Whats the appeal?

[Imp]

Been playing MBT of late & just fired up WWII for the first time in a while which got me to thinking what is the appeal of it, sure the history of it is interesting but talking in game terms.

The truth of it is there are a few things that stack up, variety, accuracy, mobility & the fact that damage results rather than kills are far more frequent due to taking marginal shots.
Variety - Sure there are some sides in MBT where you get a bit India Pakistan come to mind but the diversity is not so great as in WWII. You generally know in MBT if your tanks are outclassed or not the variety is more in troop transport than armour.
WWII is a different kettle of fish what are we up against this time? Light, medium cruiser or heavy tanks. Then theres tank destroyers & self propelled guns or even some dangerous armoured cars.
Unlike most armour in MBT they vary widely & you have to know there capabilities to extract the best from them.
Take Germanys MkIII or MkIV The mark IV is carries a bigger punch especially at range but has a weak turret. Heck just like most TD you can destroy things at greater range but its more vulnerable to.
Then theres things like the little armoured car & half tracks armed with the tapper bore, pitiful range but up close it packs a big punch for its size.
There are nasty heavies difficult to destroy & that pack a punch & mediocre ones some of the KVs for example, the guns not a worry at range but getting in close enough to inflict damage its good enough.
Then there is the the Brits with there 2 pounder & no HE capability with the CS tanks in support & thats just naming a few.
Like I said variety & you never know quite whats waiting for you, this coupled with a few other things cause more Ohh heck moments than you get in most MBT games, things can get a bit tense at times.
The lack of accuracy adds to this along with the fact there are more marginal shots taken.
Pull out to take a shot with this none to accurate hardware if moving & cringe as you miss or get a damage result instead of a kill. Will he fight back? Can he has the main gun gone?? Oh C%#$
This variety extends to the troops to, rifle LMG or SMG & varying AT capabilities from a hand grenade to pretty scary, of course they might just decide to panic & run.

Planning is far more important due to several factors, long arty call times, mobility in fact a general lack of transport unless your USA or to a lesser extent the Brits, reinforcing that flank takes time. This makes exploiting a break through or salvaging a tricky situation far harder. In fact gaining local force superiority is generally more difficult.
Getting those AT guns in place to reinforce a flank for example requires thought.
If they have move zero where can I deploy them in favourable terrain to intercept, do I need to use smoke, thats 3 turns before it arrives & can I really spare them because they are on target now. Can I get any infantry over there to support or provide the smoke etc.

The game is also more immersive due to the fact you really need to know units capabilities & can indeed get frustrating sometimes. You at least need to know if your AP capability drops off faster than your opponents (shorter range gun) so you can judge at what range to try & engage & if indeed staying in overwatch is viable.
You might be a threat at short to med range but a siting duck at anything further.

So WWII is interesting & a challenge especially if you buy fairly realistically which sort of makes me wonder what interests people with an alternative history & continuing the war on. Want to make a few changes as a what if just assume the Luftwaffe did a better job & there were not major supply issues. So more heavies are available & APCR is widely available to all. Halftracks arent the precious commodity they were & are in wide use & German air is around to cause the allies grief.
Of course then the Germans would play more like the USA with Pershings, just Panthers & panzerfausts instead of bazookas.

If you havent tried it by the way setting up a few largish games with computer purchase & human deploy is a good rule of thumb on what you should actually buy. Dont forget to do it for different theatres As well as time frames the mix varies accordingly.

Still the biggest diffrence between the 2 games is probably mobility & accuracy especialy on the move along with vision aids. Giros & decent fire control even before TI result in more fluid predictable tank battles I suppose rather than the nail biting conflicts that can occur in WWII.

So people any thoughts what else is it that makes WWII what it is.

[georgesedlak]

Hi John,
Read your piece with great interest. We agree with most of your deductions on the game differences. We bought both CD's years ago but spend 90% of our precious gaming time in WW2. Age could be a factor, we were 50's kids, steeped in WW2 lore and once it gets in your blood it's forever. Reincarnation could be another factor.

[gila]

Well Imp,it's really a matter of prefrence.
Comparing the two is like comparing the civil war to WWI,there is no comparision.
MBT is for the more tech inclined and WW2 is for those that are into less tech and more older style warfare.
They are 2 differnt totally differnt periods essentially,so the answer is,,
if you like one,then why question some would go for the other??

[Imp]

Not questioning it Gila I like both but because I hadn't played it for a while realised they really do play very differently.
MBT in my view is generally far easier as the extra accuracy makes things far simpler & getting local superiority is far easier meaning battles are much quicker. The biggest pain is ATGMs once they become accurate. Setting up overwatch for example requires thought in WWII or it can fail.
WWII armour is hard work take the current battle which is a fairly big tank affair on a Kursk as in wide open battlefield with visibility of 57.
I can see other tanks in the distance & would be slightly worried in MBT at least with presenting a flank shot but a fair bit of my armour struggles to shoot that far let alone hit anything so no problem.
I am trying to destroy the tanks I am engaged with by drawing fire & coordinating smoke so I some tanks can close to engagement range or get flank shots with the call times is hit & miss. I can see the reinforcements coming but unlike most eras in MBT I have several turns before they become a worry.
Conversely its taking me far more time to kill them than I would like so the extra time is sorely needed.

[Mobhack]

Early MBT
(prior to proliferation of ATGM)
- as WW2, but with more infantry mobility due to the prevalence of APCs post war.
RCL on Jeeps and infantry-AT weapons that can reach out and touch MBT make closing with infantry a bit more problematical than later WW2 (panzerfaust problem but with more range)


Middle MBT period:
(With effective ATGM, and no technical means for tanks to counter them. Effective HEAT main ammo is widely available in tank and even little scout car guns)
Tank is not obsolete but they cannot do the WW2/early MBT period thing of sitting on a hill and dominating the battle if protection is sufficient, as a little missile team can plink them or perhaps even a Saladin or AML-90 can.
You need to use arty/smoke/night and manoeuvre warfare to deal with ATGM.

Late MBT period
MBT composite armour packages and reactive armour etc deal well with HEAT. So light AFV cannon back to low risk, and conventional missiles (not top attack) to irritants. MBT is now back to "top dog", but is expensive and losing one is painful.


WW2
If you invest in heavy armour, then that is usually a safe bet. Your tanks can generally manoeuvre in the open in front of an enemy, unless they have a massive over-match in ATG to your armour (88s on Sherman etc).
Infantry generally not a major threat to armour until panzerfausts and PIATs arrive, and these are not able to reach out and touch you beyond a few hexes.

WW2 has massive technical changes in a few years as technology advances.

MBT technology does advance, but not in the one war time frame so much - it is by decades. So upgrading less necessary as new models and tech don't arrive every 6 months or so. (if there had been a world war of 5 or so years duration then that would have likely occurred as in WW1 and 2)

[gila]

Originally Posted by Imp

Not questioning it Gila I like both but because I hadn't played it for a while realised they really do play very differently.
MBT in my view is generally far easier as the extra accuracy makes things far simpler & getting local superiority is far easier meaning battles are much quicker. The biggest pain is ATGMs once they become accurate. Setting up overwatch for example requires thought in WWII or it can fail.
WWII armour is hard work take the current battle which is a fairly big tank affair on a Kursk as in wide open battlefield with visibility of 57.
I can see other tanks in the distance & would be slightly worried in MBT at least with presenting a flank shot but a fair bit of my armour struggles to shoot that far let alone hit anything so no problem.
I am trying to destroy the tanks I am engaged with by drawing fire & coordinating smoke so I some tanks can close to engagement range or get flank shots with the call times is hit & miss. I can see the reinforcements coming but unlike most eras in MBT I have several turns before they become a worry.
Conversely its taking me far more time to kill them than I would like so the extra time is sorely needed.

I don't doubt that you like both,but as Andy points out there are major differnces unless you are playing pre 80's era Mbt.
To me the jist of your tread is how tactics and are used,not the appeal of one or the other.
IMO any missles and helio's are a PITA,so veer away from 60's and beyond.