Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Some allied tanks should get White Phosphorus shells

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Steel Division: Normandy 44 2266 Please link&sync your Paradox account to Steam Steel Division - Let's Plays and AARs!
IronHat said:
so the US mortar would be acting like the Axis rocket artillery?
Click to expand...

Do you want to play against a 2ID where the 13rpm mortar also causes fire? I do not. Not even a little.

The nebelwerfer is annoying but it takes a century to reload. Light mortars spamming fire would be pre-nerf maglan level cancer.

I play lots of Axis (well, until the soviets are released, then it'll be ZA RODINA all the way) although admittedly less than I'd like because stacking tends to be axis, and I want to not be ragequitting every time I do.
 
@Claremont Waltz

I'll accept it as a field expedient measure, but from what I've found is a lack of information on usual ammo loadout...the highest figure I've found was a 10% loadout for WP, but I take that as very questionable, as it also stated that the tanks only carried 20% AP and 70% HE. Even for a GHQ battalion Sherman I'd find that loadout questionable, as in US doctrine the 'infantry support' role was a general balance between anti-inf and anti-armour.

The idea of firing WP instead of AP doesn't mitigate the fact that the shermans were outclassed in range, gunnery and penetration, and relied on manoeuvre to succeed, and by the time of the ETO when that was possible, german crew quality for their general tanks had dropped so much that things were approaching an equal footing.
 
@Miskyavine You misunderstand my post. The game is complex and I don't want it more simple but it doesn't need to be more complex by adding specific range to round, even if it fit history. To keep the game balance and player friendly, we should keep the abstraction level in mind. So far, imho introduce wp round could be intresting but doesn't fit the game mechanics and balance. Accordingly, no wp rounds.
 
WP?

Why not ask for Allied heavy bomber strikes

Or for napalm to be more prevalent.

As many of have pointed out, WP rounds would break this game's balance.

@Hidden Gunman -

WP was the go to munition,the US was chronically running "low"(1st Army only had 3060 155mm WP rounds ashore on July 15th) for all calibers due to its popularity and effectiveness during operations in Normandy.

The 4.2 inch chemical battalions fired off an estimated 90,000 WP rounds along with 150,000 HE rounds between June 6th '44 - Sept 1st '44.
 
The 4.2" mortars were specifically for firing smoke and as 'chemical' mortars if it was to be used. The Brits had them too. In the absence of war gas deployment, their primary role was smoke.

As I've said before, references please. As I said, I will accept it as an uncommon field expedient, on the basis (a) crap tank guns, and (b) low WP loadout. On the US front, the primary threat to tanks was inf/AT weapons...the vast majority of the german armour opposed the Brits and Canadians, so the level of actual tank on tank combat was minimal, and limited to small numbers in contacts.
 
allies already thrash axis in high level play, it is pretty sad players are still having trouble with muh cats. get better at the game and play proper game modes, stop asking for handouts.

axis heavies do not need even more ways to be cost efficiently killed. these tanks are a joke to anyone past the noob phase
 
@Hidden Gunman
Just to clarify,you feel the use of WP smoke rounds was a field expedient when used against soft&hard targets?


'Lorraine 1944' by Steve Zaloga 2000 -relates how the US 4th Armored utilized WP smoke rounds against German armor.

'Panzer IV vs Sherman' by Steven J. Zaloga 2015 - mentions the 75 mm M3's M64 WP smoke/chemical round,and how by mid-June '44 the use of "Willy Pete" directly against hard targets was SOP in many armored units.

1993 Steve Zaloga -'Sherman Medium Tank 1942-1945' -Average standard ammunition loadout of a 75mm M3 armed M4 series tank by mid-June '44 included 10% of WP or HC M64/M89 smoke rounds,very crew dependent.




'The American Arsenal:The World War II Offical Standard Ordance Catalogue' By Ian V Hogg 2001.

This report would lead you to further reports that pertain to your questions-

http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/usarmy/boardreports/artilleryboard61.htm

Am against the inclusion of WP smoke rounds into SD,so enough leg work from me :)
 
IS-2 said:
allies already thrash axis in high level play, it is pretty sad players are still having trouble with muh cats. get better at the game and play proper game modes, stop asking for handouts.

axis heavies do not need even more ways to be cost efficiently killed. these tanks are a joke to anyone past the noob phase
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that they're intensely vulnerable with good play. The problem is that a huge number of players aren't capable of good play.

Seriously. Go jump into the average 10v10, watch the stupid shit that happens and then look at the player cards of the people involved after. Most of them will have dozens or hundreds of games played but you'd never guess that by looking at their unit selection, micro, decks and tactical decisions. In team games it is routine to run into people with a sub 20 win rate across dozens of games. Routine. I have no idea how.

Or watch YouTube replays by people who aren't part of the competitive community. Wow. Just wow. I've literally watched people on YouTube lose tutorial missions...

If this was added, new players and bad players - for whom Axis tanks are basically impossible to kill - would have a much more enjoyable experience. And Axis tanks could also get a nice price buff to compensate for their new vulnerability.
 
Claremont Waltz said:
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that they're intensely vulnerable with good play. The problem is that a huge number of players aren't capable of good play.

Seriously. Go jump into the average 10v10, watch the stupid shit that happens and then look at the player cards of the people involved after. Most of them will have dozens or hundreds of games played but you'd never guess that by looking at their unit selection, micro, decks and tactical decisions. In team games it is routine to run into people with a sub 20 win rate across dozens of games. Routine. I have no idea how.

Or watch YouTube replays by people who aren't part of the competitive community. Wow. Just wow. I've literally watched people on YouTube lose tutorial missions...

If this was added, new players and bad players - for whom Axis tanks are basically impossible to kill - would have a much more enjoyable experience. And Axis tanks could also get a nice price buff to compensate for their new vulnerability.
Click to expand...

na

remove 10v10 and standardize game modes, force everyone into a matchmaker so we can have a community that isnt 15% 10v10 queens, 15% destruction queens, 15% 4v4 on 1v1 map queens.etc so we can have an actual competent playerbase like CoH 2's and we can have actual fights.

new players are just being funnelled to the mcdonalds play pen game modes because it is the path of least resistance. then they stay there forever because you cant learn to play properly in a 10v10 on a 4v4 map. the game is much more fun and rewarding in proper game modes, but very few new players get to that point, and some experienced players stay in 10v10 because it is simply their comfort mode.

why these people who cant learn how to kill a cost inefficient turd box should be coddled at expense of those who are actually playing as intended is beyond me. the allies do not need a point and click stun shot like the stuart from coh 2 .. . wtf.
 
Nordhammer said:
@Hidden Gunman
Just to clarify,you feel the use of WP smoke rounds was a field expedient when used against soft&hard targets?


'Lorraine 1944' by Steve Zaloga 2000 -relates how the US 4th Armored utilized WP smoke rounds against German armor.

'Panzer IV vs Sherman' by Steven J. Zaloga 2015 - mentions the 75 mm M3's M64 WP smoke/chemical round,and how by mid-June '44 the use of "Willy Pete" directly against hard targets was SOP in many armored units.

1993 Steve Zaloga -'Sherman Medium Tank 1942-1945' -Average standard ammunition loadout of a 75mm M3 armed M4 series tank by mid-June '44 included 10% of WP or HC M64/M89 smoke rounds,very crew dependent.




'The American Arsenal:The World War II Offical Standard Ordance Catalogue' By Ian V Hogg 2001.

This report would lead you to further reports that pertain to your questions-

http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/usarmy/boardreports/artilleryboard61.htm

Am against the inclusion of WP smoke rounds into SD,so enough leg work from me :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I would accept it as a field expedient only, for the reasons I've already cited. Your first three references are by the same author, that's hardly a definitive sample, and as I've said, a 10% loadout is a terribly small amount of ammunition for something that was to compensate for the fact the gun couldn't penetrate most enemy tanks at anything over small arms range, it hardly indicates that the round was used as a standard anti-armoured or anti-personnel round, or the loadout would be higher.

Forget the artillery point, I have no issue with artillery use of WP...just claims that it was standard practice for tanks to fight other tanks with it.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Shermans firing paint at tigers, after all, it was in Kelly's Heroes...

Edit:

A quick bit of research on Steve Zaloga shows that he has a fair level of criticism for being erroneous, biased (pro-US/Soviet, anti-german), and that his writings are 'light on', although it is accepted that the writings that is based on are Osprey (etc) works and not detailed academic studies.
 
Last edited:
Zaloga writes short trash books to pay the bills. He also writes detailed stats tomes which are well regarded by Glantz and Forczyk and other historians. You can find Forczyk reviewing his books on Amazon.

Just FYI, you can't do five minutes of googling and then shit talk a historian's rep, especially unsourced. In academic circles, the technical term for that sort of behavior is "dick move".

I'm also not sure why I'm having to prove anything more when I cited a whole bunch of paragraphs that literally included a Major General of a WW2 US armored division in Normandy saying "yep we love this WP shit". You find a historian or a Normandy tank commander saying otherwise and I'll go dig up some other books and bury you in even more quotes about WP. Until then, the count is one person with sources and one person with nothing more than their own opinion.

IS-2 said:
na

remove 10v10 and standardize game modes, force everyone into a matchmaker so we can have a community that isnt 15% 10v10 queens, 15% destruction queens, 15% 4v4 on 1v1 map queens.etc so we can have an actual competent playerbase like CoH 2's and we can have actual fights.

new players are just being funnelled to the mcdonalds play pen game modes because it is the path of least resistance. then they stay there forever because you cant learn to play properly in a 10v10 on a 4v4 map. the game is much more fun and rewarding in proper game modes, but very few new players get to that point, and some experienced players stay in 10v10 because it is simply their comfort mode.

why these people who cant learn how to kill a cost inefficient turd box should be coddled at expense of those who are actually playing as intended is beyond me. the allies do not need a point and click stun shot like the stuart from coh 2 .. . wtf.
Click to expand...

I mean I've said before that 10v10 on 4v4 is a terrible mode and that that game size needs a bigger minimum map, and I agree with you that matchmaker should be mandatory, but you must be fucking high if you think COH2 has a competent player base.

I routinely clean up in that games clown mode because I can do incredible things like spread out my infantry and use grenades and even *gasp* dodge grenades. The stuart stun shot is buggy as shit by the way. Most of the time you pay for it and it does nothing.

COH2 added a fantasy American heavy tank a while back specifically to address the absolute shitstomping of trash US faction players in 4v4. And you know what happened? People started playing US and Allies more, Axis stopped curb stomping all the time in the clown modes, and overall player count (including in 1v1) went up. Turns out that the casual players in the clown games occasionally decide they want more and start doing 1v1, which they wouldn't do if it was their only option. Hilariously 4v4 balance wasn't either. In skilled player 4v4 games Allies crushed Axis before the tank was added, and Allies continued crushing Axis after it was added.

COH2 1v1 didn't even implode. US is still a tough faction to play, especially since OKW was given a brutal early game.

You can talk all you want about muh rewarding experience, but if almost no one is still playing this game it by definition must not be a rewarding experience even if you and I are still having fun.
 
and
Claremont Waltz said:
Zaloga writes short trash books to pay the bills. He also writes detailed stats tomes which are well regarded by Glantz and Forczyk and other historians. You can find Forczyk reviewing his books on Amazon.

Just FYI, you can't do five minutes of googling and then shit talk a historian's rep, especially unsourced. In academic circles, the technical term for that sort of behavior is "dick move".

I'm also not sure why I'm having to prove anything more when I cited a whole bunch of paragraphs that literally included a Major General of a WW2 US armored division in Normandy saying "yep we love this WP shit". You find a historian or a Normandy tank commander saying otherwise and I'll go dig up some other books and bury you in even more quotes about WP. Until then, the count is one person with sources and one person with nothing more than their own opinion.



I mean I've said before that 10v10 on 4v4 is a terrible mode and that that game size needs a bigger minimum map, and I agree with you that matchmaker should be mandatory, but you must be fucking high if you think COH2 has a competent player base.

I routinely clean up in that games clown mode because I can do incredible things like spread out my infantry and use grenades and even *gasp* dodge grenades. The stuart stun shot is buggy as shit by the way. Most of the time you pay for it and it does nothing.

COH2 added a fantasy American heavy tank a while back specifically to address the absolute shitstomping of trash US faction players in 4v4. And you know what happened? People started playing US and Allies more, Axis stopped curb stomping all the time in the clown modes, and overall player count (including in 1v1) went up. Turns out that the casual players in the clown games occasionally decide they want more and start doing 1v1, which they wouldn't do if it was their only option. Hilariously 4v4 balance wasn't either. In skilled player 4v4 games Allies crushed Axis before the tank was added, and Allies continued crushing Axis after it was added.

COH2 1v1 didn't even implode. US is still a tough faction to play, especially since OKW was given a brutal early game.

You can talk all you want about muh rewarding experience, but if almost no one is still playing this game it by definition must not be a rewarding experience even if you and I are still having fun.
Click to expand...

Taking issue with your sledging of me, I didn't 'shit talk' anyone, except your jumping on a bandwagon of BS...I stated that there was criticism of his works, but did point out that was based on his Osprey stuff. Big difference my blind and biased little friend.

Go back to your popular glossy mags, and stop intimating that some 'neat idea' you saw in them is fact. Your 'whole bunch of paragraphs' was three references from a questionable source. Give us serious works and serious facts...and as I pointed out previously, the amount of tank on tank combat on the US sector was the least of the entire Normandy front. They faced the leftovers from the Brit and Canadian sectors.
 
Smoke would be powerful, only put it on command tanks....

If you add this Germans need compensation especially since they are worse than allies.....

Perphaps you can give the German tanks mortars( little hole on top of turret on some tanks) and defensive smoke grenades
 
1. A combat load of 10% WP, 20% AP and 70% HE is pretty realistic. Shermans were usually not really likely to engage Panzers (even 4s and StuG), not because of an inability but just because of the rarerity of the Panzers. That's also a reason why Patton is pretty much one of the most overestimated commanders in history, since his dash in Cobra met mainly only Infantry.

2. The StarCraft-Principle seems to be unknown here:
Shermans vs Cats lose.
Shermans with WP and Micro win against Cats.
Shermans with WP and Micro against Cats and Micro lose.
It is pretty much the principle of applying skill changing the outcome of a battle that would've ended the other way around.
Currently that's not really the case ingame as any kind of skill is still often times just a coinflip (read RNG).

3. I advocated the asymmetric balance idea of WP for Allies vs 1200m range for Germans already in Beta... but people enjoy their symmetric balance and even suggest further into this direction.
That the games advertised "realism" died with this fanbase was to be expected.
 
Last edited:
Thonar said:
1. A combat load of 10% WP, 20% AP and 70% HE is pretty realistic. Shermans were usually not really likely to engage Panzers (even 4s and StuG), not because of an inability but just because of the rarerity of the Panzers. That's also a reason why Patton is pretty much one of the most overestimated commanders in history, since his dash in Cobra met mainly only Infantry.

2. The StarCraft-Principle seems to be unknown here:
Shermans vs Cats lose.
Shermans with WP and Micro win against Cats.
Shermans with WP and Micro against Cats and Micro lose.
It is pretty much the principle of applying skill changing the outcome of a battle that would've ended the other way around.
Currently that's not really the case ingame as any kind of skill is still often times just a coinflip (read RNG).

3. I advocated the asymmetric balance idea of WP for Allies vs 1200m range for Germans already in Beta... but people enjoy their symmetric balance and even suggest further into this direction.
That the games advertised "realism" died with this fanbase was to be expected.
Click to expand...
The problem is that allies as a whole are way better than the Germans, and wp would make their tanks and at guns, which are supposed to be top of the line(m4a3 76 is still the best tank) useless. Why not buff the tiger 1? Cost effectiveness it is worse than the jumbo...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back