Centurion Tank

[Chomp]

I was under the impression that the centurion didn't see action during the war, so is this game inaccurate or did the centurion really enter combat in the dying days of the war?

EDIT: Yeah it's obvious that it's there for balance, i was just clarifying.

[-sb- zveroboy]

It did not, no.

[ZekeWolff]

The Centurion was rushed to Europe but didnt arrive until two weeks after the German surrender in May 1945. The in-game 3d model differs a lot from the Centurions that was sent to Germany as well.

The Black Prince never saw action either, and was never accepted for use in the British Army due to the superiority of the Centurion. Quite many of the Japanese, US,UK and USSR stuff never saw action during WW2, but since this is a game I guess that most (except me :) ) isnt bothered about it.

~Zeke.

[terve886]

Those prototypes just happen to be in the game for balance reasons. It would not be fair if Germany was the only faction with super heavy tanks.

[GerManBearPig]

it's a game, not a simulation

[Snake159]

I agree that it is a game. However I am not too pleased witht he 'sci fi' vehicles. The balance should be in the cost to 'buy' these vehicles. IN reality Germany had what 1500 tigers and the Russians some 30000 T34. The value of the vehicles should have determined the balance primarily not having vehicles that were never in WWII - for which the Japanese faction is notorious. As a game yes give p[layers the option of including these but balance it out with costs and/or availability. Here I agree with ZekeWollf

[Flashheart]

Just limit the amount of heavy armour per team. That'll sort the men from the boys.

[terve886]

Originally posted by Snake159:

I agree that it is a game. However I am not too pleased witht he 'sci fi' vehicles. The balance should be in the cost to 'buy' these vehicles. IN reality Germany had what 1500 tigers and the Russians some 30000 T34. The value of the vehicles should have determined the balance primarily not having vehicles that were never in WWII - for which the Japanese faction is notorious. As a game yes give p[layers the option of including these but balance it out with costs and/or availability. Here I agree with ZekeWollf [/quote]
But the problems come when people chance the MP and CP limit higher, making the most expensive and powerful tanks favor only one faction, which is in this case Germany.
If you don't want the Centurion to be in game, I guess it would be better then to remove all the heavy tanks in order to maintain the balance in game which I don't think anyone wants to happen.

[amgen9]

Originally posted by ZekeWolff:

Quite many of the Japanese, US,UK and USSR stuff never saw action during WW2, but since this is a game I guess that most (except me :) ) isnt bothered about it.

~Zeke.

Well atleast the pershings did see action during the war. There was a single super pershing sent to theatre as well. Is3 also "apparently" saw action against the japanese in manchuria in '45. You would be surprised how much stuff actually was used.

[ZekeWolff]

I wasnt refering to the M26 Pershing nor the Super Pershing when I mentioned US in my reply, I was refering to the M19 AA vehicle.

Regarding the IS3 so is it rumored that it saw action against the Japanese in Manchuria, but it has never been confirmed neither in photage nor in any published documents.

And no, nothing can surprise me regarding what kind of stuff that saw use during WWII or not. My 25+ years of studying of WWII armor has taught me to never be surprised.

~Zeke.

[handzy]

Originally posted by Flashheart:

Just limit the amount of heavy armour per team. That'll sort the men from the boys.

^^^

[Flashheart]

Originally posted by Snake159:

I agree that it is a game. However I am not too pleased witht he 'sci fi' vehicles. The balance should be in the cost to 'buy' these vehicles. IN reality Germany had what 1500 tigers and the Russians some 30000 T34. The value of the vehicles should have determined the balance primarily not having vehicles that were never in WWII - for which the Japanese faction is notorious. As a game yes give p[layers the option of including these but balance it out with costs and/or availability. Here I agree with ZekeWollf [/quote]


I agree. But if you want 'real' realism in this game especially regarding battles like Kursk, then you'll have to spam the map with waves of Soviet troops and Shturmovik attacks against the German army.

[Snake159]

Well yes admittidely it is always difficult to strike the 'perfect' balance. My point is that vehicles that hardly saw action should be points penalized and vehicles that were numeically inferior should suffere the same fate. On the other hand make the numerous types (ie Sherman) much cheaper. AT the end of the day you can t please everyone all the time :-). Still I do enjoy the game and appreciate the detail that the developers included and I do not mean just the graphics but also the killing power algorithm, movement, turret traverse effect - something that was impossible on a table top wargame.

[Sunbeam]

Originally posted by Flashheart:

Just limit the amount of heavy armour per team. That'll sort the men from the boys.

Well it's expensive and also takes lots of CP so it's "limited"

Originally posted by Snake159:

Well yes admittidely it is always difficult to strike the 'perfect' balance. My point is that vehicles that hardly saw action should be points penalized and vehicles that were numeically inferior should suffere the same fate. On the other hand make the numerous types (ie Sherman) much cheaper. AT the end of the day you can t please everyone all the time :-). Still I do enjoy the game and appreciate the detail that the developers included and I do not mean just the graphics but also the killing power algorithm, movement, turret traverse effect - something that was impossible on a table top wargame.

I don't see why would some unit should be points penalized. They have set cost to be used in the first place and that cost depends on unit stats and there is no other way.

Why would lets say M4A3E8(76)W Sherman cost cheaper than what it is now? It's tank that fights vs Pz.Kpfw. IV H and they have just 50MP cost difference.
If you make M4A3E8(76)W Sherman cheaper you would also have to make Pz.Kpfw. IV H cheaper.
But if you make them cheaper what will be point of getting M4A3 Sherman or Pz.Kpfw. III N?Make them cheaper too? Well there is other light tanks at lower price tag. Make them cheaper than infantry?

It's not like Mk. II Centurion have same cost as M4A3E8(76)W
It in Pz.Kpfw. VI Tiger, Pz.Kpfw. V Panther, M26 Pershing, IS-2 segment

[Flashheart]

Originally posted by Snake159:

Well yes admittidely it is always difficult to strike the 'perfect' balance. My point is that vehicles that hardly saw action should be points penalized and vehicles that were numeically inferior should suffere the same fate. On the other hand make the numerous types (ie Sherman) much cheaper. AT the end of the day you can t please everyone all the time :-). Still I do enjoy the game and appreciate the detail that the developers included and I do not mean just the graphics but also the killing power algorithm, movement, turret traverse effect - something that was impossible on a table top wargame.

I said this when I used to play AS1. There shouldn't be vehicles that never saw action during WWII in the game at all......I'm sure they can be replaced by missing vehicles that actually saw action.

[Flashheart]

Originally posted by Sunbeam:

Well it's expensive and also takes lots of CP so it's "limited"

Just get the tanks that never saw action out of the game and introduce vehicles that did.
Simple really ;)