The UU-A-Day Countdown

[Ahriman]

Tiger was a great tank, one of the first true heavy tanks.

Except that it wasn't, because it was too expensive to build and too heavy and bulky to move, and it broke down all the time.

Combat specifications aren't everything.

 

[Schuesseled]

Correct me if i'm wrong but panzer in german simply means tank, does that mean that in the german edition of the game, that both the regular and the german UU tanks will be called Panzer?

 

[Schalke 04]

Correct me if i'm wrong but panzer in german simply means tank, does that mean that in the german edition of the game, that both the regular and the german UU tanks will be called Panzer?

Sure

The normal tank will be called Panzer,
while the UU could be called "deutscher Panzer" (German Panzer)

This would be my guess

 

[Volar]

A lot of tanks had mechanical problems like the Tiger. The T-34, the Panther were all mechanically unreliable early on. It improved as the war went on. Tiger had a lot of innovations. It just became an issue of only producing a few thousand great tanks, to compete with 50,000 very good tanks in the T-34.

 

[krunsh]

the samurai replaces the longswordsmen.

He was building swordsmen and upgrading them to samurai (longswordsmen).

Which saved him some hammers, but cost him some gold.

(The longswordsman is a medieval unit, the swordsman is a classical unit, i would have though it would have been obseleted by the smaurai but apparently not.)

Thanks for pointing that to me, I wasn't sure.

 

[Marcus I.]

The normal tank will be called Panzer,
while the UU could be called "deutscher Panzer" (German Panzer)

This would be my guess

As it was in CIV III and IV.

 

[Viatrix]

I agree with what Ahriman said.

But also, according to my knowledge, German tanks were the best in the world in the beginning of the second world war. But as the war continued, Soviet tanks became more developed. I think panzer represents overally the whole german tank development.

 

[Volar]

I agree with what Ahriman said.

But also, according to my knowledge, German tanks were the best in the world in the beginning of the second world war. But as the war continued, Soviet tanks became more developed. I think panzer represents overally the whole german tank development.

Incorrect. German tactics were superior. The best German tank early on was the 38t, which was actually a design they took from the Czech's. The French Char, the British Matilda and A13 were generally superior to the German designs. However, both opted to disperse tanks amongst infantry for support while the Germans used massed armored formations. Also, Germans installed radios in all their tanks, greater communication and coordination was another key to victory.

 

[Schuesseled]

How does that make what he said incorrect.

Germans didn't have the awesomeness of the t-34 but they fought better. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Volar]

Because, German tanks were not the best in the world early on. Two, the Soviets had the T-34 at the start of the war, they just weren't in great quantity or available on the western front. And they didn't really develop the T-34 all that much. They improved the gun later on, T-34-85(85mm gun). The evolved the KV heavy tank which was also a huge problem for the Germans into the IS, but it came very late and didn't see much action. It was actually built with lighter armor than the later KV versions, but had greater speed to keep up with the T-34's.

Like I said, USSR policy was not to make any improvements if it required they delay production. So they basically went all out producing T-34's until later on when the T-34-85 was introduced. They let the defects go until they had to stop production anyways.

 

[Viatrix]

Incorrect. German tactics were superior. The best German tank early on was the 38t, which was actually a design they took from the Czech's. The French Char, the British Matilda and A13 were generally superior to the German designs. However, both opted to disperse tanks amongst infantry for support while the Germans used massed armored formations. Also, Germans installed radios in all their tanks, greater communication and coordination was another key to victory.

I did never claim that German tactics weren't superior. I personally believe Germany had the best generals in their time.

But, I remember watching a tank document which explained Germany's early tank technology supremecy, and how it got defeated by Soviet's one. So I'd like to have a source for your words, if that's possible.

 

[Schuesseled]

Well technically speaking, he said that according to his knowledge they were, so his statement wasn't incorrect, but his knowledge was. To get technical.

But then again im jsut splitting hairs for no reason

 

[Viatrix]

Well technically speaking, he said that according to his knowledge they were, so his statement wasn't incorrect, but his knowledge was. To get technical.

But then again im jsut splitting hairs for no reason

I'll split hair too and say she*

 

[Volar]

Just look up the early French tanks. The Char B1, British Matilda, A13. S-35 is another good French design. In 1939 the allies had some better tanks, some worse. Overall they were numerically superior.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Just look up the early French tanks. The Char B1, British Matilda, A13. S-35 is another good French design. In 1939 the allies had some better tanks, some worse. Overall they were numerically superior.

Yeah, I was always under the impression that the main difference was that Germany kept getting their tank factories blown up, and therefore couldn't build as many parts.

 

[bjbrains]

Yea. The german designs were 'inferior' to the designs of France/England in the sense that they were underarmed/armored, but the use of armored divisions to break through and encircle (as they did in France and Russia most notably) was what really tipped them over the edge, combined with their superior speed when compared to the S-35, Char-1bis, and Matilda tanks. People forget that having all the armor/weaponry in the world is useless if you can't get to where you need to be in force (which the French could not because of their scattered and slow tanks).

The later war Tiger/Panther designs were always considered to be superior, and it was only the severe lack of numbers that prevented them from really tearing apart the allied tanks.

 

[Schuesseled]

I'll split hair too and say she*

Ah my apologies, And you'll want to be careful about split ends...

 

[Wuddel]

Yea. The german designs were 'inferior' to the designs of France/England in the sense that they were underarmed/armored, but the use of armored divisions to break through and encircle (as they did in France and Russia most notably) was what really tipped them over the edge, combined with their superior speed when compared to the S-35, Char-1bis, and Matilda tanks. People forget that having all the armor/weaponry in the world is useless if you can't get to where you need to be in force (which the French could not because of their scattered and slow tanks).

QFT!

"Sure it matters who got the biggest stick, but it matters a lot more who is swinging it."
(hrhr COD quote)

 

[Kin]

A lot of the new panther tank broke down before it ever got to battle. Slave labor and it was just to complicated to maintain. Therefore the US and Russia out numbered them along with control of the air.

 

[Elenhil]

Seeing at the example of Greg's livecast how patchy borders are by the time Gunpowder comes into play, I really doubt America's Minutemen would be that much useful for anything except strictly city defence.

True, their UA would mean cheaper border expansion, but from the looks of it (and the fact that money are constantly better used elsewhere) even America would still be far from maxing up their "fat crosses" to make their UU useful throughout the land.