Military logistics

sounds like a lot of work...

Meh, to play first you must work.

Or you play AND work at the same time...sounds horrable still when are we going to start making this thing?

But that could lead to awful problems, especially for soldiers, pilots, builders and lawyers. Anyway, that is very OT so...

Back on subject?

I think the tread is over, I think all of us agree on the supply chain and in extension naval blockade and air drop.

I like the idea of LOC - lines of communication. And I think this is badly needed in the game - right now, I build a lot of tanks, mass them together and send them deep in the enemy territory. If my force is strong enough, nobody will stop them from wreaking chaos.

The real tanks in WW2 had a similar effect. But they also had a serious vulnerability: they needed a continuous line of supply to move and to fight - to get them the fuel and ammo needed. This is why the tanks were not usually fought head-on - the largest tank battle only saw together about 1,500 tanks (Battle of Prokhorovka, during the 3rd Battle of Kursk, Summer of 1943). The tanks got their flanks attacked - this is why they badly needed infantry to guard their flanks. During the Battle of France, for instance, the tanks moved really quickly, but they had their flanks exposed. At one time, Hitler hold the whole armor spearhead to have the support troops catch up and consolidate the flanks - this allowed the allies to evacuate at Dunkirk.

So, for me, this is the most important feature that lacks from this game. And it's a pity to have such a nice historical game lacking one of the most important aspects of waging a war.

mihaipmp wrote:

At one time, Hitler hold the whole armor spearhead to have the support troops catch up and consolidate the flanks - this allowed the allies to evacuate at Dunkirk.

It wasn't just about Hitler. The OKW was scared as hell, and pretty much all of the senior generals. Those crazy young generals (Guderian, Rommel) attacked and pushed on against the orders of their superiors. But the truth is they took a big gamble: if the allies would have succeeded in counter-attacking the weak flanks, the armor spearhead would have been cut off and completely useless. In a few hours they would not have had the fuel to move.

In this game, you get an army across the front line, then let it run around. As long as the enemy doesn't have the troops to engage them directly, those troops cannot get hurt. Even if they get way, way behind enemy lines, with any number of enemy provinces between them and their own forces. And this is, as I said before, highly unrealistic.

A tank is still pretty deadly as long as it has a fit crew, a working gun, turret and turret ring. In fact, the fact that a tank has been m-killed means that the driver could hammer away on a pintle mounted gun at infantry, tank tracks and gun barrels.

I know, I like the idea and agree with it.

Tank tracks and gun barrels make very poor targets for mg bullets...

An immobilized tank is no longer a tank - but an armored pillbox. Pretty much useless - because its role was not to defend some ditch in the middle of nowhere, but to outrun the defenders and attack their weakest point. Besides, the tank crew is much more important that the ditch - so the crew leaves it in the field and escapes by foot. The most extreme example for this could be found in the Battle of the Bulge (winter of 1944 - 1945 most of the German armor was left behind, because they had no more fuel to move.

Still, this is a sideline discussion. The thing we both agree on is tanks (and all the other land troops, as a matter a fact) cannot operate without supply, surrounded by enemies. And it would be really nice to find this very important aspect of military strategy in this game, too.

Nope. You can severely damage both. They're not as strong as you think. You can take out an M1 Abrams if you shoot it up the tuckus with anything bigger than a 20mm shell, I imagine the tracks and gun barrel aren't too strong either.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Nope. You can severely damage both. They're not as strong as you think. You can take out an M1 Abrams if you shoot it up the tuckus with anything bigger than a 20mm shell, I imagine the tracks and gun barrel aren't too strong either.

The gun barrel is extremely stong. I seriously doubt that a direct hit with a 20mm would damage it.

Eg. in the 6-day war on several occasions Israeli Centurions were hit by Egyptian 122mm artilley fire. Some were knocked out by a a hit on the engine-deck. But a direct hit on a gun barrel would only make some scratches.

BlackPrince2 wrote:

I seriously doubt that a direct hit with a 20mm would damage it.

A 25mm(I made a mistake their) shell right up the ass of a M1 Abrams. The Abrams is an awful tank, you can take it out with 1 RPG of any model. Look at these links, then tell me Abrams is still a strong tank.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=destroyed+challenger+2&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIvbLlsfOqxwIVhNUaCh03Gg5c#imgrc=_

https://www.google.ie/search?q=destroyed+m1+abrams&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI4ueR0_OqxwIVggQaCh0c6A1V&biw=1366&bih=643#imgdii=j2v12pYCCankGM%3A%3Bj2v12pYCCankGM%3A%3BE2PCyl1slDEZ9M%3A&imgrc=j2v12pYCCankGM%3A

M1 Abrams barrel.

BlackPrince2 wrote:

122mm artilley fire

Picture attached. is a disabled American IFV. I think it is a M1 Abrams. Tanks are not the behemoths you think they are(well, they American ones anyway). Some good wire in the US is $50. So $50 to knock a 7 million dollar vehicle. Now the Stryker, that is one tough cookie from what I have read about it.

Since this thread has meandered away from its original purpose and on to the survivability of tanks, I will attempt to bring it back.

I like the idea on its base, but am concerned about adding anything to the game that will increase the daily difficulty of play. If this is added to the game, and I think it should, it needs to be done in a way that the average player does not need to manage it to much. I image that every one posting on these forums is looking for as close to realistic a game as they can get while still having an enjoyable game. A lot of players are not posting on these forums and are just looking for an entertaining time killer.

I believe that player apathy is the number one problem this game faces as games grow in age. Can you imagine if these players are now forced to ensure their advancing armies are well supplied after they have a massive empire that spans across oceans? I think part of the reason players leave matches is they grow tired of running said empire.

I like the idea, but lets make sure it doesn't make the game to complex for the average player.

Armatus wrote:

Since this thread has meandered away from its original purpose and on to the survivability of tanks, I will attempt to bring it back.

Armatus wrote:

If this is added to the game, and I think it should

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

I think so too, maybe as a new GM option? Currently we only have one(elite AI) and I think Bytro could milk this beta for more money with a new GM option.

Yep. That would they could have harder enemies to fight even if no other players joined and could still get points from them. It would let the game have(more or less) a premium hardcore mode! A great thing to advertise:

Play Call of War, Bytro Labs newest game! With two challenging game modes, free, standard arcade mode and for the price of X moneys, a realistic premium mode with logistics, communication lines and a challenging, smart AI!