[New Mod] Name pending, maxing out realism & balance

[Captain Data]

Okay, I gonna rock your house ;) (just a joke)
===================================

I try to create an ultrarealistic, well balanced Mod for CoH. It'll force the player to play more tactical, because "rush&storm" will not work anymore. You'll have to use an avatar, the "Officer" (Captain for Allies, Leutnant for Axis) to call most offensive powers of your commandtree), without him, you'll find it very difficult to win a battle.
Most smaller abilities like "throwing grenades" or "sticky bombs" will gain a buff, mostly reducing its cost, because in WW2 Nades were used very often, and they're not that powerfull ingame.

But lets talk about a few features:

- Officer
The Officer will be some kind of "Avatar" in the field. You have to use him, because without your officer, you can't call Airstrikes or Howitzerbarrages from your commandtree. The allied Officer is more for combat, for example, you can upgrade him with a better weapon (Thompson/Garand @ Infantrycompany, Carbine @ Airbornecompany, Greasegun @ Tankcompany)
The axis Officer grants better firesupport: It can use more offensive abilities like offmap-mortar-barrage, offmap-firestorm etc, but can not support his troops as well as the allied one.

Both sides can only use ONE officer at any time. If you loose your officer, you have to train another one (takes more than 60 seconds), leaving you without firesupport.

- Firingrange & Sightrange

Increased to more than double. In CoH most soldiers fight @ max range of 35m. I think, its ridiculous to fight at such close range and missing half of your shots. So I increased firingrange to a max of 60m (MPs), 90m (Rifle), 100m (Sniper), 150m (Tanks). Visual range increased too, but only to 45m (Engineers & Tanks), 50m (general Infantry), 70m (Leader of each squad), 80m (Officer/Sniper/Jeep/Motocycle). To use max firing range of your units, you have to use spotters (any other unit, jeeps, Officer).

BTW: To really enjoy this mod, you have to play it on 2on2 (or bigger) maps, because most 1on1-Maps are way too small.

- Weapons

Weapons feel now better. A Kar98k for example is superior @ middle and long ranges, but not so good at close range (because its a boltrifle and in the middle of a battle with dozens of dying (and crying) soldiers you can't aim properly :)). MPs are superior now at short to middle ranges (up to 30m), but weak at long and distant ranges, the Carbine is a good mishmash of MP & Rifle (great at close & middle distances, okay @ long distances), the Garand feels like the K98k without his weakness at close range.

A Greyhound with its 37mm Gun will no longer even damage a Tiger or Panther and do only light damage vs Panzer IV for example. Same for the Puma: its 20mm Gun (not upgraded) will be rip through soft targets like Jeeps and Infantry, but will do nothing against a Sherman. Upgraded with its 50mm Gun it may damage Tanks way better than before, but not against the Pershing.

Also I'll add a "change-ammo"-ability for most tanks, mostly between "AT"- and "HE"-Ammo. AT will be standard ammo for most tanks (except StuG, StuH and Sherman 75mm) and do good damage vs armored targets. But AT means its not that good vs Buildings & Bunkers (almost useless) or Infantry (only direct hits kill) or unarmored targets (pass through but will not instantly kill a Jeep / Motocycle).
HE is opposite to AT: It'll do almost no damage to tanks, but will deal great damage vs Infantry (areadamage) and buildings.

- Squads

Allies will get a new squad: Fireteam. It consists of 4 regular soldiers, but can equipped with Thompsons and BARs. Great for firesupport at close distances and cheaper than a full Squad (8 regular soldiers).

Axis Volks got 8 members too and can be equiped with up to 7 (!) MP40 or any other weapon you may find.

Maybe I'll add a medicsquad to both sides

- Abilities

Rebalancing them. Mostly by cost-reduction, Grenades will cost only 5 Ammo, Stickies only 10 etc. Permanent upgrades like Panzerschrecks or Thompsons will cost more than one-time-useable-abilities.

- Buildcosts

Some will increase, some decrease, but Vehicles will cost more (manpower, fuel AND ammo), Infantry will not changed too much (per member), Buildings may altered too. Only BIG Change: Any Infantry will use only 1 CP, not 2 or 4 like Snipers & Stormtroopers, except your Officer. But Snipers will be limitated to 2 per player + increasing buildingtime.

====================================

[Kyranzor]

kewl!! sounds really cool dude. one thing, fix the typo, you said the PANTHER has the 20mm cannon, its actually a PUMA armoured car

[Scytheman]

oh ppl from dresden :D

i making a realistic mod too with name blitzkrieg ^^

u can contakt me at icq with 242324003.

[Captain Data]

Funny: My worktitle is "Blitzkrieg" too ;)

But 'bout help: I think I'll do it alone for now, because there are tons of ideas I have to check and to add, lots of testing against AI is needed etc. And, most important, I got some help from my mates of the German Front Mod Team (CoD:U / CoD2-Mod) for new icons.

Maybe I'll ask you later for help :)

@ Kyranzor: Typo fixed. Thanx ;)

BTW: Jeeps & Motocycles are real usefull now: as spotters and as mobile MGs. When not moving, they're very accurate. 2 or 3 of them are enough to secure important points in the first minutes of the game, but they're very vulnerable to enemy MGs.

[J0ph33]

sound's great...hope you soon come up with a little BETA ;)

[Kyranzor]

yeaaahh maaaan. nice to hear jeeps/motorcycles are useful now lol.. i had to put 3 in a squad to make mine useful without beefing them too much :D

[Damn Dirty Ape]

I assume you will balance the sticky damage as well? Any plans to add new units in? I'm mostly interested in a mod that's planning on adding some basic things like more cheap at guns so that we won't have to deal with silly sticky bombs as the basic allied anti tank medium.

Oh and avoid a name like blitzkrieg, it's been done to death.

[Captain Data]

Okay 'bout AT-Guns: They will be more expensive, because of 5 instead of 3 members (only Paratroopvariant will still have only 3 members) and you have to use them more for ambushes than for direct attacks, because they do most damage at close damage against everything (except Tigers) and any Tank can destroy it with HE (or at least its crew). Pro: Tanks are even more expensive now and some tanks like Tigers & Panthers are limited now.

But you will still have to use sticky bombs, but they will cost less, so you can use them anytime (10 ammo per use or so).

But real example: Today, a Panther cost just 640 Manpower and 140 fuel (or so), in my mod, a Panther cost maybe 800 Manpower, 150 fuel and 150 ammo plus it takes more time to produce it. In same time (and same resources) you can produces two Panzer IV (like in real WW2). Tiger will cost even more, but it will be limited to 2 (or 1 Tiger-Ace), but even so, you have to use ANYTHING to stop them. Only "pro": Tigers will only avaiable when the axis player got an officer. Kill that guy and he can't throw in any new Tigers ('till he got a new Officer).

Loosing an Officer = crippling blow.

[Scytheman]

captain data ... i have a excel file with my manpower, muni and fuel values.
its not complet ... the german fuel values based on real values (road + land : 4 = fuel value). the values of the allies tanks are not real ... with the formula need a sherman M4A3 around 335 fuel ... and this like imba, so i adapted the fuel values for the allies, littel bit more as the german tanks.

example:
panzer IV = 175fuel
sherman = 200 fuel
panther = 270
tiger = 370

the ammo value is in connection of the ammo typ, a 88mm gun need a littel bit more ammo as a 75mm gun.

the manpower of my tanks is very high, tanks are realy expansiv ... a lot of steel and many hourers to build this littel monster. a AT gun need only a small armor for frontshield and the AT. so are ATs realy chep vs. tanks.

the idea woth the officer is real good.
and your idea with ammo typs AT and HE.

i have a idea with a medic studebacker and opel blitz truck ^^

[Xzuzz]

Great ! I love realism mods :D
Hope someone else joins the team so I can play the mod faster :D

[Captain Data]

Negative, this one is a almost-one-man-mod. I just need a few new icons, but I've got allready someone doing them (member of GFM-Team). It'll take time, but for now, I am in preprepreprealpha state with that mod. Only Infantry is almost finished (need some tweaks), the allied officer is so far done, that he's able to buy weapons and good @ fighting, but not more.

[fgjk]

This mod sounds pretty god man..

Keep up the work

Looking foward to it

[Bohewulf]

"ultrarealistic" and "well-balanced" are hardly compatible. :)

However, you mention some very interesting ideas...Good luck!

[Captain Data]

Bohewulf, "ultrarealistic" & "balance" is compatible. Or americans never had won WW2 ;)

Example: The Tiger will be the most powerful unit in the mod. It can destroy almost everything with ease, with AT it owns tanks including the Pershing, with HE, it destroys Infantry and AT-Guns.

But it has some major flaws:

It's slow. It turret moves not that fast as in CoH, it takes more time to change direction and you can have only 2 (or one - Tiger Ace). Plus, its reloadtime has been increased. You can't win a battle if you facing that Tiger directly, but you can flank it, you have to use anything to stop that Tiger. Otherwise, the axis player can't win a battle with using a Tiger only, because if you loose it, you loose most of your firepower.

For defensive axis players, there is no Tiger, but they can get as many 8.8er as they want.

[communist_bob]

Only "pro": Tigers will only avaiable when the axis player got an officer. Kill that guy and he can't throw in any new Tigers ('till he got a new Officer).

Loosing an Officer = crippling blow.
That's one helluva good idea! I love it! Good luck on your mod!

Also, will you make tank mg's (hull mounted, bow mounted, etc) actually mg's, not pop-guns? Because that's what they are in standard COH.

EDIT: Oh, and maybe to represent the officer's morale boost over nearby troops, maybe make an aura(invisible) that reduces suppresion or something?

[Iceciro]

(That aura idea is perfectly doable, theres an aura just like it already in-game in the files. If anyone wants I'll dig it out.)

Good luck on the realism and balance aspect - I was going that route and hard to seriously change some things on the realism side, because the Axis are so superior to the allies in 1v1 basis in history.

[Kyranzor]

yes indeed,


Good luck on the realism and balance aspect - I was going that route and hard to seriously change some things on the realism side, because the Axis are so superior to the allies in 1v1 basis in history.

thats very true Iceciro, the German army was considered the most advanced and highly trained army in the world at the time. they just lucked out in strategic positioning between Russia in the east and the Allies in west. if the Germans werent being opposed by the whole damn world (save Austria and Japan, but they dont count >_<) then germany would literally pwn all

thats why its very hard to get a playable game unless you have 1 "realistic" german player against 3-4 "realistic" allies players.... hhahaha

[Iceciro]

Yeah. It's scary to look at history and realise how close we all came to speaking german 0_o.

For example, the proven number of sherman tanks required to defeat a Panther or Tiger was 5 to 1. That would make for a very lopsided game!

[Kyranzor]

indeed if the sherman costs 300 manpower, the tiger should be 1500 or 1300manpower at least

i actually beleive that is correct pricing though

same as with fuel cost. the tiger is bloody near x4 or x5 the size of a sherman! LOL
well not quite, but shermans are rather small and tigers are sooo daaamn biiiig

[communist_bob]

^Definitely. Maybe even more expensive!

[Jason Baane]

With Realism comes Balance. Do your research well and you will find that the superiority gap wasn't nearly as large as popular history makes it seem.

I have faith this can be a great mod.

P.S. The “lawlz lawlz 5 to 1 sherman/panther lawlz” thing is BS. Firstly, it doesn't take into account that the Shermans were on the offensive against prepared AT positions and that Panthers and other German vehicles were almost always the first ones to fire. In similar situations, where Panthers went on the offensive, they got 100% annihilated by Shermans in a similar fashion with very few exceptions.

The official breakdown is 1.68 to 1 Allied/German tank losses due to direct tank combat in 1944. Tank duels were relatively rare and uncommon.

[Kyranzor]

Jason, where did you get this impression?


lawlz lawlz 5 to 1 sherman/panther lawlz

these are from real accounts actually. so dont start going agro.
shermans only win against german tanks due to mobility. they have inferior armour and guns to tackle german armour unless they use superior numbers and tactics. tactics such as flanking. BECAUSE of the low number of tigers and panthers in the german panzer divisions, the REAL ratio is hidden. you are quoting a global tank loss, for tanks such as the Panzer mk 3's and 4's which there were many of. and that is LOSS not quite the employment scale

SO my point is - please stop going berko at people, and think slowly before responding with out of context information and quotes that cannot be backed up

edit: oh and the 5:1 is actually more like 4:1, 3 destroyed/disabled before the 1 sherman can manouver behind and disable/destroy the panther/tiger

[Jason Baane]

You don't know what you're talking aboout.

Late production Shermans had superior armor to Panzer mark IVs and any varient of the StuG. The 76.2mm M1 series guns were also comparable to the 7.5cm KwK 40.

The people who spout the 5 to 1 nonesense are just quoting whatever made up fictional numbers that the History Channel vomits out into everyones face even though they themselves did absolutely zero research on the subject.


From Feldgrau.com, a posting by user "Reich" -


It is very difficult to determine the ‘exchange’ ratios in terms of effectiveness between two opposing weapons systems, even in a generalized sense. And the ‘ratios’ bandied about in this case are simply not relative measure of effectiveness, but rather they are relative measures of loss, which are not the same thing. In other words, if the Allies lost 300 tanks and the Germans 100, then a 3-to-1 loss ratio exists. But that does not mean that there was a 3-to-1 ratio of effectiveness. However, if we could know that that 100 Allied tanks were lost to German tanks and 100 German tanks were lost to Allied tanks, then we possibly could say that there was a 1-to-1 ratio of relative effectiveness between them. Unfortunately, as in some many cases of such historical analysis, the data simply can’t support such a conclusion one way or another and can be manipulated virtually any way one desires - all in quite a reasonable and logical manor.

Overall cause of loss for tanks varies according to time period and the reports cited. Thus, according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO it was:

Mines 22.1%
AT guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP Guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%

This may be compared to a sample of 506 US First Army tanks lost (destroyed and damaged) between 6 June and 30 November 1944.

Mines 18.2%
AT/Tank guns 46.2%
Artillery 7.3%
Mortars 1.8%
Bazooka 13.6%
Other 12.9%

Now as far as American tank losses in Normandy go we have the following data from various reports:

In terms of the cause of loss, in June of 32 tanks examined, 18 were to ‘AT guns’ (56.25%), 9 to PF/PS (28.13%), 1 to mines (3.13%), and 1 to ‘artillery’ (3.13%). Unfortunately we do not know if the AT guns were just that or if they were mounted on armored vehicles of some type. However, we do know that 6 of those 18 were lost on D-Day, so cannot have been lost to anything other than the emplaced guns of the beach defenses.

In July, of 73 examined, 41.1% were lost to AT guns, 32.88% to PF/PS, 16.44% to mines, 4.11% to mines and 4.11% to unknown causes.

In August, of 130 examined, 55.38% were lost to AT guns, 18.46 to unknown causes, 13.08% to mines, 6.15% to artillery, 5.38% to PF/PS, and 1.54% to mortars.

Overall, losses to ‘AT guns’ appear to have been somewhere around 50% in Normandy (the monthly average is 50.91%) and were not far off the ‘norm’ of 46.2%.

From 6 June to 1 July (26 days), First Army wrote off 187 M4-75mm and 44 M5.
From 2 to 29 July (28 days), First Army wrote off 208 M4-75mm, 12 M4-76mm, 4 M4-105mm, and 67 M5.
From 30 July to 2 September (35 days), First Army wrote off 237 M4-75mm, 38 M4-76mm, 6 M4-105mm, and 69 M5.
From 3 to 28 September (26 days), First Army wrote off 123 M4-75mm, 33 M4-76mm, 10 M4-105mm, and 34 M5.
From 1 August to 2 September (33 days), Third Army wrote off 221 M4-75mm and 94 M5.
From 3 to 30 September (28 days), Third Army wrote off 48 M4-75mm, 61 M4-76mm, 2 M4-105mm, and 37 M5.
From 9 September to 5 October (27 days), Ninth Army wrote off 2 M4-75mm.

Thus roughly:
‘June’ 231
‘July’ 291
‘August’ 665
‘September’ 350
Total = 1,537

From the above we could presume that roughly 780 were due to tank and AT guns. Using the WO figures, then perhaps 223 were to 'tank guns.'

For the British cause of loss in Normandy we have but a single document that appears relevant. That is O.R.S. 2 Report No. 12, Analysis of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties Suffered Between 6th June and 10th June 1944. That document reports that of 45 Sherman tanks examined a total of 40 or 89% were lost to ‘AP shot,’ 4 or 9% to mines and 1 or 2% to unidentified causes.

British losses are given as:

June – 146
July – 231
August – 834
September - ?
Total = 1,211 (est. 1,568)

Unfortunately I have been unable to determine the British September totals, but given the overall similarity with the American figures it is probably not unreasonable to suppose that they were about 350 as well (if the proportionality with June-August were maintained, then it would be 357. If we presume that the above cause of loss was consistent for June and July, then about 336 were probably lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an underestimate. If we presume that percentage applied throughout, then a total of 1,396 were possibly lost to ‘AP shot,’ which is probably an exaggeration. Using the total ‘AP shot’ weapons from WO 292/1186 (61.6) we would probably derive a more accurate estimate of 966. On the other hand, if we accept the figures from WO 291/1186 by type of AP weapon, then we can estimate that only 227 were lost to ‘tank guns’ and if that figure is applied to the Allied total loss, then perhaps only 450 were lost to ‘tank guns.’

Thus, we may estimate that the upper limit of Allied tanks lost to ‘AP shot’ (tanks, AT guns and assault guns) was perhaps 2,176, while probably the lower limit lost to ‘tank guns’ was about 450.

German losses were:

June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228
Total = 1,845

Cause of loss for German tanks is given for a select set in O.R.S. 2 Report No. 17, Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France, 6th June 44 – 31st August 1944. In that report, for the period of 6 June-7 August a sample of 53 tanks resulted in 48% lost to ‘AP shot.’ For 8-31 August 1944 that dropped to just 11% due to the high number of abandoned tanks in that period. From that we may presume that the June-July total loss to ‘AP shot’ may have been about 246, while for August-September it may have been about 147, for a total of about 393.

Thus, using these very rough methods, we can assume that the upper limit of the ratio of Allied to German tank losses to ‘AP shot’ may have been as high as 2,176-to-393, or about 5.54-to-1. Probably closer would be an ‘AP shot’ ratio of roughly 1,746-to-393, or about 4.44-to-1. The tank-versus-tank ratios are possibly similar although it could be argued to be as low as 673-to-393, or 1.71-to-1, aboutthe same as the overall loss ratio. Nevermind that this comparison is probably irrelevent.

Overall then we may postulate a total of about 3,105 Allied to 1,845 German tanks written off, or about a 1.68-to-1 ratio of losses, again, a number that has nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of the Allied versus the German tanks. However, it is probably very relevant in terms of the overall Allied-versus-German combat effectiveness.

Of course the real upshot is that these comparisons are probably not very illuminating, nor very surprising, given that the Germans were fighting mostly on the tactical defensive, with tanks that were in general more effective than Allied types.

These "eye-witness reports" telling of single German tanks destroying multiple Sherman tanks are meaningless. Could a well-positioned Panther in a dug-in designated anti-tank position ambush and take out multiple tanks? Duh. Does it mean that Shermans were helpless? Absolutely not. There are many reports of the tables being turned and Panthers performing unacceptably horrible in offensive missions against American forces.

The romantic story of a single German tank being cornered by the oh-so-evil and ill-educated Americans crewing tanks which obviously must have been made of playschool-grade construction paper gets rehashed millions, and millions of times. You wanna know the truth of the matter? There are few, if any, reports of a single, unsupported Tiger/Panther "cornered" by a group of unsupported Shermans on the Western front. That would be simply amazing if it was as common of an accurance as people like to think it was, because that indicates that neither the German or the Allies had any concept of combined arms.

[Scytheman]

5vs1 in real battle ... 2vs1 in game.
the hitpoint of blitzkrieg 2 RTS for the sherman M4A3 is 130 and for the panther 160.
the M4A1 have a old bug and a 115hitpoints.

in real ... u kill a tank from 500 - 2000m. in game have u a small area, this is the problem. and the AI see u always. the AI is to have, like sonar ...

[Kyranzor]

again he goes berko, look we dont really care. no-one said that the 5 or 4v1 sherman to tiger/panther ratio was a removed and singular occurance, but that was the "said" situation. we didnt neglect the fact that there was over 5-6 tanks in the engagement, and we didnt say "no infantry" either. that was just an example or a likely scenario that a well placed panther/tiger could defeat 3-4 shermans before being flanked which is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE as you said.

not only that, but that quote you found also says in the first paragraph that its more a basis of effectiveness than loss ratio. i also said that earlier because we dont know how many tanks were actually there, or how many tigers/panthers were in the german army, but that was their EFFECTIVE kill/death ratio for a sherman versus tiger/panther

either way Captain Data can make this however realistic as he wants mmkay

[Jason Baane]

again he goes berko, look we dont really care. no-one said that the 5 or 4v1 sherman to tiger/panther ratio was a removed and singular occurance, but that was the "said" situation. we didnt neglect the fact that there was over 5-6 tanks in the engagement, and we didnt say "no infantry" either. that was just an example or a likely scenario that a well placed panther/tiger could defeat 3-4 shermans before being flanked which is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE as you said.

not only that, but that quote you found also says in the first paragraph that its more a basis of effectiveness than loss ratio. i also said that earlier because we dont know how many tanks were actually there, or how many tigers/panthers were in the german army, but that was their EFFECTIVE kill/death ratio for a sherman versus tiger/panther

either way Captain Data can make this however realistic as he wants mmkay
No facts or figures to support the 5 to 1 claim. Figures.

My deal here is that you people are telling Captain Data that he cannot make the mod realistic while having balance at the same time due to a fictional, non-existent, and 100% made up Axis superiority. You vomit this dribble not taking into account that Germany was on the defensive and, quite frankly, was pigeon holing its tanks because whenever they tried to make an offensive operation of their own by 1944 they got stomped thoroughly by these so-called "inferior" shermans.

Read about the battles of Arracourt, September 19, 1944

[XAMOT]

Jason Baane: Question.......Why did the Allied Crews nickname their main battle tank during the second world war...the "Ronson Lighter ?

a) Because the temperature over the engine compartment got so hot during prolong use, they could light their cigarettes on them or cook eggs as some propaganda films would have you believe

b) because there was a valve on the engine, they could unhook and flame would escape allowing them to set fire to things

C) Because when hit by even stray shots from German Guns, they brewed up into a ball of fire incinderating their crews, if they didnt bale out immediately?

In Operation Goodwood alone...One days total....the allies lost over 450 Tanks... Which amounted to over 1/3rd of their total tank strength in Normandy on that day....period!! Within 36 hours the 4 main Tank Divisions involved had been brought up to full strength again. During the whole Normandy battle time period...the Germans recieved a grand total of 19 tanks as reinforcements....period. Their Panzer Divisions were all under half strength long before Normandy, due to War attrition on the Eastern Front. Most instead of Two Standard Regiments on hand made due with only one understrength Brigade on record...this stuff is well documented, so dont take my word for it...look it up. And fifty percent of their tanks in their Panzer Divisions entering Normandy were made up because of their tank weakness's by incorporating Stug III's and IV's and other mediocre Tank Destroyers as main Battle Tanks....FACT!

On top of all this...because of a fluke in timing, the single most valuable contribution to the entire Allied Cause During the Whole Normandy Campaign, was the parallel advantage of the most lowest shortage of Petroleum suffered by the German Military for the entire Second World War period. The allied Bomber Commands had just got through bombing the hell outta the transport system for Petrol products two months before they came under SHAEF's Command for the Invasion. And not until after the War did the Allies learn what Critical Damage the Germans suffered because of this factor. So they were never able to mass and use their Armor with the Killing Precision they demonstrated on the Eastern Front...Thank God for our side.

One thing I will agree on with you...sort of..... is in your topic above the writer tries to justify the different types of damage substained by the Allies during this period.... One sad fact remains...is the Allies baled out and abandoned their tanks long before proper damage assessment could be asertained...... and this justifies our arguments long before yours....Sorry!

[communist_bob]

Jason, stop flaming and GTFO of this thread, your the only person here supporting your claims, while 3 or 4 people are against you.

Besides, its up to the modder.

[Kyranzor]

nice call commo bob, and thanks for the support XAMOT. what a pro.

anywho, hows the mod going Cpt. Data??

[Jason Baane]

Jason Baane: Question.......Why did the Allied Crews nickname their main battle tank during the second world war...the "Ronson Lighter ?

a) Because the temperature over the engine compartment got so hot during prolong use, they could light their cigarettes on them or cook eggs as some propaganda films would have you believe

b) because there was a valve on the engine, they could unhook and flame would escape allowing them to set fire to things

C) Because when hit by even stray shots from German Guns, they brewed up into a ball of fire incinderating their crews, if they didnt bale out immediately?
In 1943 all models of the Sherman save for the M4A3E2 were updated with updated ammunition storage that incorporated the use of sleeves of water, anti-freeze, and ammudamp. If the tank was penetrated, these sleeves would break and drown the ammunition before fires would occure. This reduced the probability of fires down to 10%-15%, making it one of the safest tanks in the world at the time. Fact.


In Operation Goodwood alone...One days total....the allies lost over 450 Tanks... Which amounted to over 1/3rd of their total tank strength in Normandy on that day....period!! Within 36 hours the 4 main Tank Divisions involved had been brought up to full strength again. During the whole Normandy battle time period...the Germans recieved a grand total of 19 tanks as reinforcements....period. Their Panzer Divisions were all under half strength long before Normandy, due to War attrition on the Eastern Front. Most instead of Two Standard Regiments on hand made due with only one understrength Brigade on record...this stuff is well documented, so dont take my word for it...look it up. And fifty percent of their tanks in their Panzer Divisions entering Normandy were made up because of their tank weakness's by incorporating Stug III's and IV's and other mediocre Tank Destroyers as main Battle Tanks....FACT!
Nevermind the fact that the Germans were in a prepared anti-tank possition and nearly everything possible went wrong for the Allies. But if you want a similar factoid: Belton L. Cooper claims in his book Death Traps that the 3rd Armored Division lost 648 tanks in the war. However, the unit claims the destruction of 1,023 enemy tanks. Keep in mind that the Allies weren't on the defensive, either. We had to go into defended territory, where the Germans have no excuse not to get fantastic kill counts.


Allies baled out and abandoned their tanks long before proper damage assessment could be asertained...... and this justifies our arguments long before yours....Sorry!
Allies bailed out of tanks, so the Sherman sucked? Wow, just wow. That is definately one for the scrap book.

[Kyranzor]

jason, can we just drop the ****ing subject? we've flamed as much as possible, we dont want poor Cpt Data to get his thread locked, and warnings from Corsix aren't good (i've had a few hehe) so how about we make a separate topic and argue this in COH general discussion? im sure Cpt Data will make this as realistic as possible, with a few mentions of BALANCE as he said himself

what are you even doing here anyways? other than flaming about historical accuracy, you arent making/helping/doing anything to do with mods or maps...

...just telling people they suck at historical accuracy due to extremely minor inconsistencies. this is a game dude..

[Jason Baane]

Correcting a pre-conceived notion that realism leads to lop-sided gameplay because of the false theory that German tanks were worth an entire American/British/Canadian Armored platoon/troop each.

Of course you are correct at least in saying that this is Datas mod and he can do with it as he wishes. I didn't say otherwise. My comments were against the conjecture that realism must give way to balance for healthy gameplay. The fact of the matter is, however, that WWII was a "balanced" conflict on the tactical scale.

You're also correct that our arguing isn't fair to Data, so I will drop it.

[Genghis_Kan]

Cap Data which period ar this mod goin to be? Jason no point flamming, if u dont like it make u own mod. (or better base u mod on another mod u like). Btw u said Ger is on the def so they can slaughter the Allies but u ar wrong. do u know any art of war? for the attacker, they can concentrate but the defender cant coz they wont know wheres the attack goin to be + allies have air superiority german units cannot travel freely. Here is just an account showing the effects of allies air superiority during operation Cobra: (this is quoted fr Tank Warfare)

Panzer Lehr was formed from demonstration units and, when it arrived in Normandy, it was lashly equipped with tanks. By July, however, after 49 days of continues fighting, it was down to 2200 men and 45 serviceable tanks. It held a 4.8km front south of the town of St Lo directly in Cobra's axis of advance. On the morning of 25 July, waves of US P-47 Thunderbolt fighter-bombers attacked the division with high explosive and napalm. They were followed by 400 medium bombers carrying 227kg bombs. Then came 1500 B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Lberator heavy bombers, carrying a total of 3300 tonnes of bombs. They obliterated the positions beneath them; Panther tanks were picked up and hurled high into the air. Finally, 300 P-38 Lighting fighter-bombers attacked with fragmentation and napalm bombs. Nearly half Panzer Lehr died in the attack. Many hundreds more were killed by the 10,000 American guns that opened up the moment the ait bombardment ceased. Bayerlein was ordered to hold the position...Extraordinarily, the division fought on until the American armour pushed it aside the following day.

Thank you for reading this long passage. I mean after this kind of baptism, how could the German slaughter the advancing allies.

[Jason Baane]

Nice, trolling me after I said I would drop it.

[BlackLabel]

Intresting idea. And as mentioned it will only work well on bigger maps. It whould be very intresting to see longer Tank ranges. This whould lead to more tactical battles in my mind. "Realism" mods are hard to balance. Any "beta" version Data ?

*edit* what about gasoline consumtion ? limited ammo in tanks ect. ect. ?

[madaimer]

this mod sort of reminds me of total annihalation with the whole commander thingo

what changes will you be doing to the doctorines and units like 88s howitzers

if possible change paras to have m1 garands cause most of them didnt have the carbine

with the support squad do you think you can make it so the bars have a bi pod cause alot of the time they usally did and make them deply that would be awsome

also as far as i know there was no such thing as a goliath remote controlled mini suicide tank bomb thingo (correct me if you wish)

and if you can take away camo from the german at gun in its in the middle of a bridge or road cause thats completely stupid

and one last thing didnt snipers have spotters ???

[Jason Baane]

There was a Goliath but it was rarely used.

[Kyranzor]

Cpt Data, heres a way built on Blacklabels idea


what about gasoline consumtion

consumption*


use the upkeep game mechanics to put a fuel upkeep on all vehicles. that means while the tanks/vehicles are operating, they drain (but not remove, just slow down income, up untill no fuel income and thus limitting tanks because the fuel stockpiles will soon run out!) fuel and when they die, they stop "using" fuel and you can get more fuel for more tanks

[communist_bob]

this mod sort of reminds me of total annihalationBest, game, ever. Period.


also as far as i know there was no such thing as a goliath remote controlled mini suicide tank bomb thingo
I'm with Jason on this one, there was a goliath, but IIRC, it was controlled at short ranges by someone, and didnt function on its own

[Genghis_Kan]

sry Jason, wrote that message before i saw u edit u post.

As 4 Goliath, I think its just a counter 4 the demo ability which the allies have. Anyway if u say scrap the goliath becoz its rarely use it can also be apply to many other units. For example about 50 Puma (name 4 AC with 50mm gun) was produced during the war. The ratio between tiger and panther used in game and in real life is completely different. very small amount of Pershing ar used during the war.

Btw is it possible to add a dead zone (the shortest distance a vehicle allow to shoot) around a vehicle?

[Kyranzor]

yes Genghis, you can put a minimum range on guns :D

[Genghis_Kan]

cool Btw Cap Data, I think u should change the doctrines as well (eg Blitzkrieg & Elastic defences for German)

[Captain Data]

Progress so far:

- Infantry done for allies so far, except officer. Same for axis.

- Tanks done so far, but need more balancing. A StuG was even more armored than a Panzer IV (front) but in CoH, there is no real "armorsimulation", because there is only a front- and a back-armor, but no side-armor.

- AT-Guns are done so far, great at close distance, weak at greater distances (because of the weak shell)

==================

But I got a new Problem. My Officer should be used as an avatar, so you can only call most abilities, if you got that guy. I redesigned that Officer so you'll get a specific guy for each tree, for example an "officer of infantry", or an "airborne officer". First one is done, second one is a big problem, that "Tank officer" is not even touched.

Problem with my Airborne Officer: I can't use him to call in aircraft, because if I move that guy while an aircraft is still on the field, it will not be removed by the engine at the end of its run. I think its just not possible to have aircraft called from a mobile "caster", maybe engine-related. So I had to redesign the Airborne Officer: You need one to activate any aircraft-abilities, if you loose him, you may no longer call any aircraft (until you get another one). Stupid enough: That doesn't work either!

There is a requirmenent "required_squad", but it can not used like "required_building". Example? To build a MG from a forward barracks, you need that specific building in HQ too. Without it, you can not build that MG.
But that "required_squad" works different, because its used to RESTRICT a specific squad. Its used with the Officer of Axis in CoH; it restricts max active Officers to one per team. So it can only used to DISALLOW a specific ability ... but I need it the other way.

Any solutions for my problem? There is no "required_infanty", but a "required_entity", to bad it doesn't work / I can't use it properly.

[Sooth]

Try a negative value for the squad_requierments. I only use it to limit the amount of units. The "Required building" and squad requierment are not related as far as I know.

[Genghis_Kan]

hey cap data maybe u can add something called side hit.

[Sturmhaubitze]

Problem with my Airborne Officer: I can't use him to call in aircraft, because if I move that guy while an aircraft is still on the field, it will not be removed by the engine at the end of its run. I think its just not possible to have aircraft called from a mobile "caster", maybe engine-related. So I had to redesign the Airborne Officer: You need one to activate any aircraft-abilities, if you loose him, you may no longer call any aircraft (until you get another one). Stupid enough: That doesn't work either!

I already solved this problem for you, check the Armoury main forum for your original thread on this. I got it to work with a jeep and a rifleman squad, plane didn't get stuck.

Anyways, good luck on your mod, Captain Data. You've got a lot of fun ideas. :)

[STEAL]

yes capt you can call in air from mobile unit like you said what you did in testing is move the unit before the strike was accomplished. i even have tanks calling in artillery and aircraft it can be done. fyi, keep it up and hope you finish soon

[Captain Data]

Thanks, as I said in that other thread, I'll give it a try.

Progress so far (just a few points):

Infantry (Allies)
- Riflemen
Tactics: Standard Infantry, good in defeating enemy infantry, weak vs vehicles and MGs.
Strength:
8 Members, can be equipped with BARs (Upgrade like in CoH). They can pick up up to 2 additional weapons (after upgrading them with BARs), so there's a maximum of 5 pickup-weapons.
Squad-loadout:
1 Sergeant (Radioman) with additional health and FoV and a Thompson MP
7 Riflemen with M1 Carbine or M1 Garand

- Firesquad (new, Infantry Tactics only)
Tactics: Cheap variant of Riflemen, great vs Infantry (close combat, fully upgraded), weak vs vehicles and tanks.
Strength:
4 Members, can be equipped with BARs (as separate upgrade like most weapons) and Thompsons, max 3 upgrades.
Squad-loadout:
1 Sergeant (Radioman), same as for the normal team
3 Riflemen, with M1 Carbines or M1 Garand

- Engineers *needs to be balanced*
Tactics:
Used to build base structures
Strength:
5 Members, can be equipped with Minedetector
Squad-loadout:
1 Sergeant (almost like any other sergeant, a little bit stronger than his fellows), Thompson
4 Engineers with M3 Greasegun

- Flametroops (special engineers)
Tactics:
Great vs Infantry, can build structures
Strength:
2 Members, can be equipped with Flamethrower and Minedetector
Squad-loadout:
2 Engineers with M3 Greasegun

- AT-Gun
Tactics:
Good vs tanks at close range, weak vs infantry, medicore vs buildings. Weak vs Tanks at greater range, because of its weak shell.
Strength:
Gun + 5 Crewmen (3 for paratrooper variant)
Squad-loadout:
1 Gun
1 Sergeant (Radioman) with Thompson
4 Crewmen with M1 Carbine

- Greyhound *needs to be balanced*
Tactics
Great for quick rushes vs defending units, good vs infantry and light vehicles, useless vs anything bigger than a StuG.
Strength:
A Greyhound with standard upgrades and HE-Shells vs Infantry and buildings.

- Weapons
Bazooka/Panzerschreck: Uses 2 itemslots per Bazooka to simulate the need of 2 soldiers for each one: a loader and a gunner. Issued to
MG42: uses 2 itemslots, same reason as for bazookas
Any other weapon will use only 1 itemslot.

Example: you can either upgrade your Assaulttroops (new: 6 troops) with up to 4 StgW or 2 Panzerschrecks. Bazookas and Panzerschrecks are now really dangerous weapons vs Tanks, they do lots of damage if not deflected. Just watch Band of Brothers (that Carentan-episode) and you know what I mean. But they're not that accurate and they will be deflected very likely if that targets armor is thick (like a Tiger & Panther)

- Bonus: Tiger
Tactics:
Strong vs almost everything, but slow (speed and turret-RoT) Use it for defending purposes like the 8.8, but you can move it arround. You can have only 2 Tigers in the field.
Strength:
One Tiger, can use 3 types of shells: AT (does great damage vs heavily armored vehicles), HE (does little to no damage to armored vehicles but can destroy buildings and soft targets with ease) and HEAT (some kind of armor breaching, explosive ammo like a Panzerschreck, but not self propelled), can destroy almost every armored vehicles with one or two shots, because there is no loss in power plus almost no deflection-chance.

[Captain Data]

Double-Post, I know, sorry for that.

But I want to show first real progress of my mod - the Allied Officers :)

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3656/officers011wm.th.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=officers011wm.jpg)

The left guy is the Officer of the Infantry Company. He can be equipped with 3 different weapons: M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and the Thompson MP, so he can be either used for distance or close combat style, the Carbine is a good weapon between Garand and Thompson.
It's a good idea to have this Officer fighting along with your soldiers, because he got a small circle of "supportingrange" around him, buffing every infantry-type unit near the officer.
Also he's used as a "spotter" for your offmap-artillery. You have to use him to call this artillery, because I removed it from the tactical screen (same for any other offensive ability from the abilitytree for all companies)


The guy in the middle is, as you might guess, the paratrooper's Officer. That guy can be equipped with the M1 Carbine and the Thompson MP and he's very good as a supporting character, because every infantry-type unit next to him will heal slowly.
He can call in any airstrikes plus he's able to call for paratrooper-reinforcements (2 Squads, and both are even cheaper than the standard ones). A very useful officer, if you ask me :)


The last one on the right side is the Officer of the Tank Company. That guy is not finished yet at the moment, that means, I have to balance this one out.
He can be equipped with the M3 Greasegun and the M1 Carbine and its planned to have him supporting any vehicle. I think I'll give a small buff in accuracy (+25 or 50%) and range (+10 %) and maybe autorepair (but not that good as if repaired per Engineers), because this guy is a more supporting character than any other Officers.

[SoxSexSax]

Sounds interesting.

However, you say you want to make the game more realistic. I don't feel that reducing sticky bombs to 10 munitions is going to help realism. You could probably count the number of successful sticky bombs in WW2 on 1 hand (OK, thats an exaggeration, but they were RARELY used). Making them used more is hardly helping realism.

Still, a lot of your other changes look good and I shall watch with interest. :)

[Killerraddish]

there arnt any us anti tank grenades so it would be realistic to assume its an anti tank weapon (could be renamed like that, improvised anti-tank weapon)

[Bijo]

This mod really sounds great. I like realism. I'll be keeping any eye out for this one :)