Analysis Of The Germans

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Vmxa...

What difficulty were you playing on?

I do agree, ussualy, Germany can make an easy domination the middle or even lat ancient age. But, I ussualy wait till' the ndustrial because I want a bit of fun from the game.

-ronald

EMP for that game (it was in the post, but it was long).
Emperor, but it is all the same at all the levels. The AI does not really use a different or better strategy at different levels, only has different handicaps (essentially).

[Gen.Dragolen]

Originally posted by Akaoz


The Stug III & IV are not self-proppelled artillery. They are "Sturmgeschütz" or assault guns and tank destroyers. You are thinking of the Wespe and the Hummel.

-Alech

Akaoz,

My grasp of German is a little weak, but I would still classify them as self propelled artillery for two reasons.

First, the Stug's had volunteer Artillery crews, not Panzer crews.

And second, they were used as direct fire artillery support for the infantry and as tank hunters to replace towed artillery.

I have to see what i can do about making a unit to represent them since the German's build about 10000 of them during the war. Granted alot of them were conversions from battle damaged tanks that made it back to the factories for repairs, but their impact on the battlefield was huge. Even their standing orders said they had to contact the Infantry unitsthey were supporting before pulling back from the line to rearm and refuel, for fear of making the infantry think they were being abandoned.

Having very mobile artillery support was essential for the Wehrmach on the Russian front. I keep getting frustrated in Civ III trying to make artillery and bombers keep up with the advancing tanks. For the most part, they only play a role in the initial onslaught, and after that, they help stiffen my defenses in captured cities. After that it's tanks and MI alone...

Besides, as a vehicle, they look way too cool not to have them. And if you really want to go snake on enemy armour, JagdPanther's all the way: rediculously good armour and mobility, low profile stance, and the best tank killing gun from WW2 - the high velocity 88mm.

Historically all of the German equipment was of better design (usually with input from the combat troops going directly to the designers) but they all suffered in terms of reliability. My grandfather was a Panzer Officer in WW2 and was there at the start of Operation Barbarossa. His division started with 310 tanks and by the end of the week, they had covered 600 km and had 5 tanks left. Everyone of them was a mechanical breakdown.

And yes, having some Wespes and Hummels would be great too. I will have to put them on the list of units to make. I think I still have some 1:72nd models to use for the graphics too...hmmm.

The only reason we don't see them in use today is that American tactical doctrine say the best tool with which to kill a tank is another tank. If the US were pressed to produce more M1's in a hurry, to stop an opponent that had huge numbers of tanks (like the Soviets), using a fixed turrent and a large gun would be a cost effective solution. Currently there is no need since no one else can afford to produce or maintain large numbers of tanks similar to the M1. So maintaining a moderate number of tanks is sufficient. (and another reason variable unit support costs by unit type would be a nice tweak in the editor)

I'll have to see what I can find at Civfanatics.com too. These sorts of units are what Firaxis neglected when they were rushing the game design to meet their production deadlines. Good thing they have left us the ability to add to the game...


D.

[Strakorfsky]

Vmxa...

Sorry I did not see, but the computer screen and all that information can play tricks with my eyes. Just try and space it out or put lines inbetween it.

I agree, the A.I. is still as dumb as it is on cheiften difficulty but with production, unit, and anarchy bonuses. I was only curious as to what caliber of a player you are. Not to be nosey but I like getting a perspective of how good you are.

Not saying I am any better because I am still only as good as monarch.

-Ronald

[vmxa1]

I understand and no matter how good one is ( I am not claiming any special skills) you can still learn. I have seen a few posters that seem to know a great deal and have not played passed Warlord. They are just very observant and serious.

[Strakorfsky]

Vmxa...

Yes, very smart people. I am trying to come to poly more often, very good skills on here. Just taking the time to look at the post will give you a much better perspective of how well you play compared to these experts on here that can beat diety.

I try and compare myself against other people I respond to. And I try and keep an open mind about skills that can be learned.

I think that when PTW comes out, we will be able to better demonstarte what "works" against other people.

-Ronald

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen


Akaoz,

My grasp of German is a little weak, but I would still classify them as self propelled artillery for two reasons.

First, the Stug's had volunteer Artillery crews, not Panzer crews.

And second, they were used as direct fire artillery support for the infantry and as tank hunters to replace towed artillery.



D.

What you are talking about is an assault gun, not an artillery unit.

The difference is the method of firing. Stug's moved with the infantry and armor on the fornt line. They gave direct fire support, not indirect.

The Stug's would move up to an entrenched position and fire directly on bunkers, dug in vehicles and trenches. They where used in the way light mortars, rifle ranedes and to a certain extent bazookas where used.

Their job was to give the infantry direct fire support and help them break through enemy strong points, not soften up the line for an attack. Artillery would bombard the enemy from afar and help pin down enemy reserves.

The Stug's where combat vehicles as their armor shows. They where in the front lines, fighting with the infantry and armor, not supporting from the rear.

The Wespe and Hummel would move with the main line to give artillery support. They replaced the normal artillery, because horse drawn artillery could not keep up with the panzer divisions, and where left behind. They where however, not equipped for frontline action like the Stugs.

-Alech

[Palaiologos]

Re: Analysis Of The Germans

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
"He who conquers, is he who endures." -Perseus

Perseus(the last King of Macedonia) never said that.
It just something the CTP manual wrongly states.

It is correct as a quote however.


The Stug is assault artillery.

[Harovan]

Being German myself, I played the first couple of games with the Germans. This time, I was a pure builder type player, and the Germans were somehow not the right civ for me. Their benefits clearly favor a militaristic playstyle:

• Starting with Archers and Spearmen allows to crush everyone I can reach in the early game. And I looove the Archer rush.
• Cheap barracks are a must for the warmonger, as well as cheap harbors and to quickly connect overseas colonies.
• Double speed promotions increase the chance of leaders. Not mathematically, 1/16 remains 1/16, but more elites means more leaders anyway.
• Cheap libraries and a free tech per era are very helpful, since during multiple wars research is often a bit neglected.
• Playing the Germans, one can't have them as opponents. Yea, that's a benefit, especially early.

Downsides:

• They aren't religious. That's a serious issue, especially for warmongers, who often have to rush a temple.
• They also lack both traits to increase the cashflow - industrious and commercial - which makes them often a pretty poor civ.

Well, I didn't play with the Germans for quite a while now. I'm systematically trying out other traits, currently I'm on the commercial trip.