ridiculous hard attack values in game for american tanks

[JagdpanzerIV]

all values at 500m, 0 angle
75mm L40 firing AP @ 500 = 92
76mm L52 firing APCBC @ 500 = 116
90mm L52 firing APCBC, 2800f/s @ 500 = 164
90mm L52 firing APCBC, 2600f/s @ 500 = 150

for example the german panther gun
75mm L70 firing APCBC @ 500 = 168

American guns:
on sherman tanks 75mm L40, HA 9 proposed value 10
sherman with the 76mm L52, HA 19 proposed value 13 (like the 7.5cm KwK 40 L43) why 19?
M10 Wolverine 76mm, HA 17 proposed value 14
M18 Hellcat 76mm, HA 19 proposed value 13
M26 Pershing 90mm, HA 24 proposed value 17 (bit less penetration than 7.5cm KwK 42 L70 Panther gun)
M36 Jackson 90mm, HA 24 proposed value 18 (bit less penetration than 7.5cm KwK 42 L70 Panther gun)

[McGuba]

Unfortunately there are many ridiculous stats in the vanilla equipment file, not only these. Availability dates, defense values, speeds, etc. etc. There is not much point in asking why, now, some 5 years after the release of the base game. The developers never reply to these proposals as it would lead to endless debates over these values. And they are not going to change them as it would have an undesirable (balance breaking) effect on the well tested official campaigns. So all you can do is to edit them for yourself of try to use an e-file modded by someone else.


However, some points to consider:

M10 Wolverine 76mm, HA 17 proposed value 14
M18 Hellcat 76mm, HA 19 proposed value 13

The M18 was supposed to use its higher than average speed to its advantage so IMO it should get a little bonus instead of a penalty:

most Hellcat crews found the higher speeds especially useful in a sprint to flank German tanks, which had relatively slow turret traverse speeds, and such maneuvering allowed the tank destroyer crew to direct a shot into the enemy's thinner side or rear armor.(Wiki)

M26 Pershing 90mm, HA 24 proposed value 17 (bit less penetration than 7.5cm KwK 42 L70 Panther gun)
M36 Jackson 90mm, HA 24 proposed value 18 (bit less penetration than 7.5cm KwK 42 L70 Panther gun)

Penetration is one thing, but a 90mm shell is considerably heavier than a 75mm one, so once it penetrates it probably makes more destruction. And it probably makes more damage (to visors, antennas, tracks, etc.) even if it does not penetrate compared to a 75mm. So again, even if it has slightly less penetration it should get a little bonus, IMO.

[JagdpanzerIV]

yes but to do damage the shell needs to penetrate.

For the hellcat, the fact that it was very fast doesn't mean it should have a high HA value, the fact that it can move 6 hex is already good and also its initiative could be boosted, or the speed reflected in ground defense (harder to hit on the move...etc.)à

the thing is, for one panther tank there was 10 sherman tanks in normandy, so the game should have been balanced around prestige and numbers of units available, instead of HA, GD values. For example, in a campaign on the german side, we could be allowed to buy only one tiger tank and one tiger 2 tank and thats it. Units like Jagdtiger, elephant, Maus and other units that were built in very lower numbers should not even be available for purchase.

[JagdpanzerIV]

Unfortunately there are many ridiculous stats in the vanilla equipment file, not only these. Availability dates, defense values, speeds, etc. etc. There is not much point in asking why, now, some 5 years after the release of the base game. The developers never reply to these proposals as it would lead to endless debates over these values. And they are not going to change them as it would have an undesirable (balance breaking) effect on the well tested official campaigns. So all you can do is to edit them for yourself of try to use an e-file modded by someone else.

the campaign is doable because we have strong tactical bombers like stukas and such to take out american tanks, but during ww2, destroying tanks with dive bombers or firing rockets at them was largely unsuccesful.

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/grou ... k-busters/

[McGuba]

yes but to do damage the shell needs to penetrate.

Well, not always. For example the SU/ISU-152 could not really penetrate the armour of Tigers and Panthers:

the massive blast effect from the heavy high-explosive warhead was capable of blowing the turret completely off a Tiger tank. A direct hit usually destroyed or damaged the target's tracks and suspension, immobilizing it. While the low-velocity 152mm shell did not generally penetrate heavy armor, it frequently killed or severely wounded the crew through spalling (splintering) inside the hull as well as injuries caused by blast concussion. Surviving crew were often left with an immobilized vehicle which had to be hurriedly abandoned before being destroyed.(Wiki)

In many cases, when they could not penetrate the armour of a tank with a certain gun, they just aimed at the tracks to immobilise it. Then an immobilised tank is little more than a gun emplacement which can be easily flanked and destroyed from the back. I guess the heavier the shell is, the easier it is to damage the track of a tank with it.

the thing is, for one panther tank there was 10 sherman tanks in normandy, so the game should have been balanced around prestige and numbers of units available, instead of HA, GD values.

Yes, the stock campaigns should have been made very differently, I do not argue that. However, and let me be the devil's advocate for a moment, the AI of PzC has some limited skills i.e. it only attacks if there is a favourable battle outcome prediction. Which means it would never use its numerical superiority to slowly wear down superior units at the cost of losing more of its own. As a result, I guess, they decided to unhistorically boost some Allied units so that the AI will still use these for attacking. On the other hand, it was overdone a bit, and you are right that many stats are incorrect in the game and should be fine tuned.

For the hellcat, the fact that it was very fast doesn't mean it should have a high HA value, the fact that it can move 6 hex is already good and also its initiative could be boosted, or the speed reflected in ground defense (harder to hit on the move...etc.)à

That's what I meant when I wrote "endless debates over the values". Some people prefer one way of depicting certain attributes of a unit in this abstract and over simplified system of PzC, others another. So who is to decide, which one is right?

the campaign is doable because we have strong tactical bombers like stukas and such to take out american tanks, but during ww2, destroying tanks with dive bombers or firing rockets at them was largely unsuccesful.

hmm... so you are debating the depiction of tank stats in the game, saying they are unhistorical, but tend to accept and use the unhistorical stats of ground attack planes?

Other than that, I am aware that the general effectiveness of ground attack planes in ww2 directly against tanks is debated, however, there are some contradicting things as well here. For instance, as far as I know German tanks were only permitted to move at night in Normandy due to the Allied air superiority. But, if planes were so ineffective against tanks, why did they have to introduce this restriction? And why did they put great emphasis on providing mobile air defense units (Mobelwagen, Oswind, etc.) to panzer divisions late in the war when the Luftwaffe lost air superiority? Also, on occasion massed air attacks could be devastating against tank concentrations, even if they were largely ineffective against individual tanks spead out in a large area. And there are all those soft skinned supply vehicles (repair, maintanance, recovery and fuel trucks, etc.), which are not depicted in the game (and thus I consider them to be part of each tank unit), but were essential for an armoured division and were highly vulnerable even to machine gun fire. These did suffer from air attacks and the loss of the support column could immoblise the whole tank formation in a very short time. Probably it was a major factor for so many German tanks had to be abandoned and destroyed by their own crews during retreats. And a lost tank is a lost tank, no matter if it was lost directly or undirectly due to an air attack.

Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s Defense of Normandy During World War II

But it was Allied air power that gave the Germans the greatest headaches. On June 7 Panzer Lehr began its move from Chartres to Normandy in daylight. Its commander, Fritz Bayerlein, who had also seen service in North Africa, objected but was overruled. As soon as the armored column was spotted it was savaged by Allied fighter-bombers. Bayerlein described the roads as being ‘a fighter-bomber race course.’ His division lost 150 trucks and fuel tankers, five tanks and self-propelled guns, as well as a number of halftracks and prime movers in a matter of a few hours.

http://www.historynet.com/field-marshal ... war-ii.htm

[JagdpanzerIV]

yes but to do damage the shell needs to penetrate.

Well, not always. For example the SU/ISU-152 could not really penetrate the armour of Tigers and Panthers:

the massive blast effect from the heavy high-explosive warhead was capable of blowing the turret completely off a Tiger tank. A direct hit usually destroyed or damaged the target's tracks and suspension, immobilizing it. While the low-velocity 152mm shell did not generally penetrate heavy armor, it frequently killed or severely wounded the crew through spalling (splintering) inside the hull as well as injuries caused by blast concussion. Surviving crew were often left with an immobilized vehicle which had to be hurriedly abandoned before being destroyed.(Wiki)

yes i was talking about the 90mm, and for the su152 i raised the HA to 16 from 12 to reflect that. i lowered the ammo to 2 from 4 to also reflect the very few ammo it carried.

In many cases, when they could not penetrate the armour of a tank with a certain gun, they just aimed at the tracks to immobilise it. Then an immobilised tank is little more than a gun emplacement which can be easily flanked and destroyed from the back. I guess the heavier the shell is, the easier it is to damage the track of a tank with it.

i agree, but usually tanks arent alone, so yes its better to disable a track than do nothing at all, but the rest depends on the circumstances of the battle.

the thing is, for one panther tank there was 10 sherman tanks in normandy, so the game should have been balanced around prestige and numbers of units available, instead of HA, GD values.

Yes, the stock campaigns should have been made very differently, I do not argue that. However, and let me be the devil's advocate for a moment, the AI of PzC has some limited skills i.e. it only attacks if there is a favourable battle outcome prediction. Which means it would never use its numerical superiority to slowly wear down superior units at the cost of losing more of its own. As a result, I guess, they decided to unhistorically boost some Allied units so that the AI will still use these for attacking. On the other hand, it was overdone a bit, and you are right that many stats are incorrect in the game and should be fine tuned.

This sucks, is there a way to make the AI attack even if the result is not positive? because many battles were fought with a clear disadvantage for one side during ww2.

For the hellcat, the fact that it was very fast doesn't mean it should have a high HA value, the fact that it can move 6 hex is already good and also its initiative could be boosted, or the speed reflected in ground defense (harder to hit on the move...etc.)

That's what I meant when I wrote "endless debates over the values". Some people prefer one way of depicting certain attributes of a unit in this abstract and over simplified system of PzC, others another. So who is to decide, which one is right?

if it feels historical, then it is right , we know the armor values and penetration power of each gun today, we also know that aircrafts and artillery posed little to no threat to tanks, unless we are talking a thousand of artillery guns firing blindly in a sector where there are tanks and hitting one randomly.

the campaign is doable because we have strong tactical bombers like stukas and such to take out american tanks, but during ww2, destroying tanks with dive bombers or firing rockets at them was largely unsuccesful.

hmm... so you are debating the depiction of tank stats in the game, saying they are unhistorical, but tend to accept and use the unhistorical stats of ground attack planes?

Not at all, i am saying it is silly we have to rely on aircrafts to get rid of overpowered american tanks.

Other than that, I am aware that the general effectiveness of ground attack planes in ww2 directly against tanks is debated, however, there are some contradicting things as well here. For instance, as far as I know German tanks were only permitted to move at night in Normandy due to the Allied air superiority. But, if planes were so ineffective against tanks, why did they have to introduce this restriction? And why did they put great emphasis on providing mobile air defense units (Mobelwagen, Oswind, etc.) to panzer divisions late in the war when the Luftwaffe lost air superiority? Also, on occasion massed air attacks could be devastating against tank concentrations, even if they were largely ineffective against individual tanks spead out in a large area. And there are all those soft skinned supply vehicles (repair, maintanance, recovery and fuel trucks, etc.), which are not depicted in the game (and thus I consider them to be part of each tank unit), but were essential for an armoured division and were highly vulnerable even to machine gun fire. These did suffer from air attacks and the loss of the support column could immoblise the whole tank formation in a very short time. Probably it was a major factor for so many German tanks had to be abandoned and destroyed by their own crews during retreats. And a lost tank is a lost tank, no matter if it was lost directly or undirectly due to an air attack.

Because aircrafts were very effective at destroying trucks, halftracks and supply lines. without supply, tanks are useless.

Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s Defense of Normandy During World War II

But it was Allied air power that gave the Germans the greatest headaches. On June 7 Panzer Lehr began its move from Chartres to Normandy in daylight. Its commander, Fritz Bayerlein, who had also seen service in North Africa, objected but was overruled. As soon as the armored column was spotted it was savaged by Allied fighter-bombers. Bayerlein described the roads as being ‘a fighter-bomber race course.’ His division lost 150 trucks and fuel tankers, five tanks and self-propelled guns, as well as a number of halftracks and prime movers in a matter of a few hours.

http://www.historynet.com/field-marshal ... war-ii.htm[/quote]

exactly, they lost trucks and fuel tankers, not tiger tanks or tanks with more than 30mm of armor.