Vehicle Weight

[kane1]

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

It would add to the realisim a bit if you couldn't though.

Your right about that, but for gameplay if you couldn't move the destoryed vehicles out of the way the battle field would get too clogged up, like "The Last Stand" where the tanks come in wave after wave.

[Korsakov829]

I have an idea. Why don't we see to it this is modded, and try it out?

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

It would add to the realisim a bit if you couldn't though.

no shit sherlock.

But realism isnt always equal to fun. And I do support every kind of realism. But I dont want to get stuck in a map just cause I destroyed the enemy tank in the midle of a crossroad or bridge. Make more open maps and I dont care. But some if not half of the maps are designed with bottlenecks. And here I am ready to trade somewhat realism with gameplay. Also tanks do already block with their wrecks, not very effectively but sometimes enough to buy you some time.

Also eventually destroyed vehicles would be either recovered or removed if needed anyway. So its not completely unrealistic that you can move it. Just assume you had someone doing it or towing the wreck away.

[FM_Von_Manstein]

Originally Posted by Crni vuk

no shit sherlock.

But realism isnt always equal to fun. And I do support every kind of realism. But I dont want to get stuck in a map just cause I destroyed the enemy tank in the midle of a crossroad or bridge. Make more open maps and I dont care. But some if not half of the maps are designed with bottlenecks. And here I am ready to trade somewhat realism with gameplay. Also tanks do already block with their wrecks, not very effectively but sometimes enough to buy you some time.

Also eventually destroyed vehicles would be either recovered or removed if needed anyway. So its not completely unrealistic that you can move it. Just assume you had someone doing it or towing the wreck away.

Total realism can be fun. Personally I'm in favor of making the guns completely realistic. ie a PaK 43 should have 200+ Penetration at +2km. Now arguably this makes Germany imba because they had the best guns of WW2, but that's why you make Shermans T-34s dirt cheap. They should be like 1/5 of the cost of a Tiger.

Why do this do you ask?

Well as it is the tactics for MoW are pretty much universal, and it doesn't really matter what faction you use, the tactics you employ will be pretty similar. However under my idea the game becomes incredibly diverse tactically. In WWII each country had it's own strategic, operational and tactical doctrine to fit their assets and equipment.

So this means that each country will have it's own unique set of tactics to match it's assets. Thus making the game much more challenging to master, or at least to master all 5 factions. I suggest things be made completely realistic and historically accurate, then unit costs can be tweaked to make everything balanced.

[Crni vuk]

just that how it is already now you face situations where you cant do anything with the Tiger II and Jagdtiger beeing almost invincible.

Realistic weapons would be great. As long they fitt the gameplay. The maps dont suport the size nor tactical engagements that realistic weapons and ranges would require. Like the artillery for example as with the size we have an artillery never would be used not to mention just with one single gun. Yet without huge formations and other rather tactical possibilites it would be extremly difficult for the allies.

Even if the Shermans would have the cost of infantry units if they die like flies they are exactly that worth. Flies. Because the size of a map just alows so much flanking. And tactical superiority cant be shown on the level of which MoW plays because the real strength of the US army was not simply the superiorty in numbers alone. For example air superiority together with a strong economy and most important the mobility. During either 43 or 44 the Wehrmacht still had some 14 000 horses in use for the guns and equipment while the US army was at some point completely motorized, German infantry still had to cross terain in large numbers on foot while the typical GI could at least most of the time fall back on trucks, halftracks and other vehicles for transport even tanks if the situation called for it. This meant a fast deployment of troops in short time for example. Situations like the tactical encirclement in Foy cant be portrayed in a game that has maybe 100 troops on the screen at the same time. Making German equipment more expensive might be a start. But I am not sure if it would solve everything. You have to give the allies somehow a chance to attack the Germans head on or its a loost battle for them most of the time considering the layout of most maps. Well you have to give the allies at least a chance to "stand" that is. And if all of your tanks can be already penetrated ALL THE TIME literaly from every courner in the map ... then you will have no chance.

[Korsakov829]

Shermans aren't worth a thing unless your going up a machine gun emplacement or against no tanks. The 50mm easily destroys it from the side. My 12 tank kill streak proves it.

[Crni vuk]

depending about which version of the sherman we are talking about he had its value. The 75mm version was a very good choice for infantry support since its high explosive shell was more effective then from the 76mm gun which was later used with the sherman. So the most common vehicle in the normandy champaign was the Sherman same with the cromwell in british use. Both of those vehicles had the advantage of beeing realtive reliable and easy to replace in the field. The number of axis vehicles was for example always very low and pretty much no unit managed to retain its strength it had on paper. After the battle in falaise alone the German forces had to leave aprox 70% of their equipment behind for example. The latest version of the Sherman was somewhat comparable with the Panzer IV G or H from its value. Both beeing able to penetrate each other on common battle distances. The Tiger 1 with beeing a heavy tank obviously outclassed the Sherman but that would be like comparing the IS2 with the Panzer III. Even though the 76mm with the HVAP (APCR) shell could damage the front of the Tiger on medium distances but it would be difficult cause the quality of the shells was not so good as expected so even if the shell could penetrate the armor in theory it would many times fail to do so in combat as the velocity caused the shell to shater on the armor so it had to get very close to achieve anything the same issue was present with the firefly which had one of the pest penetrations of all alied guns in the field at that time.

But the sherman wasnt chanceless with a skilled crew ! I think a 75mm version of the Sherman has knocked out a Tiger 1 in Italy with the 752nd Tank Battalion in the Battle for Cecina

I think its interesting what someone wrotte in a forum about it :
How about La Glieze, Belgium, December, 1944. A King Tiger of the 501 SS was moving up to attempt to rescue Germans trapped in a house. As it came through the woods, a Sherman hit it three times. The Americans watched it drive away without any attempt to return fire. Unknown to them, one shot knocked out the intercom system and the German driver retreated on his own initiative. His reason for this was that another hit the base of the turret and deflected downwards into the top deck. That round killed the bow machinegunner and damaged the transmission, which eventually seized up immobilizing the King Tiger permanently. Around the same time and place another King Tiger was abandoned when a Sherman blew off part of its gun tube. Near Bastogne, six Shermans of the 4th AD took on a Panther company as it tried to force its way down the road they were guarding. When the smoke cleared, 11 Panthers were burning and not a single Sherman had been knocked out. There are plenty of examples. Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers were vulnerable to the Sherman, just not in frontal long range duels, which was not always possible. There is even an account of a King Tiger commander refusing to attack a column of Shermans as they were on higher ground and he feared they would put a shot through his turret roof. The human factor is critical, it is just not as easy to judge as a tank's technical data.

[Korsakov829]

Try pushing a dead small tank with another into a trench. There is no way that thing can flip that high into the air!