RC1 New Unit Balance Thread

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:00 pm

While that helps in some cases, mainly by reducing entrenchment, the bottom line is you're still attacking a unit with 20 defense value when your attacking unit only rates an 8.

The ground warfare equivalent of this battle is a basic M4 Sherman with it's 8 hard attack trying to break the ~20 defense rating on a Tiger I. Even if the Tiger was out of ammo and couldn't shoot back, the chance of the Sherman actually getting any kills is extremely low.

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:53 pm

In PG2 the way engineers are so effective is
a. they cannot be affected by rugged defence, and
b. they ignore the entrenchment value of defenders
Very effective.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:22 am

Currently:

5cm PaK 38
HA 13, cost 165

7.5cm PaK 40
HA 14 cost 367

8.8cm PaK 43/41
HA 24 cost 165

HA of 5cm PaK 38 needs to be reduced to ~10, price of 7.5 needs to be reduced to 200-250 , price of 8.8 needs to be increased to 300-350.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:08 am

Italian Bersaglieri infantry needs a 2 HA, up from current 1.

Steakenglisch · Post by **Steakenglisch** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:28 pm

Generally the Tactical Bombers are to weak?!?

During the Betas i tested the Tactical Bombers ... my outcome is they are a lot too weak ...
it makes no sense tu buy Stukas ... cause they do not enough damage ...

i use now ... Fighters and Level Bombers with some Tactical Bombers like Me110 later Fw190g /f and Do335 ...as an support for the fighters killing enemy Air units witch survided the fighter attacks or use them for strafing attacks ...

And the level Bombers are great against soft targets ... too great ... and with the effect of surpressing and lowering the entrenchment they are superior to launching Attacks against entrenchend units or dangerous enemy armored units ....

for my feeling the Level Bombers are much too Strong with the ground attack and the Tactical bombers are much too weak.
In any Wargame i played, the Ju 87 Dive Bomber was devastating because of its precisive Attacks, level bombers were not so good in destroying units cause it was an area effect not aiming on a small target they were only usefull for supression.

For now its nearly useless to waste core slots for tactical bombers like Ju87 ...

From wiki: Ju87g
With these weapons the Kanonenvogel ("cannon-bird"), as it was nicknamed, proved spectacularly successful in the hands of Luftwaffe Stuka aces such as Rudel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

this is not reflected in the game ...

tnourie · Post by **tnourie** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:16 pm

Steakenglisch wrote:Generally the Tactical Bombers are to weak?!?

During the Betas i tested the Tactical Bombers ... my outcome is they are a lot too weak ...
it makes no sense tu buy Stukas ... cause they do not enough damage ...

i use now ... Fighters and Level Bombers with some Tactical Bombers like Me110 later Fw190g /f and Do335 ...as an support for the fighters killing enemy Air units witch survided the fighter attacks or use them for strafing attacks ...

And the level Bombers are great against soft targets ... too great ... and with the effect of surpressing and lowering the entrenchment they are superior to launching Attacks against entrenchend units or dangerous enemy armored units ....

for my feeling the Level Bombers are much too Strong with the ground attack and the Tactical bombers are much too weak.
In any Wargame i played, the Ju 87 Dive Bomber was devastating because of its precisive Attacks, level bombers were not so good in destroying units cause it was an area effect not aiming on a small target they were only usefull for supression.

For now its nearly useless to waste core slots for tactical bombers like Ju87 ...

From wiki: Ju87g
With these weapons the Kanonenvogel ("cannon-bird"), as it was nicknamed, proved spectacularly successful in the hands of Luftwaffe Stuka aces such as Rudel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

this is not reflected in the game ...

I'd have to agree with the part about the Tactical Bombers, they are way too ineffective against soft targets; however, the Level Bombers are about right. They do supress and remove entrenchment value, and are OK against ships, but they do, in my experience with the game, hardly any damage to ground units. It is rare to have a LB do more than 1 or 2 damage to a soft target, and I've never seen one do any damage to a hard target. This is what I expect fom them, so I am not disapointed in their abilities.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:43 pm

Kerensky wrote:Movement speed of super heavy tank destroyers needs to be reduced (Jagdtiger from 5 to 3 or 4. King Tiger from 5 to 4.)
Movement speed of all Panther Tanks should be a 6.

Movement is measurement of speed. In case of vehicles on road speed was used. Above 35 km/h is in range for movement of 5.
Both Jagdtiger and Tiger II are slightly above that minimal level by reference I have. Still on the edge it could be justified as 4 as well. What is gameplay reason for it? Personally I am not in favour of slow vehicles when I play.

Panthers were at 6 in some of the first incarnations of e-file and than they were reduced because of complains that maps are too small and such movement is too powerful. When last time looking at them I was tempted to return them to 6 but stayed undecided, than bonus of heroes appeared and with +1 movement bonus I started to prefer their movement of 5.

On this maps tracked movement of 5 is optimal and below 4 puts unit in defensive stance.

apanzerfan · Post by **apanzerfan** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:56 pm

leaving the Kingtiger's movement at 5 will mean that everyone will have only Tiger II core units on late-war scenarios.

i liked in PG that they were not so mobile, thus filling your core with Tiger IIs would lead to running out of time.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:38 pm

apanzerfan wrote:leaving the Kingtiger's movement at 5 will mean that everyone will have only Tiger II core units on late-war scenarios.

i liked in PG that they were not so mobile, thus filling your core with Tiger IIs would lead to running out of time.

This is a good argument but I also remember that people in PG had all Panther core tank units instead and they would sometimes use Tiger II overstrength and highly experienced for some opening phase breaches. So it doesn't exactly solves the problem of variety in core army. We wanted to address this question trough prestige and I bet it is going to work on some harder difficulty settings. On the other hand maps in PzC are not so big as in PG so maybe movement of 4 would not be such a strong penalty to be a reason not to mix tank types but in that case it should not be such a difference between Tiger and Panther as it was in PG (Panther movement of 6) and than you can always upgrade tank that has movement bonus attached. Just thinking out loud.

apanzerfan · Post by **apanzerfan** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:06 pm

i see your point.

but if movement is measurement of speed, then panthers' movement with "Speed 55 km/h (34 mph) (first models), 46 km/h (29 mph) (later models)" shouldnt be equal to kingtigers' with "Sustained, road: 38 km/h (24 mph)".

such significant difference should be visible in stats.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:25 pm

Jagdtiger movement was 3 in original PG
KingTiger was 4.
Tiger I and Panther 5 I think (not sure on the Tiger I's)

That is pretty what fits to the speed values reported in various technical books I know of.

The slow speed of Jagdtiger is explainable by it having even weaker engines than Tiger II had + "worse" traction cross country. AFAIK.

apanzerfan · Post by **apanzerfan** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:27 pm

panther had 6 in PG

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:51 pm

Yes all Panthers had 6 in PG.

apanzerfan wrote:"Speed 55 km/h (34 mph) (first models), 46 km/h (29 mph) (later models)"

I have this exactly data in my reference. First iteration of e-file had movement of 7 for D model and 6 for other two models. Than based on complains about small maps those who had 6 were lowered to 5 and the one with 7 was lowered to 6 but it created confusion because it was the most unreliable Panther of all but that issue was addressed by lowering its fuel to represent such unreliability.

apanzerfan wrote:such significant difference should be visible in stats.

I agree on this but the complain on map size is the main reason for this.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:58 pm

Iscaran wrote:The slow speed of Jagdtiger is explainable by it having even weaker engines than Tiger II had + "worse" traction cross country. AFAIK.

Just a trivia.. I remember, was it PzIID that had movement of 6 in PG, very good at forcing rough terrain in first Poland scenario to outflank artillery at Lodz.
Statistics shows it had superior on road speed but it was disappointment on cross country. Just an example how simplifying reference and e-file data doesn't always lead to optimal results.

pstamatis · Post by **pstamatis** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:39 pm

The question is, is there any other motivation except cost in order to buy a Panther instead of a king Tiger? In the later scenarios where tens of IS2 (and other relative heavy tanks) swarm the battlefield, it is just imposible to stop these without king Tigers and Elephants-Panthers are too weak.

Pupec · Post by **Pupec** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:55 pm

pstamatis wrote:The question is, is there any other motivation except cost in order to buy a Panther instead of a king Tiger? In the later scenarios where tens of IS2 (and other relative heavy tanks) swarm the battlefield, it is just imposible to stop these without king Tigers and Elephants-Panthers are too weak.

The only motivation would be a limited number of heavy tanks on the battlefield

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:04 pm

uran21 wrote:We wanted to address this question trough prestige and I bet it is going to work on some harder difficulty settings.

No, it won't. Absolutely will not work. I cannot stress this enough.

Clockwise from top right. Panther vs M26, Panther vs M36, Tiger II vs M26, Tiger II vs M36.
Image on the left, stat comparison between Tiger II and Panther G.

Panther fails utterly against the M26 (cost 624, 105 cheaper than the Panther)
Panther wins a costly victory against the M36 (cost 288, 441 cheaper than the Panther)

King Tiger completely destroys the M36 at a very low cost to itself (only 1 loss predicted)
King Tiger cuts the M26 in half at a low cost to itself (only 2 losses predicted)

You will see similar results from other nations, replace M36 with Achilles/Sherman Firefly/Su-100, replace M26 with Comet and IS-2.

How much prestige is the player going to spend to restrength the Panther after these battles? I'll give you a hint, if the player wants to keep any experience on their unit, it's more than the 250 difference between the Tiger II and Panther G.
How much prestige does a player save not needing to restrength their King Tiger after losing only 1 or 2 in an engagement?

In campaign terms, this is also a failure:
Cost to upgrade any non-Panther to a Panther G, 729. Full price.
Cost to upgrade any non-Tiger to a Tiger II, 980, Full price. Net saving, 251 prestige. Prestige spent to elite a Panther from 4 strength to 10? 437.

I challenge you to provide some conclusive evidence that doesn't contain the words 'we hope' or 'we think' to refute my claims.

Currently:
Reason to buy a Panther over a King Tiger: Save 251 prestige (prepare to spend a LOT more than 251 keeping that Panther up to strength after its 16 GD gets decimated)
Same speed as King Tiger, no reason to switch here.
More fuel than King Tiger, the argument for PzC maps seems to be they are 'small' so... how important does that make fuel?
1 air attack value, can defend itself from aircraft.

The reasons to buy a King Tiger over a Panther:
More soft attack.
More hard attack.
More initiative.
10 more ground defense.
10 more air defense.
2 more close defense.

Nerf the King Tiger and Jagdtiger speed to 4.
Drop King Tiger close defense to 4 (M26 and IS-2 and any other offenders also need this nerf, the ceiling on close defense should be a 4 for all units, except maybe the Maus at a 5).
Buff all Panthers speed to 6.
Increase GD of all panthers by +1.
Possibly increased the price of the King Tiger and/or reduce the price on all Panthers.

Net result:
Panthers are your fast break through tanks. Anything they can't outgun, they can outrun. Good for mobile battles and flanking movement.
King Tigers are your 'go to' tank when you absolutely have to kill something. They're big, slow, but truly the "King" of the battlefield. They might not be able chase down their opponent or exploit a breakthrough, no one puts out the amount of punishment that a King Tiger can while keeping losses at a minimum.

Separate tanks for separate roles.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:27 pm

Oh, and point in fact.

Jagdpanther has better HA (24 to 19), faster (6 to 5), and is cheaper than the Panther G (401 to 729).

The Jagdpanther is actually fairly well balanced. It does it's job of being a tank hunter extremely well, but it's very poor at anything else, especially engaging infantry (5 SA and 1 CD).

The Panther G, compared to the cheaper Jagdpanther with it's specialized role and the just plain better King Tiger(King Tiger is actually cheaper than the Panther G when you factor in unit maintenance cost), is just underpowered and overpriced. That's the bottom line.

Panzer3L · Post by **Panzer3L** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:31 pm

uran21 wrote:Yes all Panthers had 6 in PG.

I have this exactly data in my reference. First iteration of e-file had movement of 7 for D model and 6 for other two models. Than based on complains about small maps those who had 6 were lowered to 5 and the one with 7 was lowered to 6 but it created confusion because it was the most unreliable Panther of all but that issue was addressed by lowering its fuel to represent such unreliability.

I agree on this but the complain on map size is the main reason for this.

Hmm PzC's Maps arent smaller than PG2's,only PG,AG and Pacific General could have much bigger maps.
I ve never read any complaints about Panthers or T-34's having too much movement in PG2 forums because of small maps.

If u realy need to restrict Panthers for gameplay/mapsize reason i would just lower their fuel but keep their movement at 6.

Panthers/Jagdpanthers should be 6,
Tiger's 5,
Kingtigers 4,
Jagdtiger and Elephant 3,
and the Maus just 2

New players who are checking out the game and are aware of those German Tank stats from other WW2 games,
will have a hard time accepting a Panther,Tiger ,Jagdtiger and Kingtiger with the same movement stat.
Not a very good"first impression" when they browsing the efile for the first time.

A Panther with 5 and a Jagdpather with 6 is strange.
Also the Elephant is slower than the Jagdtiger atm...very hard to explain with mapsize or gameplay reasons.

2cents

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:38 pm

Jagdtiger and Elephant at 3 with Maus at 2 is too punishing in game play, sorry.

Jagdtiger is already hamstrung by 25 fuel (try using it on The Frozen North where snow constantly halves your supply received and doubles fuel consumption)
Elephant is made useless by it's extravagant price tag (501 which is higher than the Jagdpanther or the Jagdtiger. Jagdpanther is faster but more frail, Jagdtiger is tougher so why buy an elephant?)
Maus can't even be purchased, only pre-placed on a map.

4s for the first two, 3s for the Maus is where I stand.