Balance Changes include with the DLC Package

[Kerensky]

As a heads up, the base game is also receiving a significant amounts of tweaks to help adjust the current content but also to pave the way for future content.
For the time being while we are still NDA, please restrict all comments, tests, and feedback regarding these changes to this forum.


Be warned, this is not a small list, and this is not the entire list either, there are a few other details I'm sure I missed.
The StuGIV, for example, is now a base line ATG unit with an optional ARTY mode.
In addition, there have been some pretty significant price changes as well, medium tanks especially have become less expensive, and heavy tank and heavy anti-tank have increased in price.
As an example, the Panzer IVH is no longer more expensive than the Jagdpanther. As awesome as the Jagdpanther was to play with, this situation was quite silly.
Towed Anti-tank units got a price drop, and all ATG got an initiative rework. Instead of a -3 to attack, it's now a +3 to defense. Initiative of all ATG units have been reduced accordingly.




Summary:

Reduce invulnerability of heavy armor against tactical bombers. Kill for best tactical against best armor should be roughly 20% (0-2 prediction, given equal experience open terrain clear skies.) Up from the current 5-14% kill chance we currently have.
Increase viability of medium tanks so there is good reason to want something other than ALL heavy armor
Promote additional use of units that traditionally do not see use.
Plan ahead to complete balance changes necessary for future East front DLC campaigns.
Raise Soviet Aircraft to a level historically appropriate but one that is also suitable for effectively engaging the Luftwaffe.

On to the Show.
GD means ground defense. AD means air defense. CD Means close Defense. SA Means soft attack. HA means hard attack.

German units changes:
Infantry:
+1 initiative to all 1943 variants of infantry

Tank:
Panther D release date changed to May 1943
Panther D AD to 15
Panther A AD to 15
Panther G AD to 16
Tiger I AD to 17
Tiger II CD to 5 AD to 18
Maus AD to 20 CD to 6
Panzer IIIN CD to 4 SA to 9 Ammo to 7 HA to 7
Panzer IVH GD to 16
Panzer IVJ GD to 17
Panzer IIIL SA to 6
Panzer IIIM GD to 15 SA to 7
SE unit changes:
+1 ammo for all SE tanks and infantry
SE Panzer IIIN will now have 8 ammo +1 over the base model, which has been increased to 7.

Add expiration date 1/1/43 to the following SE units:
SE Infantry
SE Grenadier
SE Mountain Infantry
SE IIIF
SE IIIG
SE IIIH
SE IIIJ
SE IVD
SE IVE
SE IVF

Recon:
233 8Rad GD to 8
234/1 8D GD to 12
234/8RAD GD to 10
Panzer II Luchs GD to 10 SA to 6 HA to 6

Anti-tank:
88 FlaK 36, ground defense to 6 also apply to air defense model
Jagdtiger AD to 18 Ammo to 5
Jagpanther AD to 16
Elephant AD to 18
Nashorn initative to 13
Marder IIA release date September 1941 GD to 10 ammo to 7
Marder IID release date Feburary 1942 ammo to 5
Marder IIIH release date July 1942 GD to 13 SA to 6 ammo to 7
Marder IIIM release date March 1943 GD to 11 SA to 2 ammo to 7 HA to 15
StuG IIIF release date March 1942 ammo to 7, SA to 3
StuG IIIF/8 release date July 1942 GD to 15 ammo to 6 SA to 3 HA to 15
Stug IIIG release date January 1943 GD to 16 ammo to 7 HA to 16 initiative to 10
StuG IV in anti-tank mode GD to 15 HA to 15 initiative to 11
StuH42 in anti-tank mode GD to 15 ammo to 5 SA to 10 HA to 5 initiative to 7

Artillery:
StuG IIIA Remove no purchase flag release date May 1st 1940 Ammo to 7, HA to 8 (stats TBD)
StuG IIIB Add no purchase flag Release date June 1940, ammo to 8, initiative to 5, HA to 9 (stats TBD)
StuG IV in artillery range to 2 HA to 10 GD to 15
StuH42 in artillery range to 2 ammo to 5 GD to 15 SA to 12 HA to 5
Wespe Ammo to 6
Hummel Ammo to 5

Fighter:
Me163 fuel to 30




Tactical bomber:
Stuka G Ha to 13 (reduction here is vital)
Me410 HA to 8 Air attack to 16
FW 190F SA to 8 HA to 6

Stragetic bomber:
None

American units:
Infantry:
+1 initiative to all 1943 variants of infantry

Anti tank:
M36 Jackson AD to 12 GD to 15
Recon:
M8 Greyhound GD to 10 AD to 9 HA to 7
Tank:
M4A3E2 AD to 12
M4A3E2(76) AD to 12
M26 AD to 16 Air Attack to 0

British units:
Infantry:
+1 initiative to all 1943 variants of infantry

Recon:
Daimler AC GD to 10 AD to 10
Humber AC GD to 9 AD to 8
Anti-tank:
Achillies initiative to 12 AD to 11

Tank:
Firefly AD to 13
Challenger AD to 13
Comet AD to 16
Churchill IV and VI AD to 14
Churchill VII AD to 17


Soviet Union:
Infantry:
+1 initiative to all 1943 variants of infantry
Regulars SA to 3
Mountain SA to 3 initiative to 1
Soviet Para SA to 4 initiative to 2

Tanks:
KV-2 SA to 10, HA to 8 price to 545 GD to 18 AD to 12, initiative 5
T34/40 SA to 6, HA to 8, fuel to 37, ammo to 6, AD to 10 cost to 357 initiative to 6
T34/41 SA to 7, HA to 11, fuel to 60, GD to 12 cost to 386
T34/43 HA to 12, initiative to 9, GD to 15 AD to 13 (roughly equal footing to a PZ IVH, with a weaker gun) Price to 491
T34/85 initiative to 12, GD to 17 AD to 15
KV1a AD to 12 GD to 16 SA to 6 HA to 8 initiative to 7
KV1b AD to13 GD to 18 CD to 3 SA to 7 HA to 11
KV2c AD to 14 GD to 20 CD to 4 HA to 12 initiative to 9
IS-2 AD to 18 CD to 5 SA to 11
KV-5 maintain nopurchase flag cost 725 ammo 4 SA 10 HA 14 Air attack 0 Naval attack 1 Movement 3 spotting 1 Range 0 Initiative 7 GD 24 AD 18 CD 1
Target type hard Fuel 39
Anti-tank:
SU-100 AD to 15
ISU-122 ATG mode AD to 17
ISU-152 ATG mode AD to 16
SU-152 ATG mode AD to 14


Recon:
BA-64 GD to 9, AD to 11

Artillery:
76.2mm M1942 SA to 8
ISU-122 ARTY mode AD to 17
ISU-152 ARTY mode AD to 16
SU-152 ARTY mode AD to 14


Air defense:
No changes

Fighters:
Yak-7 Somewhere between the 109F and 109G in combat performance.
LA-5, The Historical fighter that the Russian used to answer the threat of the Fw190, will have stats roughly equal (slightly inferior) to the FW190A
Yak-3 around the 109G and 109K (possibly equal to or better than 109K) in combat performance
Yak 9D slightly inferior to the LA-7, roughly equal to the FW190A
LA-7 superior to the FW190A
Yak 9U slightly superior to the LA-7

Yak 7 Air attack 13 initiative 8 AD 16
LA5 air attack 17 initiative 9 AD 17
Yak 3 air attack 16 initiative 11 AD 16
Yak 9D air attack 19, initiative 11 AD 17
LA-7 Air attack 21, initiative 10 AD 20
Yak 9U air attack 22, initiative 12 AD 19

Tactical bombers:
IL-10 air attack to 11

Strategic Bombers:
IL-4 air attack to 9
PE=8 air attack to 11

[OmegaMan1]

Promote additional use of units that traditionally do not see use.

I am very eager to see this expanded. One of the nice things about the DLC campaigns was playing with (and getting a better appreciation of) units that I overlooked in the original campaign (for instance, cavalry and AT units). I like the idea that every unit in the game can have a possible use, and not just serve as a throw-away or placeholder until a more advanced upgrade comes along.

[deducter]

I've always wonder whether you should actually balance T34s to be cheaper as time goes on, as was historically true. A T34 would be more prestigious to get in 41 than in 44, if you think about it. The Soviets really focused on getting their main battle tank to be as cheap as possible. I understand from a perspective of unit stats, the better one should cost more, so in multiplayer, this probably makes sense, but it always bugged me that in single player this is not true. Especially now that you have the new campaign system, so each campaign can have separate equipment files.

Although I guess, this is probably moot, because most of the units are already set in SP, and I don't think the AI is yet sophisticated to be able to buy "battle groups," like a human would.

Edit: I like the StuG changes. I thing I forgot to mention is that the Wurfrahmen needs to be much more expensive than the current 345 prestige, it needs to be like 500ish, like its counterpart in the Soviet army. In fact it is better, since it is a tracked unit. It would still be quite useful after this change, but now players will have the option of going for lower attack, but much better defense/dual mode assault guns as their 2 range mobile artillery, or the high-power, but low-defense wurfrahmen. As it currently is, wurfrahmen is I feel too cheap for its power (combination of good speed, relatively low price, and excellent attack).

[Razz1]

I don't like the changes on the Marders. They were tin cans and should be very weak in GD.

A Marder should NOT be able to stand up to a tank or infantry unit.

I also, don't like cheaper Artillery.

Makes players spam them.

MP ends up being a slug fest WWI

[Kerensky]

I've always wonder whether you should actually balance T34s to be cheaper as time goes on, as was historically true. A T34 would be more prestigious to get in 41 than in 44, if you think about it. The Soviets really focused on getting their main battle tank to be as cheap as possible. I understand from a perspective of unit stats, the better one should cost more, so in multiplayer, this probably makes sense, but it always bugged me that in single player this is not true. Especially now that you have the new campaign system, so each campaign can have separate equipment files.

Although I guess, this is probably moot, because most of the units are already set in SP, and I don't think the AI is yet sophisticated to be able to buy "battle groups," like a human would.

Edit: I like the StuG changes. I thing I forgot to mention is that the Wurfrahmen needs to be much more expensive than the current 345 prestige, it needs to be like 500ish, like its counterpart in the Soviet army. In fact it is better, since it is a tracked unit. It would still be quite useful after this change, but now players will have the option of going for lower attack, but much better defense/dual mode assault guns as their 2 range mobile artillery, or the high-power, but low-defense wurfrahmen. As it currently is, wurfrahmen is I feel too cheap for its power (combination of good speed, relatively low price, and excellent attack).

Well prestige does not mean money, so production cost of a unit doesn't really factor into the T34s. I'm not completely convinced each campaign can have its own equipment file (maybe they can I dunno yet) but even if they can, changing equipment on a campaign by campaign basis is not something we plan to do for official content. The confusion factor would go through the roof, nevermind trying to figure out where and how to document this information for our players. I personally would enjoy the idea of a separate equipment files for single and multiplayer (I've always been a champion of needing to balance PVE and PVP independently from each other even before Panzer Corps), but it's just not feasible at this point.

Besides, the price of a T34 is irrelevant in campaign design. The AI is improved, but that's because I removed most of it's burden of thought. I pretty much guarantee you will see a lot more T34/43s in the entire course of the DLC Grand Campaigns than you will T34/40s, and price has no effect on that.

As for the Wurfrahmen, sure it's powerful, but its low ammo and extreme frailty keep it in check. Might be something to watch for in the future though.

I don't like the changes on the Marders. They were tin cans and should be very weak in GD.

A Marder should NOT be able to stand up to a tank or infantry unit.

I also, don't like cheaper Artillery.

Makes players spam them.

MP ends up being a slug fest WWI

Well then you have nothing to worry about. The best Marder has lower Ground Defense than the worst StuG.

And you misread the words 'medium tanks' as 'artillery'.

In addition, there have been some pretty significant price changes as well, medium tanks especially have become less expensive, and heavy tank and heavy anti-tank have increased in price.

[Kerensky]

Although I guess, this is probably moot, because most of the units are already set in SP, and I don't think the AI is yet sophisticated to be able to buy "battle groups," like a human would.

Bingo.

[deducter]

But the equivalent Soviet 20 SA rocket launcher is 500ish prestige. It may have 8 move, but it's wheeled, which unless it is on a road will move slower than a 6 track unit. How do you justify such a large difference in prestige like that, especially since the 30% cheaper unit is superior in movement?

[Kerensky]

But the equivalent Soviet 20 SA rocket launcher is 500ish prestige. It may have 8 move, but it's wheeled, which unless it is on a road will move slower than a 6 track unit. How do you justify such a large difference in prestige like that, especially since the 30% cheaper unit is superior in movement?

I don't know if it's right or justifiable, but I do know it hasn't changed from what it used to be.
Part of the balance game is player perception. Personally I've said time and time again the King Tiger isn't so bad to deal with (and proved it in theorycraft and with actual documented games) but the perception is that it is overpowered. So it got balance attention. Price went up, Close and Air Defense both went down.

We haven't really seen or heard any perceptions of Wufrahmen being overpowered, and I personally haven't noticed any in my games. Sure it's strong, but it's hardly all purpose. You can't just buy Wufrahmen if you hope to be successful, a mix of 3 range towed guns is generally important to have in addition to Wufrahmen. I guess you might say, when comparing it to the BM31, that it slipped through the cracks of direct stat to price balancing, but there's more to balance then direct stat to prices relationships.

Overall unit performance and relative unit performance has to be measured as well, otherwise you end up with that old problem we had of the PZ IVH being more expensive than a Jagdpanther, which was absolutely preposterous given their actual performance.

[deducter]

Well, it's just so many other things in the game is balanced that I must reiterate this point. I don't think the stats of the Wurfrahmen is overpowered, but in general, German units are better than any other equivalent, AND they are more expensive, as they should be. Why should this particular artillery be not only significantly cheaper, but superior in mobility, than its Soviet counterpart? That's the part that bugs me. If you lower the prestige of the Soviet equivalent to around 300ish prestige, that would work great too. But as it currently stands, it is rather silly.

[Kerensky]

I am very eager to see this expanded. One of the nice things about the DLC campaigns was playing with (and getting a better appreciation of) units that I overlooked in the original campaign (for instance, cavalry and AT units). I like the idea that every unit in the game can have a possible use, and not just serve as a throw-away or placeholder until a more advanced upgrade comes along.

Well this also depends on the map content, but I'm more than confident we should be able to pull off the desired effect.
Some of the best examples of this are the PZIIIN and StuH42.

The PZIIIN has the highest soft attack available to German tanks (9, a match with the Tiger)
It has second highest close defense available to German tanks (4, a match with the Tiger)
But it weighs in at a almost half the price. The reduced price obviously come from reduced armor, initiative, and hard attack abilities.
It has better speed and fuel over the Tiger I, albeit less ammo.

In campaign play, unless prestige is really tight or people went for a Panzer III family upgrade discount, odds are players will prefer the Tiger I. But the Pz IIIN also is available sooner (the release date is prior to Stalingrad, tank with anti-soft and high close defense attributes hint hint)

And in multiplayer, where prestige is ALWAYS tight in a evenly matched game against another skilled opponent, I'm definitely going to reach for the Panzer IIIN as a cheap soft target killer instead of a lumbering Tiger I. Throw in some Marders to take on enemy armor and pair them with Panzer IIINs, and that sounds like a pretty strong combo for a 1942 multiplayer scenario.

And then there's the StuH42, which has even more soft attack rating in direct fire mode, but it comes with the bonus artillery mode, which might come in handy. Imagine a team of StuH 42s. Half of them in arty mode, the other half in direct fire mode, or as need requires, more or less can switch into their opposite role. Who needs infantry anymore?

But obviously infantry are still important, because the poor StuH 42 is a terrible tank killer.

The StuGIV was made into the companion to the StuH 42. Both of them have artillery modes, but in direct fire, the StuG IV is a hard target killer, and the StuH42 is a soft target killer.

[OmegaMan1]

Some of the best examples of this are the PZIIIN and StuH42.

Excellent examples! The PzIIIN is EXACTLY what I'm talking about -- perhaps not as glamourous as the Tiger, but still an effective (and affordable) unit that can serve a useful role (in this case as an excellent soft target killer). This will really improve PzC as the game evolves, as game-winning strategies will involve more than just buying the biggest and baddest units, and instead rely on a good mix of units to get the job done.

[Razz1]

Every game I have played has always made the PZ IVD the infantry killer.

I'd like to see the PZ IVD better than the PZIIIN. A higher SA for the PZ IVD would be nice.

[Kerensky]

Why should a 1940 model tank be superior to a 1942 tank?

Currently, I use the IVF in multiplayer. For only a little more cost than the IVD, it gains a lot of survivability.
The restructure of the IIIN provides a similar, but more improved and focused (more SA, more CD) anti-soft role for the Panzer III family. Historically, the IIIN was designed to be a close support tank after all.

[Razz1]

I was just commenting about the change.
Keeping one PZIII as a good tank is good.
I also use the PZIVF, but just stating how other games use the PZIVD

Edit: I also would like to see a reason to keep a PZ 3 around for hard attack. Perhaps make the PZIIIM HA 13

[Longasc]

I like the change to air defense for Tigers, Panthers etc.
Initiative +1 for Infantry: will have to test this.
The Luchs change is good though I still wonder if people will use it.

What I don't understand is StuGs and Marders.

Soft Attack even worse for the F-StuGs, 3 instead of 4? I often stated that I think they suck mainly because their Soft Attack is so weak that they can't even shoot Infantry in open terrain. Marder IIIH gets 6 SA, the IIIM 2 SA? The later IIIM is something I would never ever buy. The IIIH on the other hand is much more versatile due to the decent 6 SA. 2 SA is a compelling reason (for me) not to buy the Marder, even if it is intended as dedicated tank destroyer.

To put it bluntly, one T-34 model also got reduced SA, did a General of the Infantry influence Kerenksy or what happened. Can't quite follow the SA changes to tanks and making the AT units even weaker in terms of SA.

[Kerensky]

If a StuG has excellent SA in addition to HA and GD, why have anything else ever?


Well if we look at a late 1942 map, we have the following 'top tier' units.

Panzer IIIN
Panzer IVG

Marder IIIH
StuG F/8

StuH42

The Panzer IIIN has the 2nd best soft attack and best close defense, but the 2nd worst HA, behind the StuH42 in ATG mode.
The Panzer IVG has good all around stats, but it does not have the best stat in any category.
The Marder IIIH has good all around stats again, but it does not have the best stat in any category either.
StuG F/8 has the best GD and HA, but it has the worst SA of all these units at a paltry 3.
StuH42 has the best SA at a 10 and the ability to switch to artillery mode, but it suffers with a terrible hard attack value.

So which is the best unit? There isn't one.

The IIIN is a tank suited to anti-soft combat.
The IVG is a tank that is suited to all roles, but excels at none.
The IIIH is an anti-tank that is suited to all roles, but excels at none.
The StuG F/8 is the best hard target hunter, but fails utterly against soft targets or fighting in entrenched areas.
The STuH42 has the best anti-soft capabilities, but fails against hard targets.

Some people who like all purpose units will go with a combination of Panzer IVGs, and Marder IIIHs. Their abilities are pretty universal and very interchangeable for the most part.
Other people who prefer specialized equipment will prefer the combination of the IIIN and the StuG F/8. Whatever the IIIN can't handle, the StuG should be able to demolish, and visa versa.

So sure some units lost their ability to deal with soft targets, even in open terrain, but they have been given complimentary units.
'All purpose' units is part of the problem we have right now. There's no reason to buy anything except the best, so people only use a tiny fraction of the available units.

[El_Condoro]

Well prestige does not mean money, so production cost of a unit doesn't really factor into the T34s. I'm not completely convinced each campaign can have its own equipment file (maybe they can I dunno yet) but even if they can, changing equipment on a campaign by campaign basis is not something we plan to do for official content. The confusion factor would go through the roof, nevermind trying to figure out where and how to document this information for our players. I personally would enjoy the idea of a separate equipment files for single and multiplayer (I've always been a champion of needing to balance PVE and PVP independently from each other even before Panzer Corps), but it's just not feasible at this point.

There wouldn't need to be separate efiles for something like this - just have 3 (?) T-34 entries that use the availability dates to modify the cost changes. I'm not sure it's worth it, either, given the variations of T-34 that exist now, but it could be done without separate efiles for each campaign.

[Kerensky]

Actually, those notes are slightly out of date.
The Marder IIIH has only 3 SA, it was reduced.

Anti-tank units as a general rule in Panzer Corps simply don't have strong SA values. The top end German is the Jagdtiger at a 7, and that's really not very high.

[Longasc]

I memorized the numbers and loaded the Kursk scenario and how I would use the StuG III's in it with the new stats.

StuGIII: 16 GD and 16 HA make it a very good tank killer. Especially combined with the new initiative rule for them and the extra ammo.
I concede that the StuG IIIG would work nicely with these stats. The extra GD also helps against soft targets when attacking, to take fewer or no losses.
The F: See below, SA3 is really damn low.

I am arguing from a campaign game point of view rather than multiplayer. Marders might have a point as tank destroyers in MP or when given as aux units, but nobody would buy them as they are not that much cheaper than StuGs and overall worse, especially in regards of SA.

-> One can argue there are other units for soft attack/targets but I believe that soft attack values below 4 make any unit extremely undesirable for core units especially. Is the Close Defense penalty not enough for StuGs? (compared to tanks)


The other thing regarding Marders is what others already pointed out. They almost get StuG like armor to make them more viable, but if they almost cost as much as a StuG I would rather buy the StuG IIIG or go for a Panzer IV. Maybe they work better for a cheaper price and strong HA punch, but with horrible ground defense.

[Kerensky]

I have a feeling limited SA shouldn't be that much of a campaign problem.
Once we explore more of 1941 1942 and 1943 this should be especially clear.

The current campaign has a ratio of about something like 5:1 or 4:1 of enemy infantry to enemy tanks. Even that Kursk scenario has a ton of soft targets and relatively few Soviet tanks.
Out of 81 total Soviet units, there are only 18 tanks, including SU anti-tank/artillery units.

The DLC campaigns have a ratio of infantry to tanks of probably 2:1 or 3:1.