Question for WWII Civ Buffs

[techumseh]

This is always a difficult problem to simulate in any game, unless you are at the single vehicle level. Case is right, it's partly a matter of doctrine, ie. how the vehicle was used. US tank destroyers were lightly armoured, but heavily armed. They also had turrets. German and Soviet assault guns were generally heavily armoured and heavily armed, but didn't have turrets.

IMHO, an American tank destroyer could have one more attack factor than an equivalent tank, and one less defense. It should be slightly faster, as well.

A German or Soviet assault gun could have one higher attack and two higher defense factor than an equivalent tank, and a reduced movement factor. The reduced MF doesn't necessarily reflect a lower vehicle speed, but a reduced tactical manouverability due to the lack of a turret.

[Boco]

The old Panzer General games had a nice trick for this. TD's had high unit stats, according to their often superior armament and armor. However, whenever they attacked tanks, the tank automatically got the first shot. Tended to give tanks the upper hand. Can't do that in Civ2, since firing is always simultaneous.

The pikeman defensive bonus would be nice here if it weren't so far reaching: tanks have it and TD's fit the cavalry definition (1hp, >2m). Unfortunately, it isn't very practical. Forces a lot of units to be 1hp for parity's sake, a high price for many designers. Plus I wouldn't know how to assign mf's to 'noncav' tank units.

Tec's suggestions may be a good compromise to dealing with the limitations of the Civ2 combat engine. One key is using only slightly differing unit stats. The lower mf for Axis/Soviet TD's is as good a way as any to reflect the diminished attacking ability of these AFV's. Lowers their ability to move after a successful attack. His ideas can have the benefit of keeping TD's from becoming super weapons - a cure all offensive weapon for all occasions.

The key to success should be to reward a combined arms approach. Unit strengths and availability should be carefully managed to promote the use of multiple unit types in an assault and advance.

How are you going to handle the 'ignore city walls' flag? Giving it to infantry but not to most AFV's has been a good way to restore the value of infantry in an urban environment.

[Caspian]

Well, I think the hard and fast rule with regards to representing TD's is that there are no hard and fast rules. Each different vehicle will have to have different factors depending on the actual vehicle. However, I want to keep constant the historical truth that TD's were cheaper to build than the equivelent tank.

Now Boco...how dare you try to flame me.
I was originally thinking that a low defense factor would not represent poor armour but poor maneuvrability if attacked. Also low movement, not because of poor speed (the Hertzer was very manouverable I think) but to prevent the TD's from making multiple attacks and overunning enemy positions like tanks do, without being left in the open vulnerable to a counter blow. I guess I want TD's to have some offensive potential and not just be defensive.

To give infantry the edge in street fighting I thought I would use the well tested method of renaming city walls to tank defenses and give them negate city wall ability.

Thanks for the comment on the wonder weapons. For anyone who is interested, here is a thread that I started several months ago regarding this scenario http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...685#post921574

[Caspian]

While we're on this topic, I've seen nemo style graphics for nearly every german armoured vehicle except the Jagdpanther IV. Does anyone know if there is such a thing in existence?

[Caspian]

Oh, I've gone through the whole Graphics Show case thread already. Just incase anyone was thinking of trying