Jerrymander
Epistemologist
If you want that kind of breakdown, you might consider playing a strategy game catering to that era.
-
CFC is giving away a few founder editions, sponsored by Firaxis! We have 3 contests running: A Civ7 banner contest for the forum, also A civilization story contest and as third The modder raffle. Join the contests and maybe win a founder edition!
Why no infantry UU
- Thread starter auntjemima
- Start date
I both agree and disagree.
I agree that given a single choice, as things are, the Panzer is the best choice for Germany. (Mid to late-war) German tanks were undeniably superior to tanks thrown at them - although this superiority was challenged more and more as the war neared its end with the advent of some excellent Russian tanks (such as IS-2) and US tanks. And some German panzers, such as Tigers, are indeed legendary, and people expect to see them in the game.
What I disagree with is the German shock troops failing to produce strategic successes. They actually brought mobility into the deadlock of trench warfare and had resounding success especially in the east. Many of the gains of the spring offensive of 1918 were made by Stosstruppen. The fact that the Germans were eventually swamped and forced to retreat does not take away the fact that for a while it seemed nothing would stop "the Huns". What stopped them was the fact that the artillery could not keep up with them and the now over-stretched supply lines - in effect, they went as far as they could!
But no, I wouldn't trade Panzers to Stosstruppen. I'd rather trade Cossacks to Soviet Conscripts or, even better, create a Soviet civ in addition to the Russian civ, like mario suggested above.
I'd also love the fact that giving the Soviets Conscripts at Assembly Line and the Germans Panzers a bit later on would make Germans and Soviets excellent opponents to each other considering that their UUs would be up to date at roughly around the same time!
Pi-R8 said:
I think you're confusing shock troops to forlorn hope (or then you're a history buff who immerses himself in Napoleonic warfare).
While "shock troops" may have referred to cannon fodder in the Napoleonic days, the term has later become to refer to elite troops.
I don't think you'd call the Stonewall Brigade "shockingly bad", would you?
From what I understand, German infantry were indeed generally significantly better than anyone else's. Better trained, equipped, and more organized. The "blitzkrieg" concept relied on having a faster deployment of infantry to keep up with the tanks.
As for the tanks, Soviet tanks were roughly as good. Early in the war T34s shocked the Germans and were quickly imitated. Later in the war there existed Soviet tanks even Tigers were ordered not to engage, because when they did they came off worse. The only reason the West holds the Panzers in such awe is that they never had to fight Soviet tanks.
Actually, the Sherman tank was a good tank for its time when it came out. The problem was the speed of improvements in WWII. About a year after the Sherman came out, the Panther and Tigers showed up and the Sherman was hopelessly overmatched. The U.S. really should have produced the Pershing sooner, as it was a very good tank, but as Vonreuter noted, the U.S. built so few of them.
It's simply not fair to compare a Sherman to a much heavier and more sophisticated tank. the Sherman, Panzer IV and T-34 were roughly comparable, all had their problems (while the Sherman was usually at a slight disadvantage, the Panzer IV struggled with difficult terrain and the T-34 had horrible ergonomics).
The Tigers were mechanically unreliable and hideously underpowered. While Germany did field a decent number of Panthers towards the end and they lacked the usual limitations of heavy tanks, they arguably weren't worth the bother considering how long it took to work out teething problems and how badly they responded to cutting corners in the production process.
The Tigers were mechanically unreliable and hideously underpowered. While Germany did field a decent number of Panthers towards the end and they lacked the usual limitations of heavy tanks, they arguably weren't worth the bother considering how long it took to work out teething problems and how badly they responded to cutting corners in the production process.
Shermans may not have been the best tanks tactically but they were good tanks strategically - they were easy and quick to produce in large numbers. Nearly 50 000 of them were produced during the war. Compare this to the number of Tigers (about 1500) or PzIVs (greatly below 10 000) and PzIIIs and StuG IIIs (about 5000) or, from the Allied side, T34s (over 80 000!) and you can see what decides wars: material and logistics.
It's quite clear that quantity prevailed over quality. Tigers may have been one of the best tanks around (in '42-'43), but they were greatly outmatched in numbers and later in the war also had to face tanks of similar quality, such as IS-2 - and also faced severe fuel supply problems. And yes, Panthers were better than Tigers (faster, better gun, sloped armour), but Tiger I was an earlier design.
Also, as said above the T-34 made a huge impact on German forces when they first came to face them. They were fast and had far better armour thanks to their sloped (angled) armour. In fact, the sloped armour of the T-34 was used as a reference point when designing Panthers.
So going back to Panzer in Civ... Considering that the German tanks were outnumbered at least 1:10, do you think it is right that Germany is the Tank civ? Do note that I'm not trying to answer this for you, I'm asking for your opinion.
I don't think Stosstruppen would be a bad choice. I'd say it would be comparable to to SEALs, who are a bit off, since I think the Americans should have a flying UU. I'd see it as a choice, a refreshing change.
It's quite clear that quantity prevailed over quality. Tigers may have been one of the best tanks around (in '42-'43), but they were greatly outmatched in numbers and later in the war also had to face tanks of similar quality, such as IS-2 - and also faced severe fuel supply problems. And yes, Panthers were better than Tigers (faster, better gun, sloped armour), but Tiger I was an earlier design.
Also, as said above the T-34 made a huge impact on German forces when they first came to face them. They were fast and had far better armour thanks to their sloped (angled) armour. In fact, the sloped armour of the T-34 was used as a reference point when designing Panthers.
So going back to Panzer in Civ... Considering that the German tanks were outnumbered at least 1:10, do you think it is right that Germany is the Tank civ? Do note that I'm not trying to answer this for you, I'm asking for your opinion.
I don't think Stosstruppen would be a bad choice. I'd say it would be comparable to to SEALs, who are a bit off, since I think the Americans should have a flying UU. I'd see it as a choice, a refreshing change.
I think either a tank or infantry UU is fine for the Germans.
I just wanted to say their tanks were not really superior machines to the Soviet's (better in some ways, worse in others, throughout the war). However the German tank leadership and crews were vastly better (although less so towards the end), and there is no reason this shouldn't be factored into the UU.
Also, I don't think anyone else deserves an infantry UU.
The problem is that the panzer UU sucks at the moment, while pretty much any kind of infantry UU would be very powerful.
I just wanted to say their tanks were not really superior machines to the Soviet's (better in some ways, worse in others, throughout the war). However the German tank leadership and crews were vastly better (although less so towards the end), and there is no reason this shouldn't be factored into the UU.
Also, I don't think anyone else deserves an infantry UU.
The problem is that the panzer UU sucks at the moment, while pretty much any kind of infantry UU would be very powerful.
anti_strunt
Warlord
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 180
Well, if you include the Eastern Front there certainly strategic success to be found, but I took "Stosstruppen" to mean the specialist trench-warfare infiltration units of the mid-to-late war Western Front. While I could certainly be wrong on this I've never heard of such units making a great difference on the more mobile Eastern Front compared with their role in the trench battles. I think saying that they bought mobility back to the Western Front (unless you're referring to the Eastern) is an exaggeration... The Kaiserschlacht was a one-shot gamble and killed off just about the entire Stosstrupp corps with only ephemeral gains to show for it...
But I'll shut up about this, now.
French surrender jokes never get old!
anti_strunt
Warlord
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 180
What about "Napoleon was short"?
obsolete
Deity
WWII French Vintage Rifles for sale!
Never been used! (Dropped Once!)
Never been used! (Dropped Once!)
I think that those units are the common equalizing units of their time.
It (the game) is saying that by the time Longbows are invented, pretty much everyone could use them relatively equally, so, there is no one empire with a huge advantage there.
The same with Infantry. It is the general military unit for all empires and relatively equal and there will be alot of them.
If you were to to make (for example) the Navy Seals replace Infantry, the unit would be all too common everywhere, instead of the rare specialized unit that it is.
The same if you wanted to exchange the UU of another empire, say Russia's Cossacks, and make the Infantry a Spetzna.
They shouldn't be most of your forces, there are just not that many of "the Best" of an empire.
Infantry is your army. The common soldier with a machinegun. Whether it is an AK-47 or a M16 makes relatively little difference in game terms.
Not to mention, that many countries use the same guns nowadays, that it will do the same damage in anyone's hands.
I was hoping for an American Gunslinger unit replacing their Curissier. Something that could be used alittle earlier.
A Gatling gun to take down riflemen, replacing the Grenadier. I don't remember Americans ever using Grenadiers.
And maybe, a leader like Andrew Jackson (AGG/IMP).
That's not strictly true, only the English utilised longbows with any great effectiveness once they were "invented" that's why they repeatedly annihilated the French during the hundred years war and why one military expert claims that had Wellington's peninsula army been longbow armed instead of musket armed, he'd have won that war considerable quicker because they were considerable more deadly than the muskets used 500 years later.
In fact the firefly varient of the Sherman (it had a bigger gun) was capable of taking on the Tigers and panthers, whereas under normal circumstances 4-5 Shermans against 1 tiger/panther was considered a fair fight, but as the Germans were usually defending and had the benefit of camoflage there were not many fair fights...
The German UU should probably have been the landser, their infantry was considerably better than any other nations during WW2 because they were well trained and indoctrinated to the Nazi cause so they tended to fight more savagely. Western armies were mostly conscripts (not so well trained) and Russian troops were badly educated, equipped and trained - but benefited from there being millions of them..
There is much more to military realities than the on-paper effectivenss of the weapons. The level of talent or training required, suitability for whatever formation a force was expected to fight in, politics, perception of the weapon and corresponding morale issues... there are
many 'soft' factors that matter.
Longbows aren't the only example: Slings were held in very high regard in the hands of a competent user since antiquity, and they have seen use for throwing grenades in the 20th century... but widespread use seems to have been the exception.
many 'soft' factors that matter.
Longbows aren't the only example: Slings were held in very high regard in the hands of a competent user since antiquity, and they have seen use for throwing grenades in the 20th century... but widespread use seems to have been the exception.
anti_strunt
Warlord
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 180
Did I actually write this?
No, just my own editing fail!
Apologies, and corrected. I just didn't want to further derail the thread into a historical discussion on the specifics of WW1 trench warfare...To get back on track, I still think an Infantry UU would make very much sense for Ethiopia. Give it Guerilla I+II and March and you'll have instant mountain partisans to fend off Italian colonial invasions (most of the time, anyway!)... Certainly wouldn't make less sense than a Musketeer UU.
Similar threads
