RC1 New Unit Balance Thread

[Iscaran]

Very Good points from both of you !

But why not Buff Panthers GD to something between a Pz IVH and a Tiger I ?

From a historical point the Panthers armor was much superior to that of the Pz IV series, yet in PzC it is only 1 point more GD.
With GD18 for the D and then increased by one each time for A and G series.

I would second putting maus to speed 2.
This 190tons tank (3x that of a Tiger II) had a travel speed of 13 kph.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_VIII_Maus


Also one can very well use the "motorization" (horsepower per weight) as a good indicator even for cross country mobility.

Panther is around 15 hp/t
Tiger I is 12 hp/t
Tiger II is 10 hp/t
Maus is ~ 5hp/t

So lets say a 5 movement for panther and 4 for Tiger and Tiger II leaves a 2 for Maus
Jagdtiger is also around 10hp/t but has nearly 50% more weight than Tiger II. => so speed 3. Would also be better in gameplay reasons - but I could live with a speed of 4 for that as well.
Jagdpanther is again around 15hp/t => equal to Panther (its also very close in total weight). So same speed as Panther definitely.

Anyway I think Pricing of the Panther is good at 700 something....just needs better GD. IMO.

Speed 6 is too fast I think.
Maybe give that to PzIVs instead. But I am not so sure about that as these were undermotorized (around 12 hp/t for the later G, H and J models).
Pz IVs should though be sufficiently cheap to be the mainstay of Wehrmacht as they were historically. I dont know the current ingame values for those atm - just a point for consideration IMO.

I also noticed that tactical Bombers are way too weak against tanks. I dont know how the game mechanics work but the bombers dont fight against air defense value do they ? If that is you should perhaps reconsider Air Def values for all tank units - maybe lower all by 1 or 2 ? But I had no late turn game campaign experience so far with such units.

[Kerensky]

I would be against increasing the Panther armor too much, too many late war German units have incredible armor already.

IVH and IVJ. Cheap, decent gun, relatively decent armor currently 14 and 15 may be too high. I'd recommend slight price reduction and slight armor reduction.
Panther. Moderately expensive, improved gun, faster speed, marginally better armor than a IVJ.
Tiger II. Most expensive, best gun, worst speed, best armor.

IVH is the cheapest option, average stats with no serious drawbacks or advantages.
Pay more and you can get a Panther, which is more mobile but doesn't have a huge gain in defense value, a definite offensive tool.
OR
Pay more and you can get a Tiger, which is more durable and powerful, but is limited by mobility, a better defensive tool or for where the front moves very slowly (Urban Warfare is a good example of a slow moving front).

Each tank has it's role to play, no one tank is clearly better in all situations, unlike the current situation where it's basically "Buy Tiger II and win".

[uran21]

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

No it won't but for completely different reasons than you mentioned. Just to remind the background was the question of variety on the battlefield and how to achieve it with unit prices.

I just performed a test with 4 star 12 strength Panther against green M26 and M36. It kills half the M26 with one loss for itself and all of M36 with no losses. Why would you need a Tiger if you had this!? This doesn't change the fact that green Tiger is more cost effective than Panther it only puts calculation in different direction. If you already have Panther there is no difference in what you are going to spend for its replacements and save for Tigers because this Panther needs no replacements and only thing that remained is difference in price for an upgrade to a unit much stronger but not crucially important to do the job. This is going to be an effect in all equipment when playing with restricted prestige. Player will concentrate himself on quality instead of quantity and once level of strength to comfortably beat the enemy is reached eventual surplus of prestige will be spend on expanding you army.

No, prices are not going to address variety. Prices will deny equipment that is not cost effective and those high end stuff not needed to win due to experience bonuses, hero bonuses and overstrength of existing units. On the end players core will look different but not varied.

[Kerensky]

I don't follow your logic. In the single scenarios and campaign, there is no late war battle where you will encounter a green M26 or M36, so where does your example fit in actual, documented, gameplay of campaign, single play, or multiplayer?
In Germany, new Allied units and pre-placed ones start with 2 and a half stars. In USA, it's anywhere from 1.5 to 3 stars.

My example was between equal experienced units, all 0. If anything, you should test the result of 4 star 12 strength panther and 4 star 12 strength or 3 star 13 strength Allied units, which I image will yield similar results to the 0 experience test.

[Kerensky]

In my own campaign playtesting, there is no reason to ever use a Panther, least of all because of prestige shortages.

viewtopic.php?t=24208&highlight=1939+impossible

Upgrades absolutely destroy my prestige. I dropped all the way down to 37 and turned my core into 4 pioneer, 1 infantry 43, 1 grenadier 43, 5 PV IVJ, 3 King Tiger, 1 recon, 4 150cm artillery, 7 ME262, 4 HE117. All units are up to minimum 10 strength, but many units are not fully overstrengthed.
So my prestige was ~9000, drop to 37, and now after USA East Coast I have 5522 prestige again. This prestige fluctuation, plus the ease of US East Coast, absolutely convinced me the campaign needed to continue. And so it now does.

Why IVH? Because it's a discount upgrade because the majority of my tanks were IVFs and IVGs previously.
Why the King Tiger? Because it's flat better than the Panther G for a minimal 251 extra prestige. There's absolutely no good reason to ever get a Panther right now. IVJ is the discount upgrade, King Tiger is equal to or just plain better than the Panther G in their current forms.

If I was critically short on prestige, I wouldn't choose a Panther over a Tiger, I would have all IVJs because that's the discount upgrade, and I'd just buy cheap 401 Jagdpanthers if I need a unit with really good high HA.

[IainMcNeil]

For balance we have to compare like for like so green vs green or 4 star vs 4 star. Maybe the Panther does not need to be better but in that case teh prcing shoudl be adjusted to make it fit with other units.

My point is that given enough time it shoudl be possible to create a formula to generate the costs of units from their stats. There shoudl be no units that are overpriced/underpriced on their stats to encourage or discourage their use ir it breaks multiplayer.

With the examples shown the prcies of the Allied tanks need to be adjusted in line with the Panther - if its an equal at 0xp fight they shoudl be equally priced. If one is better it should be more expensive.

That has to be a base requirement of the balancing.

[uran21]

I don't follow your logic. In the single scenarios and campaign, there is no late war battle where you will encounter a green M26 or M36, so where does your example fit in actual, documented, gameplay of campaign, single play, or multiplayer?
In Germany, new Allied units and pre-placed ones start with 2 and a half stars. In USA, it's anywhere from 1.5 to 3 stars.

My example was between equal experienced units, all 0. If anything, you should test the result of 4 star 12 strength panther and 4 star 12 strength or 3 star 13 strength Allied units, which I image will yield similar results to the 0 experience test.

The logic about which I am talking about doesn't have much to do with exact prices for, in this example, Tiger II and Panther. And in my post I did not claim Panther is more cost effective than Tiger because your point about their values is valid. I am talking about something else. What I was thinking about is how prestige and pricing is affecting variety in players core and contrary to my previous believes now I would say reducing prestige is not a guarantee of varied core.

Reducing prestige can affect more rational behaviour and require economic decisions but it is not a guarantee of variety.

Example of experienced Panther is to show stats of your units as well as stats of enemy units are variable due to bonuses and what are you going to choose in practice during campaign with reduced prestige depends on situation in which you are. My point is reduced prestige will limit you on your purchase options and due to experience bonuses player may find some high end equipment not necessary to win and some other equipment not worth of investing at all.

So if you have 3 slots available and 1200 prestige you can spend it on various ways. Why would you have one unit that costs 1000 prestige if the one that cost 600 can do the job so you can have two of them. And why would you buy 3 units that cost 400 prestige if they are not capable to confront the enemy. That last solution is the most expensive.

So my comment was not about prices between Panther and Tiger but more on concept how reduced prestige and prices can affect variety in players core and I think they cannot guarantee that variety but this concept is highly related only to rationalization.

[uran21]

For balance we have to compare like for like so green vs green or 4 star vs 4 star. Maybe the Panther does not need to be better but in that case teh prcing shoudl be adjusted to make it fit with other units.

My point is that given enough time it shoudl be possible to create a formula to generate the costs of units from their stats. There shoudl be no units that are overpriced/underpriced on their stats to encourage or discourage their use ir it breaks multiplayer.

With the examples shown the prcies of the Allied tanks need to be adjusted in line with the Panther - if its an equal at 0xp fight they shoudl be equally priced. If one is better it should be more expensive.

That has to be a base requirement of the balancing.

That comparison of experienced Panther has no background in balancing individual units. How to make player use more varied units in his core instead of just one or two types is the long discussion where most people vote for hard limitations in availability of certain units but this is too rigid solution and we wanted to address it trough pricing and available prestige. With more thoughts on it I am disillusioned it will be effectively achieved with this method. It will help on it but it wont guaranteed it.

[IainMcNeil]

I think encouraging varied units through prices is going to be tough. We dont want to discourage use of the late war units that for sure. Those are the ones everyone loves. It's not an easy one to solve so I would prefer to look at the balancing of costs for multiplayer and solve this issue later possibly with some limits on what the player can have.

[Razz1]

In MP...
I see the secret is to give the player a balanced core without the big heavy units. Then give them just enough prestige to buy a couple. Then have prestige as a shortage. This works well, otherwise they buy all the top notch units.

With a variety of the starting core, all the player has to do is fill it out.

For example they could buy;
two Tiger I and scout
two Tiger I and save
a Tiger I PZV and an Art
two PZV and a scout
two PZV and save
three PZIV
PZIV and two Art
four infantry and two Art

The player can even start with one or two top notch units as long as the core is mixed and balanced. Then the starting prestige is used to fill it out.

When starting with too much prestige and too much prestige per turn, there is no reason to buy inferior units. Only the unit right underneath the top notch unit is considered for purchase.

etc....

The other limiting factor is total units, where you may have lots of prestige but can not buy more than two units. However, you can upgrade the existing units.

Or you can give the player lots of prestige and let them buy all top notch units, only to find out they get very little prestige per turn. Thus they are unable to reinforce the top notch units. When playing against an opponent that has a balanced core they will have a good chance to loose because the opponent can reinforce and has more units, thus using mass attack advantage verses a few top notch units. On the second game the player will not buy all top notch units as they have learned that they will be overwhelmed by mass attacks and numbers.

[Iscaran]

Razz1 makes a good point here.

And I have to agree with Kerensky overall. Just limiting the access to top units via prestige WILL not work. Unless the prestige scissor is sooo huge that the player would not be able to place enough units on a map at all. (for example with only having 2 or 3 Tigers II in contrast to having 10 tanks of lower quality).

Balancing via prestige only can only fail as Kerensky already pointed out.

A more combined approach is better IMO. Like Razz1 said. Either do not limit the number of core slots as much (though I dont have an idea of how large the core can be at its current state, remember I am only 3 weeks in beta) so the player usually will try to fill up the core slots and if he lacks prestige he will go for cheaper units overall.

But that may not be the most vital point as the map size is limited the usefulness of units above a certain threshold is much smaller.

For example (and really a rather abstracted one) but if you effectively would need some 4 tanks + 4 arty + 2 recons + 4 inf + some other support because you have 2 major offensive directions - there is little to be gained by buying another 4 tanks...instead players will try to buy the best possible 4 for that purpose. => alas Tiger IIs.

IMO it might be interesting to test a "unit" limit for certain units.

Example. Access to Pz IVs is unlimited (mainstay of wehrmacht), but a max of 4 Panther, 2 Tiger and 1 Kingtiger are allowed.

Here compare the total build numbers of german tanks during WWII: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_M ... eltkrieges

So overall 1941-1945 the germans had built <20>30.000.
T-34/85 >25.000
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sowjetisch ... eltkrieges

Another at least 10k british builds:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britische_ ... eltkrieges

And another >20.000 M4 and consorts.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-amerika ... eltkrieges

Also from early 1943 on the majority of german tanks was actually destroyed ENROUTE to the front lines by allied bombings of train stations and roads.

AFAIK in 1944 only ~30% of build tanks reached the front.

That access restriction combined with a thoughful core unit number balance which should fit the size of battles (see example above) should be much better suited to ensure a unit variety if that is what you wish.

On the other hand I would suggest the "historic" approach. There are so many data available on the tanks and their combat values that the unit stats should definitely be largely influenced by those.

For one fact is that players expect PzC "somewhat" a WWII simulation.

Therefore I would also contradict against:
"I would be against increasing the Panther armor too much, too many late war German units have incredible armor already. "
The Panther had a nearly unpenetrable front armor for standard allied tanks. Even the T34s had to get close to be able to penetrate the front hull - this was not true for Pz IVs which could be destroyed by the majority of allied tanks even at firing distances above 1000m

And I would also disagree on giving the panther a speed bonus over the other german tanks - that would make it really much more a weapon of choice than adjusting the other stats.

I would only allow the M4 and T34/43 and T34/85 models a speed of 6 as these were comparably even better motorized than Panthers.

IMO another point of the historic approach would require to make the tanks overall much more vulnerable to taktical bombing.

Sorry out of time for now...

[Xitax]

It would encourage me to buy cheaper, less effective units if I get a prestige cost break. Maybe make lesser units a better value than elite units. If the cost is exactly equivalent to the unit's effectiveness I'll just buy the elite unit, but if I can get more "lesser" units I may consider buying a bunch of cheapos.

[Obsolete]

All this talk about trying to prevent players from just buying Kings. This sort of scares me, because it has always been everyone's goal in PG clones to get as many Tigers, Panthers, and Kings as much as possible.

In any case, if you really want to prevent higher concentrations of heavies, and force people to buy weaker stuff (arguably), one solution would be to add in weight slots in combination with the core slots. Each unit would have a measurement of weight, and once your weight slots are maxed out, you can't purchase any more units who's designated weight puts you over.

If you really wanted another King, then you'd have to sell off two or three PzIII's for example... etc.

This would be a new element to the PG clones, but many variations of this show up in Titan/Mech Warrior clones.

[Kerensky]

In MP...
I see the secret is to give the player a balanced core without the big heavy units. Then give them just enough prestige to buy a couple. Then have prestige as a shortage. This works well, otherwise they buy all the top notch units.

With a variety of the starting core, all the player has to do is fill it out.
...
...
...
...
Or you can give the player lots of prestige and let them buy all top notch units, only to find out they get very little prestige per turn. Thus they are unable to reinforce the top notch units. When playing against an opponent that has a balanced core they will have a good chance to loose because the opponent can reinforce and has more units, thus using mass attack advantage verses a few top notch units. On the second game the player will not buy all top notch units as they have learned that they will be overwhelmed by mass attacks and numbers.

I call it a 'high mystery' formula, and it actually works very well in practice for multiplayer. Give the player enough room in their core and enough prestige to buy their own units of choice, but not enough to simply load out all the best equipment. For example, the update of Urban Warfare starts each player with ~5000 prestige, which sounds like a lot (enough for 10 IS-2s) until you realize the players also start with 21 empty core slots.

Lemme tell you, games where my opponent loads up on expensive IS-2s and M26s and neglects cheaper tanks and infantry? Not going well for them, not one bit.


On the topic of balance, the best way, I think, to encourage diversity is to give more units reasons to be useful. There is no one 'best' tank that you always buy if u can afford it, as the case with the King Tiger currently is. There has to be a job the Panther does better than the King Tiger, and dare I say it, there has to be a job that multiple IVHs can do better than a single King Tiger can. Currently, there is none I can think of, especially because core slots are an extremely limited commodity in the current campaign. When units are balanced in this manner, then you will achieve your desired diversity.

[Razz1]

In MP...
I see the secret is to give the player a balanced core without the big heavy units. Then give them just enough prestige to buy a couple. Then have prestige as a shortage. This works well, otherwise they buy all the top notch units.

With a variety of the starting core, all the player has to do is fill it out.
...
...
...
...
Or you can give the player lots of prestige and let them buy all top notch units, only to find out they get very little prestige per turn. Thus they are unable to reinforce the top notch units. When playing against an opponent that has a balanced core they will have a good chance to loose because the opponent can reinforce and has more units, thus using mass attack advantage verses a few top notch units. On the second game the player will not buy all top notch units as they have learned that they will be overwhelmed by mass attacks and numbers.

On the topic of balance, the best way, I think, to encourage diversity is to give more units reasons to be useful.

This why I like larger maps for MP as you can do this through map design. Different objects, choke points and different starting locations etc.

For Example; if you have to split your army into two or three forces to meet the objectives, like in Operation Zitadell then a player will not benefit from buying top notch units. Why because they can not go three directions. Better off with lower units as you can buy three, one for each direction.

[Steakenglisch]

I 've played now 4 Multiplayer Maps and i agree to the point that the price difference between towed and motorized anti tank guns and artillery is too small, often the motorized units costs only 15 Prestige more, but its more mobile is also during move able to fight etc.

This is a point witch must be fixed.

Another Point is the Panther ... after playing al lot Campaigns in the Beta and now in RC i think the Panther is a lot too expensive, and the difference in speed/mobility between the Panther and the Tiger I and Tiger II is too small ... so if you have enough money it makes more sense to buy the heavier Tiger's ....

in the normal "small" maps you cant effectly use the Panthers like their T34 and T34-85 counterparts ...

there must be something fixed ... i suggest slow down the Tiger and Tiger II, and make the Panther a bit cheaper cause its a bit strange how expensive the Panther is when you look on Panther and Tiger I.

Also the Tac Bombers must be fixed, especially the highly precisive dive bombers needs a significant higher soft and hard attack ... in the Moment it is a bad joke that a Me109g makes often more damage against Tanks then a Stuka .... keep in mind a fighter is armed with MG's and small automatic cannons often only one ... and a Stuka is armed with MG's, Bombs, and the Kanonenvogel the G is armed with armor piercing 3,7cm guns too penetrate the thin topside of the Tanks .... when you look in military history books you will see that the dive bombers was used with devastating sucsses against ground and naval units ... (not only the germans also the us carrier based dive bombers in the pacific theatre)

[Obsolete]

I find myself avoiding Stukas as well. They just seem too weak to me.

[Steakenglisch]

I find myself avoiding Stukas as well. They just seem too weak to me.

yeah and thats a pity ... usually i like it to have a mixed Core Army with different Types of units ...

[Obsolete]

I could be wrong, but IIRC quite a few versions back they seemed more useful. Or maybe I just realized there were much better units around to purchase.

* Edit *
Oh yes, I think I remember now one of the big kick-to-the-groin issues. Stukas attacking infantry (and other non-anti-air units) often ended up with more casualties on themselves, than the unit they were attacking, IIRC. Haha.

[uran21]

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

Luckily I preserved data on movement that was included in first iterations of e-file so it is easy to turn back to it.

If based on references and including differences to be seen in stats movement for tracked vehicles would range from 2 to 8.
2 would be Maus and 8 would be M18 Hellcat.

Higher movement was changed together with spotting based on complains on this forum related to smaller maps.
Let as put aside that for now. Basing statistics on real differences is clear and neat and it has only couple of open questions related to units on the edge of the scale for two values. Speaking from gameplay point of view aren't some higher movements too powerfull and movement of 2 too restrictive?
4 is slow, 3 puts you on defensive actions unless involved in siege, 2 doesn't give you a chance for a decent retreat.
Value for movement of 6 is IMO more related to travelling trough rough terrain where in most cases your movement will cost you 2 points so you can move as fast as 3 hexes, very good for some outflanking manoeuvre or coming from the rear to be in action on time. 7 and 8 gives you a position to easily follow land transport vehicles. Any distance is not a problem with this.
So shouldn't there be a limit on the edges of the scale for movement for pure tactical reasons? Allowing from 3-6 would give enough room for differences but it would cut the edges, maybe making Hellcat exception as only unit with movement of 7.
Speaking of movement some towed weapons should be realistically at 0 but that 0 is not flexible enough.