T-34 vs Panzer III & IV

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:27 pm

deducter asked an interesting question:

How good is the T-34 compared to the German Panzers in the 41 DLC?

To put it bluntly, only the KV series can compete and the T-34 is IMO slightly inferior. The other Russian tanks are either crap or have at least a speed of 8, but they aren't comparable to the Panzer III and IV the player fields at this time

To give people some data about what we are talking here:

versus the Russian tanks (the "IVG" and "T34-43" were included though we are mostly talking about IIIH & IVF vs T-34/40 and later on T-34/41.)

Okay to put it bluntly:

Panzer IIIH and T-34/40 are about equal!
- same initiative
- 5SA vs 6SA, 9HA vs 8HA
- 10 GD vs 11 GD
Slightly better HA vs slightly better GD.

Panzer IVF vs T-34/40:
8SA, 7HA, 5 Initiative and 13! GD.
it's firing 7HA against 11 GD
The T-34/40 is firing it's 8 HA vs 13 GD
The higher GD makes the tank much more survivable in practice.
Given that Stukas mostly weaken the Russian tanks it often fares better than the Panzer III till the J/1 variant comes along.

The later IV/F-2 gets a HA of 13 but only 10 GD, making it vulnerable to the T-34/41.
The T-34/41 has a HA of 11. Which is exactly the GD value of the PzIIIJ/1.

My impression of the T-34s in the 41 campaign was that there were by far too many 40 models. The better 41 models would put up a MUCH better fight.
They would not be too imbalanced, as we still have Stukas who are more than an equalizer.

But what will happen in the 42 GC? The Panzer IVG with 13 HA and 14 GD will face T-34/41 with 11 HA and 12 GD.
That's clearly in favor of the Germans. Unless we will spend all of 1942 city fighting in Stalingrad or something like that. But that was not before August.

Summary:
- The Panzer IVF is a bit too good due to high GD and readily available to Germans
- There are too many T-34/40 in the 41 DLC. Make them 41 models
- In 1942, the Soviets hopefully field more KVs, as the T-34/41 is only about equal to the IV/F-2 and clearly outclassed by the IVG which will be available around August 1942.
- The legendary status of the T-34 is questionable if it is only about equal to the usual German Panzer III/IV I was always told to be lacking compared to the T-34.
- Gameplay and balancing wise I think +1/+2 GD and/or +1HA would help the T-34 immensely. I think it's mainly due to Stukas and Artillery and due to the predominant use of the "40" model that we stomp them so badly in the 41 DLC.

What do you think?

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:56 pm

Excellent post, very nice screenshots.

My thoughts are that the PzIV and the PzIII needs to have lower GD. PzIVF should have 9 GD, as should the PzIVF-2, and the PzIII should have 9 or 10.

Also buff the defense for T34/40 and T34/41, to like 13 and 14 respectively.

Keep in mind the Somua had GD of 11, Char B1 GD of 14, and the Matilda II GD of 15, back when PzIIIF (GD = 8!) and PzIVD (GD = 6!!!) were the best the Germans had. No wonder the armor clashes of DLC 40 felt intense.

Here, the opposite is true, the German tanks are superior to the best Soviet ones. That makes a far less compelling DLC, imo.

Edit: Don't forget experience will adds attack and defense bonuses for German units, along with overstrengthing.

Panzer IVF vs T-34/40:
8SA, 7HA, 5 Initiative and 13! GD.
it's firing 7HA against 11 GD
The T-34/40 is firing it's 8 HA vs 13 GD
The higher GD makes the tank much more survivable in practice.
Given that Stukas mostly weaken the Russian tanks it often fares better than the Panzer III till the J/1 variant comes along.

In reality, it's more like 9 HA firing against 11 GD, and 8 HA vs 16 GD.

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:18 pm

Great post! There is a poster on the forums that always shows up in discussions like these. He is pretty fanatical, but I do think he has a reasonable point that the German tank statistics represent certain intangibles like superior German doctrines and training and the fact that the Germans had radio communications while the Soviets didn't.

I do think there is plenty of room for adjustment though, especially with the 41 and 42 campaigns that will really put these units in the spotlight. In past games, especially Panzer General 2, the T34s were FAR superior to anything the Germans had. I think they went too far in that direction actually but I do think the T34 could stand a buff, I was surprised that it had lower armor than the German panzers, even with it's vaunted "sloped armor" that it was renowned for, but there should be some representation of the intangibles that favored the Germans.

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:20 pm

I think they went too far in that direction actually but I do think the T34 could stand a buff, I was surprised that it had lower armor than the German panzers, even with it's vaunted "sloped armor" that it was renowned for, but there should be some representation of the intangibles that favored the Germans.

This "intangibles" is the 3 star experience of the German panzers. Maybe it is just me, but I really felt the power of my experienced units rolling over everything.

It's the reason why I could afford elite reinforcements/overstrength on everything on Rommel, because I rarely ever took damage.

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:42 pm

deducter wrote:In reality, it's more like 9 HA firing against 11 GD, and 8 HA vs 16 GD.

Yeah the experience advantage and overstrength do nasty things, reminds me of Kerensky's posting about the advantages of experience in the main forum.

While my non-beta core has not yet reached the armor heavy scenarios of the 40 DLC due to beta testing the 41 DLC, we probably remember the beta test and the exciting armor battles:
The French and British tanks feel a lot more like the German Panzers should work against the T-34.
The early German tanks don't have much armor, but this is also the reason why they are rather vulnerable to Infantry early on regardless of terrain, rather low SA values and only 6 and sometimes 8 GD. The later models used for Barbarossa are much better Infantry killers due to improved tats.

The 13 GD of the Panzer IVF are IMO the main culprit. What are your experiences, I found it to be MUCH more effective in the 41 DLC than the IIIH/J/J1 models.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:17 pm

Ahh tank talk. Time to weigh in.

First off, what you are noticing is a symptom of the equipment file.

Previously, it looked like this (note the availability dates):
1163 T-34/40 1 357 6 37 6 2 0 6 6 8 0 1 11 10 2 1 3 T-34-40.png 16.3.1941 1.1.1946 0 rott
1164 T-34/41 1 386 10 60 6 2 0 7 7 11 0 1 12 11 2 1 3 T-34-40.png 15.6.1942 1.1.1946 0 rott
1165 T-34/43 1 491 10 88 6 2 0 9 8 12 0 1 15 13 2 1 3 T-34-43.png 13.8.1942 1.1.1946 0 rott

T34/40 has an early 1941 date, which is fine.
T34/41 has a mid 1942 date, which seems really late.
T34/43 has a mid 1942 date that is only 2 months different from the T34/41, which really seems like a problem.

After some research and confirming with the team. It now looks like this (note availability dates):
1163 T-34/40 1 357 6 37 6 2 0 6 6 8 0 1 11 10 2 1 3 T-34-40.png 16.3.1941 1.1.1946 0 rott
1164 T-34/41 1 386 10 60 6 2 0 7 7 11 0 1 12 11 2 1 3 T-34-40.png 15.1.1942 1.1.1946 0 rott
1165 T-34/43 1 461 10 88 6 2 0 9 8 12 0 1 15 13 2 1 3 T-34-43.png 8.7.1942 1.1.1946 0 rott

So, even after this change, the T-34/41 doesn't show up until Jan 1942. Hence why DLC 41 has a ton of T-34/40s and only a few T-34/41s show up in the final scenarios.

Oh, and the IVG will be available only 2 months before the T34/43 is available.
31 Panzer IVG 1 466 9 53 5 2 0 8 8 13 0 1 14 12 2 1 0 Panzer_IVF-2.png 16.5.1942 1.1.1946 0 Panzer IV Ausf. G rott PzIV

As a preview, DLC 1942 will spend roughly 1/2 of its time before Stalingrad and 1/2 of it's time in and after Stalingrad.
So expect only very rare T34/40s, mostly T34/41s, and then more and more T34/43s.

Maybe I can manually pre-place a few more T-34/41s into DLC 1941, that's not out of the question.

As for the IVF, dropping its defense value is also not out of the question. But then, isn't it to similar to the IVE? Can we make other stat changes that are historically accurate, if we reduce the IVF to say... 11 Ground Defense?

However:

These units are designed to be balanced against each other in an even playing field. Even experience, no heroes. The imbalance caused by campaign experience and heroes mode cannot be balanced by giving Russian units better stats. If done, Russian units in MP maps of 41-43 will be absolutely murderous.

(upon re-reading deducter: Buffing the defense of the T-34/40 and T-34/41... may not be out of the question.)

No offense, but a lot of you guys are sounding like Hitler did in 1941. "oh these Russians are terrible, stick the door and the whole rotten house will come crashing down"
But the Russians have surprised in store for you, many nasty surprises!

Even so, you have to remember one key point.
In a game, and especially in a campaign, you're supposed to win. Even when we get to the hopeless years of DLC 1944 and DLC 1945, the player is still supposed to win. If there's ever a Bagration/Balaton in the DLC campaigns and we absolutely destroy a player's core and ability to continue... how can we expect them to have any desire to continue with the next DLC pack?

In conclusion (TLDR):

Russian stats are not going to get improved, they are balance for fighting on equal footing.
It's only 1941, Germans are supposed to walk all over the Russians. In all of DLC 1941, no Russian units have experience, as is historical. (I did change Streets of Moscow and Demyansk though, all these Russians have base 100 experience in the upcoming update)
Throughout DLC 1942 and onwards, expect Russians units to have base line 100 experience, and then move up to 200 and possible even 300. (This should help counter the player, who's units will mostly be in the 200-400 range, given experience caps and the extremely high price of maintaining experience through elite replacements.)
You're supposed to win, especially in a super long campaign.

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:25 pm

All of this is fair enough, although the main reason why I am being vocal is that you had "unbalanced" units for DLC 40, and there was no problem with that. This suggests you are planning MP content around the units with these stats?

Personally I don't care as long as you have better modding support, so that loading custom files don't require overwriting the originals. Like if I want to make a campaign with ridiculously powerful T34s.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:35 pm

I've always been an advocate of balancing PVE and PVP seperately, even before Panzer Corps.
PVE in campaign play, PVP is multiplayer, in Panzer Corps terminology.

But we don't have this possibility yet, a lot of the team is concerned this will only confuse our players. (A T34 suddenly has different stats because I hit the single player button instead of multiplayer?)
That's their argument though, and I or anyone else has yet to convince them otherwise.

Personally, I don't see it as confusing to have two separate equipment files. It's not one game with 2 equipment files, we're selling 2 games with 2 equipment files in our one game.

You should be able to have custom files for content that don't overwrite the originals anymore, that should be possible as of 1.04.

And (me pesrsonally) I don't really have much intention to make MP scenarios based on 1940 France, partly because of the equipment imbalance you just stated, but I do very much want to create good 1941-1943 content along the lines of Hylan Valley, Urban Warfare, and The Frozen North (all of which are 1945 content).

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:22 pm

It's not only "PvE/PvP" to speak in MMO terms, we also have a third factor: historical accuracy

It's always going to be a foul compromise and I know several games where the PvE/PvP split happened after a while, there are always voices for or against that.

Okay, so we are going to find a satisfying foul compromise!

Let's argue... first, thanks for the info which T-34 will be available when.
The IV F/2 is available from 17.03.1942. PzIVG 16.05.1942. T-34/41 15.01.1942. T-34/43 08.07.1942.

I tell you it doesn't need a deducter or Kerensky to destroy lots of T-34/41. While the Panzer III/IV balance and also the balance and historical portrayal of units in comparison to them is excellent I still think the T-34 doesn't get enough LOVE. The T-34 is a legend, give it some buff love.

The balance in general is there, it is just the IVF vs T-34/40 issue that causes some issues. And the fact that the T-34/41 comes fairly late.
What to do? Some minor changes for major effect!

Panzer IVF and G: -1 or -2 GD for both
T-34/40: +2 GD, +1HA
T-34/41: +2 GD, +1HA (+maybe some more in the 41 DLC)
T-34/43: +1 GD, +1HA

I am not yet with my core past "The Hague" but I doubt I will suddenly rock through France just because I imported my Poland core this time.
Maybe deducter can tell us his assessment, but I got the impression the tank battles in the 40 DLC were tougher and more difficult than in the 41 DLC Russia.

The occasional KV-1A/B and KV-2 didn't stop me and they won't stop others either, somewhat stronger T-34 won't make the campaign too difficult IMO. You have not yet designed multiplayer maps for this time period, but I think they would profit from somewhat better T-34s as well.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:37 pm

Longasc wrote:It's not only "PvE/PvP" to speak in MMO terms, we also have a third factor: historical accuracy

I tell you it doesn't need a deducter or Kerensky to destroy lots of T-34/41. While the Panzer III/IV balance and also the balance and historical portrayal of units in comparison to them is excellent I still think the T-34 doesn't get enough LOVE. The T-34 is a legend, give it some buff love.

The balance in general is there, it is just the IVF vs T-34/40 issue that causes some issues. And the fact that the T-34/41 comes fairly late.
What to do? Some minor changes for major effect!

Panzer IVF and G: -1 or -2 GD for both
T-34/40: +2 GD, +1HA
T-34/41: +2 GD, +1HA (+maybe some more in the 41 DLC)
T-34/43: +1 GD, +1HA

For the record, historically accuracy is somewhat invisible to me in a game. It's a weakness of mine.

Even so, my own notes for some balance changes for 1.05...

IVF defense down to 11, some other stats go up to compensate
Karl Ger at name change
Stuh 42 redesign
T34/40 and T34/41 +1 defense or maybe +2

IVF I agree need a tone down on defense. But just a defense nerf means it is too similiar to a IVE though, so it may get boosts in other departments.

As for the T34s... I'm utterly unconvinced they need big changes of increased ground defense and attack.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop using experience to justify increasing base stats of enemy units. Part of why it's so outrageous that *some* people want experience to be even more powerful.

When you increase the HA and GD of the T34s... what is going to happen to these battles? Even worse, what is going to happen when T34s attack other targets? A half track in transport, or a recon car? The DLC campaigns have a very active AI that likes to go on the offensive. Not everyone is as good as the BETA testers we have, people could easily lose their favorite units in 1 shot encounters, with only a little RNG out of their favor. This will only get WORSE by buffing attack values.

So changing the defense values? Sure I'll bring it up with the rest of the team.
Change attack values? Probably out of the question. Wait for 2 and 3 star Russian units to show up, that will fix the problem of attack values I have no doubt.

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:40 pm

Maybe deducter can tell us his assessment, but I got the impression the tank battles in the 40 DLC were tougher and more difficult than in the 41 DLC Russia.

Well, I'll get to France soon enough in my AAR in the AAR subforum. Those 15 strength Somuas don't kill themselves...

But yeah, they are tough.

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:44 pm

Nerfing the defense of the panzers will have the effect of making the T34 have better attack, so that's fine.

I also recommend reducing the power of the StuG IIIB for v1.05, unless for some reason no one else agrees it is overpowered...

monkspider · Post by **monkspider** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:55 pm

Kerensky's points are well taken, especially regarding the effects of experience and the need to reflect historical realities of German domination in 1941. I think +1 or +2 defense to the T-34 and the other proposed changes should put things where they should be.

Deduct, I really didn't think the STUG was overpowered, it is quite useful, yes, but they still get slaughtered pretty easily by T-34s and even the light Soviet tanks seem like they can do a number on them. The amount of STUGs I went through in the campaign should speak to that. Do you have any particular experiences that stand out in making you think that they are overpowered? It is definitely a unique unit I will grant you, I don't think the Soviets or other nations have an analogous unit that I can think of.

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:04 am

OK convincing argument against raising HA values.

Good that the Gerat becomes a Gerät!

Regarding Ground Defense:

I definitely vote for +2 GD for T-34/40 & 41.
Dunno what you think about the IVF and G ground defense values, but lowering them only by -1 or -2 could improve gameplay:
Stronger incentive to use long barrel Panzer III and StuG IIIs.
The IVF's will soon become F-2's and Gs and I would argue their high HA attack would compensate the lack of armor compared to the T-34/41

Test scenario:

Panzer IVG vs T-34/41 (now)
13 HA vs 11 HA
14 GD vs 12 GD
Plus the PzIV has a slight initiative advantage as well.

with the suggested changes:
Panzer IVG vs T-34/41 (new)
13 HA vs 11 HA
12 GD vs 14 GD
-> can't help but that looks a lot better for the T-34 and much more equal. Would also be quite well balanced vs the T-34/43.

Ah well, could also become 13 GD for the IVG and 12 for the IVF or something like that.

Basically, +GD T34 and -GD Panzer IVF/G. The F-2 is already low enough with 10.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:08 am

Longasc wrote:Basically, +GD T34 and -GD Panzer IVF/G. The F-2 is already low enough with 10.

I whole heartedly agree with this assessment. I'll bring it up next time the Team sits down together to talk.

It's a shame this was a CLOSED forum thread, it's a really good one, and be fun to share with the community at large.

More then that, it's a good lesson how we can sometime act reasonably and agree on change after reviewing hard evidence.

deducter · Post by **deducter** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:12 am

Deduct, I really didn't think the STUG was overpowered, it is quite useful, yes, but they still get slaughtered pretty easily by T-34s and even the light Soviet tanks seem like they can do a number on them. The amount of STUGs I went through in the campaign should speak to that. Do you have any particular experiences that stand out in making you think that they are overpowered? It is definitely a unique unit I will grant you, I don't think the Soviets or other nations have an analogous unit that I can think of.

My StuG IIIB were all 3 stars, so that's 13 GD vs. 8 HA for T34/40. Once, one of mine was attacked twice by tanks and once by conscripts, when it was in a swamp, and it still survived (with 3 str). The other thing is their insane firepower that is amazing when covering my own tanks, so that any attempts to attack me were just crushing defeats for the Soviets. They also have 8 ammunition and 110% rate of fire, and cost a mere 221 prestige. Maybe I'm just using them in a particularly effective way though...

Longasc · Post by **Longasc** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:14 am

The StuG IIIB is a really good unit, almost worth its own thread though.

Other nations need something like that as well, put a StuG in the middle of infantry or tanks and you raise their survivability and support their offense immensely through artillery fire and extra fort busting capabilities.

As I really <3 this unit I don't want to nerf it but I have to agree with deducter, it's too good. I had this impression several times during the 41 campaign, there is almost no situation where the StuG IIIB isn't an extremely valuable helper.

P.S. Infantry attacking a StuG IIIB might not fire a single shot. Boom! Suppressed. The same for units defended by the StuG.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:26 am

If you want to talk StuG, I recommend a new thread.

Some points to keep in mind about the StuG:

It has drawbacks, especially very poor artillery range. It's hardly an artillery unit at all, its a support unit.

Sure it's great in 1941 when it's brand new, but what happens when T34/43s, T34/85s, and other heavier armor starts to show up?
What will become of your StuG IIIBs, upgrade into StuH42 I assume, but what makes you think the StuH42 is going to be good at supporting units against armored attack?
So as great as the IIIB, what will become of it in the future? Somehow I don't see it being overpowered, let alone useful, in 1942 or 1943 or beyond.

(Part of why Im thinking the StuH42 needs an overhaul, maybe it *should* be the direct upgrade over the StuGIIIB.)

charonjr · Post by **charonjr** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:11 pm

Since historically only the 8.8 was reliably able to penetrate the T34 armor at combat range I tend to agree that the defense value does look too low.

Tarrak · Post by **Tarrak** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:57 pm

charonjr wrote:Since historically only the 8.8 was reliably able to penetrate the T34 armor at combat range I tend to agree that the defense value does look too low.

Have a look at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3&start=15