Tank Destroyer / Jagdpanzer

[Lut]

Does anybody else have the opinion that the german TDs are unbalanced?

Especially the following units:

Elefant => CD of 2! Introduced in 07/43 the ferdinand did not even had a machine gun - was equipped with one after the losses at kursk because of infantry attacks. but even after that upgrade - now elefant - it was not a unit I would give a CD of 2...

JagPz IV/48 => low ini compared to Marder, Stug IIIG and Stug IV... low GD compared to Stug III...

Jagdtiger => low HA - the first ones were equipped with the 88L71 (HA 24) and the 128 should have more hitting power than the 88 - with the 128mm i would expect to have a lower ini because of the lower fire-rate (splitted ammo) but higher HA

Hetzer => low ini ... the hetzer had a very low silouette and was not an easy target for the enemy... should have a higer ini because of his ambush capability

only my 50cent

[wastel]

Have to agree your opinion.
especially the Elefant and Jagdtiger issue i recognized too after i sah their stats for the first time.

Wastel

[soldier]

Elefant was a different kettle of fish to the Ferdinand's fielded at Kursk. They had a commanders cupola, machine gun and were coated in zimmerit paste to stop some explosive weapons sticking to the sides (although this did make them even heavier ) . Many AT weapons are not even capable of penetrating either vehicles armour so i think CD of 2 is probably fair enough.

[Lut]

Hi soldier,

even with the upgrades converting the ferdinand to elefant I would not use them in close combat fighting. They are still clumsy like a pregnat cat, no turret to use the main weapon in different directions and only one machingun pointing forward.

Hit the tracks and any TD is useless as long as the enemy is not coming from 12 o`clock - a tank can still move the turret and use 2x machinguns. Also not ideal but nevertheless better than the TD.

As long a PzIVF has a CD of 2 - for me an elefant is not more than a 1... maybe a 0...

cheers

[soldier]

Its true elefant is too fat and too slow for its own good and cannot fight back effectively but its SA is poor and it gets a combat penalty against troops. What it does have is armour and a hell of a lot of it. Its nearly 3 times thicker than a Pz IV all round and this must count for something.

Theres a pretty narrow margin for CD ratings in Panzer Corps but if the open top tank destroyers like Marder and Nashorn score 1 CD then closed elefant weighing nearly 70 tons, should probably score 2. Even a well lofted grenade will disable the former in close combat but is completely useless against the latter.

Later model Pz IV tanks like the J and H with side skirts get CD of 3 anyway, which seems fair enough.

[captainjack]

At present I pick a Jagdtiger only if I need to block a narrow access and have a spare 2 or 3* AT gun to upgrade, but otherwise stick with Elefants where I need something durable and hard hitting. It probably should have higher HA to acknowledge the hitting power of the 128 gun - I could accept a point or two lower INI than at present for the lower rate of fire, although this would be largely compensated for by the high effective range. I'm almost tempted to argue Range 1 for so there's a tine chance of a Range +1 hero if it wouldn't overpower it so much....

I haven't played much using 1.20 and 1.21, so I'm not too familiar with how the class-specific adjustments improve AT effectiveness. However, this wouldn't cover apparent anomalies between different variants in the same class illustrated by the Hetzer vs Jagdpanzer IV debate. I'll leave this subject to more knowledgeable people to discuss.

CD seems to be a bit of an oddity because it is always low so you can't have a lot of graduations. There are some examples where the logic is clear - my personal favourite is tha Mk 1 Cruiser having CD3 to reflect the extra MG turrets, needing some careful thought when teh Mark 4 comes out about whether to rate CD ahead of INI and speed - and some others where it isn't - again my present favourite example is the CD5 on M3 and M5 light tanks which seems too generous, although as a general rule I can accept light tanks having relatively high CD compared with heavier ones, due to increased speed and turning ability and probably rate of fire (argiung for higher CD for early Panzer 2). This could take a bit of effort to resolve for all current tank variants. In contrast, the Ferdinand/Elefant issue could be dealt with relatively easily by bringing in Ferdinand as an early variant with CD0 or CD1, upgradeable to Elefant with CD2.

[Iscaran]

As posted I dont think there is so much of a problem with the JT or Elefant stats....

but from my gaming experience the "light" late war TDs of the germans are totally useless due to their comparable either ultra low ini OR ultra low GD. (or both).

The Hetzer was basically a Pz 38t chassis with a long barrel 75L48 gun (late Pz IV gun)...it had comparable very low silhouette and also an improved muzzle dampening too obscure the firing of the gun better.

IMHO that would mean to give it a at least higher initiative then a Pz IVH/J (or at least similar) and also a similar HA.

The JP IV/48 and JP IV/70 basically rely on a Pz IV chassis so similar GD values would be good and used the same gun as hetzer (IV/48) and the same gun as Panther (IV/70) so similar HA values would be an idea.

Initiative wise I think especially the IV/48 is totally underscored ...but then thats just my feeling from the game.#

EDIT: Just checked the ingame values directly and must say the ini of 6 for the JP IV/48 seems rather low since the any Pz IV since the f2 has 8 or higher. So an 8 or even 9 would be in order I think. Also the GD value = 10...any Pz IV comparable to that time frame has a 14 - 17.

EDIT2: " In contrast, the Ferdinand/Elefant issue could be dealt with relatively easily by bringing in Ferdinand as an early variant with CD0 or CD1, upgradeable to Elefant with CD2."
I like that idea - there is a lack of "upgrade paths" in the TD tree anyway (kind of except the Stug series)

[ThvN]

As a little consideration, one of the problems with comparing the INI is the fact that AT units get a +3 bonus when attacked by tanks/recon units. If AT units attack they use their normal INI. I guess in order to balance things a bit the INI of AT units was lowered, although some values are still rather low.

The Jagdpanzer IV/48 is very poor in the game, and the IV/70 strangely has much higher GD, which should be comparable as the hull was the same. In fact, the Jagpanzer was a smaller target and had a thick 80mm sloped front, giving more protection then the vertical 80mm plate of the later Panzer IV, and the rest of the armour was comparable.

Interestingly, try comparing the Jagdpanzer IV/48 to the AT (switched) version of the StuG IV, which is (in the game) a vastly better vehicle, while it should be a bit worse instead.

[Lut]

Dear all,

good discussion - good points.

The +3ini if being attacked by a tank/recon is only a theoretical advantage because the td`s can`t hide and can`t be in ambush position before (other topic I started).
Because of that it is very unlikly that the TDs can use this advatage.

=> TD will never be attacked by tanks wihout being strafed by air and bombard by artillery before.

For me there are two options:
- give them a chance to put them into an "ambush" mode (other topic)
- treat them as mines - only visible when a unit is next to the td or ran into it before, afterwards the air/artillery can start but first shot by the Td

[Iscaran]

- give them a chance to put them into an "ambush" mode (other topic)
- treat them as mines - only visible when a unit is next to the td or ran into it before, afterwards the air/artillery can start but first shot by the Td

IMO this is too severe and impacts with current game mechanics too much thus would require a thorough rebalancing. Whilst many other TDs / Tanks are quite good as they are - I looked up the figures yesterday a little more in detail and I think what the JP IV/48 really lacks is the armor of its Pz IV counterparts... with a GD of 14 and maybe an initiative of +1 this tank would be a real option.

Similar with hetzer....its just not cheap enough for the late war and is of totally no use when it is "released". Since it even fails to stop (means dealing 1:1 dmg to it) an M4 or T-34 and even struggles with the lower light tanks.

Especially when comapred to the Stug IV the JP IV should be even stronger then that since it even has a 35cm lower silhouette then the Stug IV ! (and comparable Stug IIIG).

The JP IV/48 despite being based on the Pz IV chassis had a complete overhaul of its armor...so actually I doubt the armor (GD) value of it should be that much lower then that of a Pz IV.

So again I would favor an increase in GD value to something >10 (maybe 14) but even higher might be an option.

[Horst]

I’ve tested once the camouflage trait for units like infantry and anti-tank. While it might be a cool idea, the AI is pretty stupid and can be exploited easily with invisible units.
I once had a camouflaged infantry unit in a city. The AI kept sending one unit after the other into this city tile and got smashed by ambushes. Without a little memory for the AI, camouflage simply puts too much favour to the player’s side. Too bad.

When I first saw the vanilla stats of tanks, I immediately started creating my own stats conversion system. I have sometimes absolutely no idea how you could come to such weird differences of quite similar models. I guess it has nothing to do with realism anymore and is often a more arcade thinking that a later unit must be somehow more powerful than earlier ones.

[Iscaran]

Hmmm - I was thinking about a similar modding approach myself. Kind of a "real simulation" PzC. What conversion system do you use can you perhaps send me the description behind it ?

[Horst]

Hmmm - I was thinking about a similar modding approach myself. Kind of a "real simulation" PzC. What conversion system do you use can you perhaps send me the description behind it ?

I always create my own systems which are typically not compatible to vanilla stats. If available, I gather the data from websites or use more or less common formulae also from the web to roughly calculate the missing stats, like effective armor strength and explosive/penetration power. Such systems are typically created with Excel or whatever spreadsheet program.
You start with easy stats like Spotting and Movement conversion and break your head later on complex initiative, attack and defense values. Plenty design decisions have to be made like how much height of vehicles contributes to initiative and defense values. The cool thing later is that you only need to adjust some formulae and real data somewhere and can copy&paste the game-ready sheet to the game file afterwards.
It’s a quite time-consuming hobby (I heard some people actually earn their living by that!) but will reward you with the pleasure that it’s your own thing that can work pretty nicely after a couple of months development.

I don’t plan to publish my own stats mod yet (and never my spreadsheets), but if someone likes more realism to the game without wasting the own lifetime, then deducter’s GC Unit Revisions mod can be a start to check out:
viewtopic.php?f=147&t=40391
It surprises me that there hardly any stats mod out there for this most advanced and IMO best PG engine so far, unlike the older PG games with Adlerkorps and similar mods.

[Iscaran]

Hmmm...lets try this deducters mod for now - thx.

How exactly would I mod unit stats on my own ? Its just a txt file or xls file which contains the unit data ?

[Horst]

Check out the *.pzdat files in the Data folder. They are basically txt files if you open them with notepad or other text-editor. Very easy to modify if you know what you're doing.

[soldier]

While its good to have the modding option available its unfortunate that its a necessity. I wish the vanilla eqp file was more standardised across nations, unit classes and weapons and more effort had been put into developing a more comprehensive and accurate set of statistics earlier on. The stats of units like JP IV/48 and Hetzer are really just the tip of the Ice berg. US 76'mm armed tanks have better hard attack than Tiger tanks.

The way the file looks is dependent on the philosophy behind the game (historically based or balance based) and everyone's got an opinion but PzC's current file seems to be an untidy mixture of both with no consistency across the board. I think its one of the few areas that the current game has not improved over its predecessor Panzer General