1941). Also, the cost of the unit becaame lower, so it may not actually increase difficalty. I'll try it anyway.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

why don't u select less repair points when creating the campign.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I do select Hardest levl. But 20% repair points are not affecting the game much. And if your losses are not big their impact is pretty minimal. The problem with russian campain is that russian are too strong. I'll try now base expirience 35:70.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

what do you mean their "too strong"?

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

They are extremely overpowered if played by human. They roll over German AI so easily, that is no fun to play campain. That probaly because the game balanced to be played mostly as Germans, and Russians as AI.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

you didn't answer the question in what way are they overpowered? too high experiance and morale? high stats of units? what do you mean?

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I think what you're trying to say is that the USSR units are way too cheap in comparison to other nations. I was going to tell you that you were going about changing the USSR prices the wrong way around, and that instead you should just lower the amount of points you get in preferences (you can lower them as well as raise permanently you know), however, if you were to do that I don't think it solves your problem altogether, because it also lowers the points for the USSR enemies, therefore still giving them a much larger force.

Yes, I have the same problem somewhat with the USSR, only I think they made them so cheap because they 'wanted' to recreate something of the hordes sort of approach, however the USSR wasn't as large at numbers, as people mythically seem to think and it does make playing them difficult at times.

There is a slight way you can get around it, that is, you can purchase units and do absolutely nothing with them. Artillery not used comes in real handy for that.

I would asusme you're not buying the best that the USSR has to offer, because early in the war they didn't have a ton of T34's or KV's, so you should purchase quite a bit of the flimsy stuff too. I think you may need to do a combination of that and purchasing artillery that you will never use. When there comes a time that they are having a harder go of it, such as when Tigers come out, then you can consider using the artillery again or whatever other sort of unit you're keeping dormant.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Soviet troops have no extra discount on cost. A units cost is simply determined by its statisitics. This cost is modified by the nations experience and morale. Standard cost (as in the encyclopedia) is listed at experience and morale 70.
So if you start a soviet campaign at a period when the country experience/morale is 55/55 your units will be a lot cheaper. Conversely, if you then play the germans who are at that same time at 75/75 their units will be more expensive. Together the cost difference will be enough to give you significant advantage in numbers if playing the soviet side.
The AI is, IMO, less capable with using expensive high quality troops (which require some finesse to handle well) then it is with cheap low quality troops (the 'horde' tactic). But that's not just the AI; using high quality troops well (as they're likely to be outnumbered) is in my experience more difficult for human players too, especially those new to this game.

One trick you can use tomake your battles more difficult is to increase the size of your core force. This will make the AI get a larger force too. Then set-up the troops you bought as 'extras' along your own map edge. On your first turn move them off-map (into the grey). They will be retreated off map and unavailable to you for the rest of the battle. I haven't tried this myself but in theory it should work.

Narwan

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Yes, I hadn't considered that he may be playing with so small a force that he's not getting much quality opposition.

I'm not sure entirely what he was talking about, as the details aren't too specific, but surely the lack of USSR experience plays in there and I didn't consider that, but I do think their cost, if it's truly all performance-driven, is still out of proportion to their true performance (too cheap). For example, the KV series in the earlier years is invincible to all but the 88, and how many 88's do you anticipate he will see from the AI, especially if the force is small? Consider also that even the T34 is practically invincible if he's loading up with all the good stuff.

I understand also, that the problem may be the system, or rather, that the early USSR is an exception to the system. The problem is that you can only put so much value on armor (I'm not referring to armor in general here, but to the metal protection on armored units), since that same armored rating is ineffectual later in the game. Invincibility is priceless, but you can't give the true worth of that same armor at different periods when it's later vulnerable also, unless you make two or more of the same unit. I'm not suggesting they do that, only when you have invincible armor for a period of time it makes things very difficult to have it either a) underpriced for one period or b) overpriced for another period.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Correct. I prefer battallion level battles and have 1000p allocated at the start of the campain

correct.

The problem not only with T34 and KV. I tried to minimize their use, but other Russian weapon have too effective price/performance ratio also. DSHK HMG, 57mm ATG, old T-35
- they are all so cheap and effective that even without T34/KV "supertanks" russian beating german too easily.
And I don't like advice about putting some force aside and not using it. It essentially suggestion to rebalance game manually for each battle. The best solution would be just having option to change player/AI point ratio.

Yep, that may be a problem too. The solution could be an ability to change point alloctaion ratio per battle , like having easy/medium/hard battle option.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

T35 M1938, standard cost is 68 points. KV1 M1940, standard cost is 66 points. T34/76 M1941+, standard cost is 62 points. I can hardly call those T35's cheap?

For comparison, Pnz IIIL, standard cost 60. PnzIVf2, standard cost is 69. StuGIIIf, standard cost is 65. Pnz38e(t) (the beefed up version), standard cost is 44.

57mm AT gun (without sabot), standard cost 31 points. Pak38 (with sabot), standard cost 35.

Nothing inherently cheap about the russians. It would seem you are more than able to compensate for the lack of experience and morale of your units through tactics and maybe exploiting the AI's weaknesses. It's why I hardly ever play battles or campaigns against the AI. Too easy no matter who I play.

Having an easy/medium/hard option for battles/campaigns might be an option although I don't know if it is possible code wise.

Narwan

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

This may not work across the board to show tanks that aren't driven by systems and experience/morale alone, but look at this:

The wimpiest German tank with a standard MG is the PZIB for 24pts (I would use the PZIA but it has a special MG). While the USSR T-18M is 19pts. The T18 not only has a little better armor, but also has an entire extra main gun and is still cheaper. The T18's gun is the 45mm and to make matters worse (in some respects) it has nothing but 60 salvo shots. That's 9pts of armor piercing ability, destroying any German tank with maximum penetration till the Tiger comes along (I think this makes the 45L66 VASTLY overrated, and if this tank had standard AP it would still register better penetration than any German tank gun until the 75L43 comes along). On the down side the MG is a BMG instead of the PZIB's CMG (so limited range), but it's still VERY cheap. This is a considerably better weapon system than the PZIB, and it being 5pts cheaper isn't in the same ballpark with only a 20pt experience loss in my books.

I think I've seen things like the standard USSR equivalent for the SK221 as cheap as like 7pts!

Unfortunately dwelling on these cheaper AFV's diminishes my point somewhat, in that I think having armor that for the period that is invincible to other AFV fire isn't priced as the invaluable asset it is (talking the early T34's and KV's most particularly - but as I said, you need multitudes of the same tank to make the price entirely consistent throughout it's lifespan of purchasing, which just cannot be done). I know many Gerry AFV's, for example, have in many cases better optics and what not that I'm not considering just now, but it is true that most of the USSR stuff is super-cheap and doesn't seem to reflect it being based on values of the weapons systems, armor, optics, and experience/morale alone.

In any event, though serg3d doesn't like it, if in picking the USSR ourselves, we can negate the cheap advantage somewhat by just buying things we refuse to use, wecan offset the advantage. Seems to me that beats re-writing the prices of everything, though it is a bit strange. That's the way it will be if "I" am the one that does something about it in my games (have to find easy compromises you know). Unfortunately that doesn't keep the AI from getting super-cheap USSR assets.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I don't know how you came about your figures, but my encyclopedia says you're wrong. The T35 1938 is 58pts, not 68. And that's based on 70 experience, not the game experience. With the game experience that tank is probably under 50pts! Also, the T34 1940 (which you didn't really list) is something like 56pts (maybe 58) at 70 experience!
A tank that no AFV gun in the world can destroy (excepting possibly a salvo shot) with a good gun itself (though not easy to target) is that cheap?

Part of the problem we have here, is that the encyclopedia cost and the game cost are different, but I haven't the faintest notion how you get your figures, unless you're playing with a super-experienced USSR. The encyclopedia prices for early German equipment, for example, will actually be slightly more expensive in the game, whereas the USSR equipment will be quite a bit cheaper in-game.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

There are two T35M1938's in the game. As this was a multi-turreted beast with a lot more than 4 weapons (all that the game system allows for) there are two versions of it. One emphasizes the AP weaponry (two slots of 45mm guns besides the main gun) another the MG armament (1 slot of 45mm guns and an additional MG slot). The first is 68 points, the second 58.

Comparing specific units to each other and saying th cost is off doesn't work. Units have to be compared to all other units in the game to get a fair relative cost.
The example I usually give for this that of a T34/76 and a Tiger tank, both with the same quality crew. Put them against each other and the Tiger is far superior. From that comparison alone the Tiger should be much more expensive than the T34.
Now put both against a platoon of infantry with heavy AT weapons in close quarters combat. The Tiger will not perform much better than the T34. From that perspective they should be priced nearly the same.

And as I said earlier, encyclopedia cost is for experience/morale 70/70. In '41 for germany actual experience/morale is 75/75 and for the soviet union it's 55/55.
I'm currently playing a mirror PBEM game set in 41 between these two nations. The difference in experience means that with near similar quality of equipment (optics etc) the german crews will have nearly DOUBLE the chance of scoring hits compared to their illtrained adversaries. And more shots for main weapons (5 or 6 for 37mm guns while soviets have 3 or 4 for 45mm guns). It makes a very big difference.

The current relative cost structure, including modification for morale and experience, hasn't been thought up overnight. It has been many years of playing, testing and finetuning to get it to this. It is very well balanced.
That doesn't mean you can't have at a certain time period a relative advantage which seems higher than the cost would indicate. But there are always ways to counter this, although I admit the AI isn't very good at finding the right way to deal with these specific threats.

Narwan

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Okay, obviously I took the first T38M1938 I saw and didn't know of the other (the one I took was buried deep enough as it was).

I don't know, but it just seems to me that the effective pricing of armor isn't correct, but it's probably also true that if it's pricing were raised and guns were lower, for example, we would see some other anamoly like Nashorns for ten cents.

Despite it hitting less, I just can't get over the '40 T34 having a gun, that when it hits will smash every enemy AFV, and have the cream of the armor crop (aside from the KV series) and have all that speed, and still is the same encyclopedia price as the pretty much worthless PZIIIE (in the game the T34 would be closer to 50).

Everything the USSR has, even the 46L66 can destroy the PZIIIE, while the only hope for Germany against the T34 is the 88 (before the 50L66 ATG), or in-close infantry, as no AFV gun until 50L42 salvo will dent it. The main things it has going for it a period of invincible armor, top-flight speed, and, if it hits, a very destructive gun.

Again, I just think the 45L66 is overated in punch (not that it's a T34 gun), and if it were doing so well I would have to wonder why the USSR wouldn't have kept just putting that on their AFV's as they were doing with the T35 and such early on. Apparently it was failing in some way. It couldn't be the accuracy of it, because you would think it more accurate than the 76's they came out with (some of the latter 76's being an exception of course).

As well, I hope you guys don't get into the trap that some have, that is the error of comparing the T34 to the Tiger. The T34 isn't really meant to compete with it, that's why they made the KV series, or rather, the Tiger was an answer to the KV series. I believe technically the Panther was the answer to the T34 (though the earlier Tiger could somewhat fill that role, since as with most heavies it could withstand any medium tanks), so people should compare the T34 to that or the PZIVH's and so forth. The reason I mention this is because I've been in arguments with people before (not this board) about the silliness of comparing two completely different tank classes and try to run pricing through that.

The argument went that since the Tiger beat the T34 so much of the time, then the T34 should be a lot cheaper (or Tiger more expensive). With that logic the PZIIIE which is at the same encyclopedic price as the '40 T34, should be a lot cheaper, and it's even in the same class to boot. That would only be valid if comparing the Tiger to the KV. One could make the same dumb argument that the PZIV comes off badly against the KV or JS, and that the PZIV should be a lot cheaper thereby. It's just running in circles to do that, and is only effective, it seems to me, if someone is trying to get their 'favorite', T34 in this case, to not be subjected to the same system that the others were (pricing due to equipment alone, not also based on phoney matches between two mis-matched classes).

Why on earth do people compare a medium tank to a heavy and expect fair pricing from the result? I just don't get it. You could take the same argument to comparing T34's to PZIIC's for example. Let's say one PZIIC costs 30pts. After the battle to determine price, the T34 destroys 100 of them without loss. Does this mean that now the T34 should now be 100X the PZIIC price? It just doesn't work. I know you were talking about the chances of infantry destroying them lowering price, but nonetheless, the PZIIC in this example has the same risk of destruction from infantry does it not (more actually)?

Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated or angry, but that comparing different classes of tanks just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and to see people still using that as a measuring stick is more irksome still, nonetheless I still think that '40 T34 is too cheap (just the first thing I noticed about the super-cheap USSR equipment).

Thnaks for your response, and I hope I'm not seeing history repeat in the case of any 'battle' pricing aspect there may be.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Another soluton could be "rarity" used in the SPWAW. In the begiining of the Barbarossa there wre not was many T34 (proportionally to older tanks, not in the absolute numbers). If make no more then platoon T34 or KV available at the beginning of the war that would be realistic. Of cause AI sill need some (at least 100%) advantage to compensate for its tactical shortcomings. Also in my opinion USSR troop quality in the beginning of the war should be lower. Probaly around 45. I've checked - early battles still winnable with troop quality 35, with current setting, so with 100% AI advantage it should be something like 45.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I remember starting a same kind of thread in WinSPMBT forum about the relative expensiveness of AIFVs vs. tanks. I had hard-time selling my arguments there and was somewhat proved wrong, because I was using the same argument
as here, of one unit vs. another one unit, not one unit vs. all other units possible. (Artillery, infantry, air assets, tanks, aifvs, apcs, missile teams etc.)

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I did the same, the one with the extra 45mm appeared first (I have the PT version of the game which has some additional sorting features so the order in which they appeared in my encyclopedia might have been different from yours).


Think of it like this; the T34 1940 can kill the PZIIIE, but the PIVf2 can kill the T34 1940, and the PZIIIE can kill the PIVf2! So how to work out the pricing between these? Now add all the other units in the game to come to an as realistic as possible cost balance between all of these units for all of the time period covered by the game. The current cost structure is what you end up with.
The trick when playing is, and that's basically the whole issue of 'the art of war' is to find the right tool against the right enemy unit. Optimizing your own effectiveness and minimizing the enemies. Clearly you don't want to go head on with T34's if you've got PZIIIE's. Lure them into pak traps like rommel did...


They did. It become the standard weapon for their light tanks (T70, T50, T80). The multiturretting of the T35 was discontinued because it wasn't cost effective to produce and extremely hard to command during combat, so no secondary gun armaments anymore.

Narwan

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

he's right in general the 45mm gun remained the standard anti-tank gun throughout the entire war.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I'm not going to get into minutia, but the reason (in SPWW2) I played a lot of campaigns as the Germans, and damn few as the Soviets, is that it seemed a hell of a lot more challenging to play as the Germans. (And damn near a walkthrough as the Sovs.)

I haven't tried a campaign as the Sovs yet in WinSPWW2, but from battles, that's still my opinion.

I think it has to do with a combination of A) the calculator, B) the picklists, and C) the fact that a human can get synergies out of the German OOB that the AI just, IMHO, can't.

All opinion, no tabulated data to back it up, not going to dig any out either, peace.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

there are no Non-randomly generated campigns for you to play as the soviet union.

The problem with battles is that your always playing a fair game, where both sides "point-wise" (I don't think anything is wrong with the points system) are equal. If everything is equal I guess you could argue that the soviet union would have an advantage, but this is not what happened in reality.

I human created scenario or campign that takes into account historical conditions will be a much more challenging experiance.

here are some things you could do, which I assume most people don't do.
sure it would be a cake walk as the soviets if you use a ton of t-34s, JS tanks, big AT guns. In reality, for much of the war and in other areas during even the later periods everything was in short supply.
the su-76 gun carrier was the second most common afv after the t-34 during the war, try using this more often, instead of big assualt guns, and like I said the 45mm gun was the most common and standard at.
in the early war period, the t-34 and KV were exceptions. use bt tanks and t-26 tanks, and see if its still a cake walk.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

The reason the Soviets have a "walk through" is the quality of the tanks, if you choose T34 or KV in 1941, less so in 42 as the Germans get hold of the 50L60 and especially long 75mm guns. The T34s armour suite is about eqiuivalent to a Sherman and the gun is much about the same too. So points will be about the same.

The Soviets just get these a bit earlier than the Germans.

The amswer, as a human player is to simply handicap yourself in the early period of the GPW to having mainly T26 and BT tanks. Then you wil have to use skill and finesse against the AI, as you would be doing as a German player with the panzer 3 on the other side.

The AI will tend to buy a historical mix, with the 34 and KV being balanced by a nuber of BT and t26 in 40-41.

Thinks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

The points calculation can only work on raw numbers. There is absolutely no way it can figure out that some armour suite or gun is the "M1 Abrams" for this month and year of the war. A matilda 2 in 40 is a beast, but in 44 it simply is not so. And in any case the calcultor cannot take date into account, as units can be available for long periods (like the Matilda say, if available in an OOB from 40 to 44).

So perhaps we might look at allocating more points for "super" armour in some way, by charging more for say side armour of 6 or more and maybe at 9/10 or more. As a sort of "WW2 special armour invulnerability bonus". or maybe by charging side and turret armour at twice value (the sides being larger slabs of steel lready get 1.5x costing). Some sort of tweak to armour costs over 5 or 6 cm probably.

That would tend favour the thin tin (like the P3 and p4 with 3-4 sides) a bit, and add to the matildas,valentines and t34 or better types with 6s and 8s on various faces.

So, perhaps we should charge a higher premium for armour in WW2 as steel was a more expensive commodity (plus engine power to drive it etc) than post WW2?. I will investigate this matter further, but the points are really about right, just may need a tweak.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Yes, I know they did, but not because it was effective. The early war guns were always put on light AFV's after they became failures elsewhere. The reason being because they were useless for any role with mediums and heavies (If you can call the KV the replacement for the T35 or T28, then it wouldn't adopt the 45mm - though I think there were a few like that before they found out better). When I say they weren't used anymore, what I really meant is they weren't used with the same sort of units they had been originally intended for, therefore admitting they were all but useless for that role. It's the same reason you would put nothing but one or more MG's on light tanks and AC's because those guns were useless on mediums and heavies as the main gun. I guess you could say the light AFV's were the bottom of the barrel and always got the rejects, but, then again, most light AFV's couldn't handle the larger guns if they tried (apart from major modifications such as turning a light tank into a self-propelled gun like a Marder).

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Oh yeah, just look at all of those T34's, KV's, and JS's that had them.

In that case we should get the 20L55 German gun another 4 or 5pts of anti-tank punch because it was used the whole war.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

sorry if I wasn't clear enough, the 45mm remained the standard stationary anti-tank gun. it was redesigned in 43 with new more powerful round, and remained in service as the standard at gun. yes of course, 85mm, and even the 100mm were supplements, to the increasingly obselete 45mm gun. but the 45mm remained the most common and on paper the "standard" at gun.
your correct medium tanks and heavy AFVs used larger calibere rounds.

and in my opinion the german 20mm gun is overpowered already, it has (from memory) a penetration of around 6.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

No. As I told ealier in this thread, I replaced KV with T35, T34 with T26/28 and it still walk through. Russian DSHKs suppress everything (especially uber 3-gun DHSKs), 57mm ATG in frontline and 88mm AA on the overwatch kill any german AI offence easily, russian squads with sniper rifles, DHSKs, OT-132 and artillery break through any german AI defence. The problem is not in any specific russian weapon, the problem AI should get compensation for its tactical shortcoming. AI need bonus points. Best of all ajustable per battle. I also tried to play russian with troop quality 35 versus german 70. Still russain win without serious problems.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

No, it's not 6, Smersh. I stated earlier that it's AP round is stronger than ANY German round in '39. I only mention '39 with certainty because that's where i have campaigned and saw it). The best round they have has an AP punch of 5, and I suspect, correctly, that the 20L55 is a 4 or less (probably a 3).

It's good to see you clarified your view on the 45L66, but I think you will find that probably from '42 onwards that the 76mm gun was produced in considerably higher numbers even for ATG's (just guessing though).

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

The 45mm gun was issued at infantry batallion level, 3 to a platoon AFAIR. No 76mm issued to rifle bns, or even 57mm I think during WW2.

It was rather mobile, and could deal with Marders, halftracks and so on easily, any P3/4 or Panthers from the flanks.

It was used also as an infantry gun in the DF role, and to deal with bunkers.

The grunts would wheel it around to where it was required and blaze away.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

I can't see them dealing with bunkers with that peashooter, even if it is worthy of that 6 AP rating (salvo is another matter of course). So this would mean that they used salvo on fortresses? Did they do anything to increase velocity later? Is there a later high-velocity version?

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Max 6AP at the muzzle + some chance of some or all of the WH size of 3 being added = max at the muzzle (unlikely) of 9 cm.

Then at short range, if the hit % gets over about 90%, and depending on experience-relatred rolls, extra pen for a critical hit. (but I would only expect 1 or 2 for this gun if so).

Tiger side armour is 8, so zero deflection shots with all the ducks in a row at point blank range may well get through. But I would not bet the farm on it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Panther side is 5, so I would expect a reasonable chance at maybe 150-200 metres.

Bunkers have 6 or 8 armour, and in any case are somewhat permeable - rifle/MG rounds (or shells) will sometimes "go through a slit" and cause casualties. Bunkers are NOT treated as AFV armour.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

IIRC 45mm guns were phased out in 1943 or 44. However some companies seems kept them around until Berlin. It could be a legend - where would they get the ammo ?

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Soviet 45mm L/46 ATG was more or less a copy of the German 37mm, scaled up to 45mm to fire a more usefull HE round. An improved version was made in 1942 with a longer barrel, increasing muzzle velocity and thus penetration. An APCR (aka HVAP, in game "sabot") round was also developed which increased penetration even further.

The 45mm gun remained in production until 1945, but production peaked in 1943. In all, 48.800 were made. Only 5400 57mm guns were made during the war, so it never replaced the 45mm as the main infantry anti-tank gun. 76mm field guns were produced in considerable quantity, but it was used primarily as field artillery. 68,800 were made during the war. In the divisions, the 76mm guns were only found in the divisional anti-tank battalion (if available) and in the field artillery regiment of the division. They were also found in anti-tank artillery regiments, army assets that could be used to strengthen anti-tanke defenses in critical areas.
The 76mm guns in the field artillery regiment was positioned to act as anti-tank defense in depth, so they could deal with deep penetrations of the division front.

Claus B

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

exactly, claus. sergB your comments about the gun are totally unbacked where did u hear this legend idea?

and also the the 85mm aa gun was never used as a anti-tank defense (like the famous german 88.) until much later in the war when panthers and tigers started appearing. even then it was more of a stop-gap measure (the 85m at gun was not yet developed. it was a very rare thing for the 85aa to be used in any sort of tank defense role.

also the t-35 itself was a rare weapon. when u don't want to use the KV, t-35 wouldn't be the correct predessor. let me make a list of tank "linages"

t-28>KV
t-26>t-50(dicontinued)>t-60/70
BT-7>T-34

as u can see the t-35 is an oddball.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

According to Zaloga, in the summer of 1941, a shortage of 76mm guns resulted in some Anti-tank regiments formally being issued 85mm AA guns instead. These units were apparently wiped out during the autumn battles, but a some new units raised were also issued the 85mm AA gun as an AT-weapon. Some were still available early in 1942.

After that, the 85mm AA gun wasn't used as an AT-gun until playing the 8,8cm FlaK in post-war warmovies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Claus B

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

here is a direct quote from Zaloga which is where what I said in my post is based on: " It [the 85mm aa gun] was not generally issued to Army units, and unlike its german counterpart, it was seldom used in the anti-tank role except in expedient basis-such as the summer of 1943 when special anti-tank units were formed for a defensives battle at Kursk."

I don't know if Zaloga contradicts himself or claus u had a typo in your post.
but it logically doesn't make sense for a large caliber weapon like the 85mm to be used in 1941, when most germans tanks could be penetrated by the 45mm gun.

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Yes, I always thought the recent treatment of bunkers was a bit peculiar, as it seemed that the slit was too much accomodated for. It used to be the front had the heaviest armor, but now it's the worst. It look as though peopel went to an extreme to accomodate the slit and left most of them very vulnerable to AP shot instead. In that respect certainly NO gun scarecely has a problem with them. I'm curious if there isn't some way that the slits can be better balanced (just as a sidenote).

IOW, if it's possible, find some way to where the armor is bucked up, but the chance of hitting it is increased, or better yet the chance of the weak point sort of hit being fairly large. So, let's say you have a bunker with 10 armor all around, but the front is sort of cheated because of the slit, therefore a 2 rating. Couldn't that armor be bucked up to a ten, but the weakpoint hit chance increased as oppossed to the rate of weak points on tanks? What's more, the weak point hit damage could be much vaster than what we typically see in this game, like a +10 AP hit or something. That may not be doable but it seems to make more sense than a 2 armor rating. What do you think? Impossible?

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

Cool! We've found inconsistencies an a reference http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Zaloga: "Red Army Handbook", Gloucestershire 1998 Page 119 Zaloga refers to the use of 85mm AA guns being used as AT guns in AT regiments due to a shortage of 76mm guns in 1941. Page 121 he shows relevant AT-regiment and battalion TO&Es for 1941 with the 85mm AA gun. On page 127 he refers to TO&Es and the number of anti-tank formations using them, including some with the 85mm AA gun, all effective January 1st 1942, but not later.
The text you quoted is from page 218, stating that the 85mm was "seldom used" and only on "an expedient basis" as an AT-gun, referring to Kursk 1943. Something similar is repeated on page 220 with a picture of the gun which repeats the story of its use at Kursk in 1943 and that it was not "widely [used] for anti-tank fighting".

Seems that the two parts of his book, the part about the organisation and the part about the weapons are not really corresponding. However, seen over the cause of the whole war and the number of anti-tank units raised, he is right that it was seldom used as an anti-tank weapon compared with, say, the 45mm or the 76mm for that matter. So I guess you can argue that the apparent inconsistency can reasonably be harmonized.

Claus B

Re: Troop Quality in preferences
 

wow,
the main point remains, that the 85mm aa gun was not commonly, "seldom" used in front line army units.