Shermans v Panthers help

phoenix · 09-20-2016, 04:12 AM,

Can anyone point me to a thread where there's help on how to best deal with Panthers? Or can anyone share their experience? Shermans v MkIVs seems ok. In open terrain with roughly equal numbers of Shermans (mix of Fireflies and normal) I've been keeping the Shermans at least a hex away and slugging it out. The Shermans do ok, usually killing more MkIVs. But against Panthers if I do this it's disastrous. I have no Shermans left before I've even halved the number of Panthers. I can't, in the game, try to use historical tactics and move to get side or rear shots, because facing isn't modeled. So what should I be doing? Anyone help?

Thanks!

Peter

phoenix · (This post was last modified: 10-07-2016, 01:08 AM by phoenix.)

Bump?

No help out there?

Maybe I'll refine it with a more specific question. I have read that tank tactics vis a vis engagements such as Shermans v Panthers might have included the idea that the Shermans should get in closer, that the Panthers were more effective at stand-off ranges.

Does this follow at all in the game? ie; should I be trying to get my Shermans up close to the Panthers, rather than standing off?

And, a further query - what is meant to be happening if I use 'assault' with my tanks? If I assault Panthers with Shermans - as opposed to shooting from distance - is that effective at all?

Thanks,

Peter

O.Schmidt · 10-09-2016, 06:44 PM,

Phoenix have wirtes:
I can't, in the game, try to use historical tactics and move to get side or rear shots, because facing isn't modeled. So what should I be doing? Anyone help?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++
Me:
I think it is important to have a front and back side on tanks!

The name of the game is Panzer Battle !! Or does it have nothing to do with tanks?

I have PB Normandy. But I'm not happy with the game!

I think better is : JTCS: West Front 2.0 * East Front II 2.0 * Rising Sun 2.0 from Matrix Games!

phoenix · 10-09-2016, 06:58 PM,

Well, I'm happy not having facings, O. Schmidt, because the map and time scale would make it a bit strange I think to model facings - it's too coarse for that. You command 3 tanks, say, into a 250m hex area next to 3 tanks in the adjacent 250m hex area, both full of hedges or other features - you command them to attack for the next 15-30 mins. To model facing I would think you should be looking at moving tanks into 25m hexes for 5 minutes, perhaps, with a much much more detailed map. Maybe not even then. In addition, the mechansim for spotting (visible at end of turn) - which is, I think, the only reasonable one - tells against control of fine detail tactics. For these reasons, I'm happy to treat facing as abstractions and imagine (if you like) that when I command 3 tanks into such a large area they are on their own as to maneuvering to get the best shot etc over the next 15 mins or so. You have to imagine that's what they're actually doing.

But, it is possible with this system (I assume) to model a part of those historical tactics by ordering your tanks to either get in close or stand off. So I was curious whether this works in Sherman v Panther engagements.

Not much by way of response in here at the moment though.......I guess everyone busy, or just not playing this title so much any longer.

Peter

Xaver · 10-09-2016, 08:34 PM,

Game sure needs some facing optional rule, a rule that could be used to help in armored combat AND in the bunker-pillbox assault problems, define a rear area help this but you need a facing buttom, divide counter in 180º areas and define a face of hex as rear.

I dont dislike lack of facing i dont see this hurts a lot in the final results except when face lines of bunkers.

phoenix · 10-10-2016, 12:02 AM,

True, Xaver. It would be more realistic to have the option on fixed structures, perhaps. With tanks and so on you have to imagine that they are not sitting still for a half hour turn, but are making tactical movements within the minimum 250m hex engagement zone, so it would seem unrealistic to have a feature (facing) that in effect meant the enemy tanks didn't move to face a threat during an entire 30 minute period (the turn length). With bunkers this doesn't apply. I agree, would be nice to have it for some bunkers.

O.Schmidt · (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016, 12:57 AM by O.Schmidt.)

I know, for example, that Flashpoint Campaigns has a facing rule! And a Hex is 500m!
In part I think like you Phoenix and Xaver!

phoenix · 10-11-2016, 12:50 AM,

I haven't noticed the facing rule in FCRS. Is it abstracted into the equations? By which I mean, can you actually use it - do you get a bonus for sneaking up behind a tank? I would have thought it's an abstract factor, if it exists, no?

Campaign Series ME has an armour facing rule, but it's optional and I always switch it off - for the same reasons (and even though turns, I guess, are shorter in that game - they don't actually tell you how long a turn is, oddly....)

O.Schmidt · (This post was last modified: 10-11-2016, 03:02 AM by O.Schmidt.)

FCRS: You have a front / flank protection on the tanks!
This is for me as a simple orientation. (or facing)
What the program does, I do not know! No idea how the calculation is!
Or am I wrong!?

phoenix · 10-11-2016, 04:11 AM,

Well you can't make tanks face a certain direction in FCRS. Right? But maybe we should be having this discussion over in the matrix forums!

Meanwhile, is there anybody who can answer my original questions, I wonder?

Peter