Are the unit stats random?

[Spiret3z]

Hallo! I am new to PC2 and like the game very much. Also I am not a professional military expert and understand that PC2 is the game. Please do not get me wrong and I am very grateful to the game designers.

But studying 2 files equipment.pzeqp and Units.csv I have some question:
How do you distribute stats' numbers between the units of the same category?

For example - "Tanks". "Tanks" is one of the main categories in the game and also there is lots of information about tanks in WW2.
What we see in the table after patch 4. Just few examples:

British Comet I tank costs 740 prestige and has ground defense of 28.
Whereas German Panther G costs 740 prestige and has ground defense of 25.
And German Tiger I costs 730 prestige and has ground defense of 25.
(I do not speak about slots as they are not within the costs formula in the file equipment.pzeqp)

But the problem is that the British Comet I tank is only a medium tank with the weight of 33 tonnes.
Whereas German Panter G is a heavy tank with the weight of 45 tonnes and the German Tiger I is a super-heavy tank with the weight of 57 tonnes.
More weight means either better soft/hard attack or better defense. Even not the same defense stats for tanks with 2 times difference in their weight!!!

In my opinion, if Comet I has ground defense of 28, Panther G should have ground defense of 38 (+36%) and Tiger I should have ground defense of 48 (+73%).
Or Panter G should have ground defense of 25, Comet I of 18 and Tiger I of 32.
It's only the ratio that is important and not numbers.

Other wise I can not explain why the medium tank (Comet I) has better defense stats when it has 2 times less weight (less armour) in comparison with a super-heavy monster.

Of course someone might say: Comet I starts late 1944 whereas Tiger I starts 1943 and Panther G is only a small upgrade from Panther D (1943).
But on the other hand there is Tiger II. It costs 920 prestige and has a ground defense of 29 (only 1 point more than Comet I). With a weight of Tiger II of 70 tonnes!!! Real Tiger II can drive through the real Comet I like a huge semi-trailer truck through a small car. 33 tonnes against 70 tonnes are nothing.

The same applies to other tanks in the PC2 as they all need some balance of their stats according to their historical weight.

[Retributarr]

"Are the unit stats random"???:
It almost seems like "the unit stats [are somewhat] random".
"Spiret3z": ... You are making 'Too-Much-Sense!' . I-myself have gotten that unsettling-feeling that the 'Heavy-German-Tanks' were underperforming... and that the British Tanks were just a little "too-strong"... for what they really are!. 'However'... it didn't seem to seriously affect 'Game-Play' enough... for myself to merit... 'Emergency-Action'... of any sort.

You do make an 'Intelligent' assessment/appraisal of the "actual situation/physical characteristics" of the various tanks... of which I know that you are correct!.

Lets see what happens???.

[Horseman]

Well ground defence isn't just about how heavy a tank is.......

Thickness of armour, is it sloped? Effectiveness of the actual armour plate, nimbleness and profile all have a part to play.

Now I'm not saying the comets GD isn't may be a little high bit you need to look at everything and not just the tanks weight.

And that goes for attack values even more so. That's based pretty much on the effectiveness of the gun!

[Spiret3z]

Well ground defence isn't just about how heavy a tank is.......

Thickness of armour, is it sloped? Effectiveness of the actual armour plate, nimbleness and profile all have a part to play.

Now I'm not saying the comets GD isn't may be a little high bit you need to look at everything and not just the tanks weight.

And that goes for attack values even more so. That's based pretty much on the effectiveness of the gun!

Dear Horseman,
thank you very much for your feedback!

Best experts in WW2-countries developed their tanks and other battle units. I assume these experts knew much more about the effectiveness of their battle units in the actual war than we. So I will not argue whether sloped armour is better or not. Or whether the one armour plate is more effective than the other, or whether the British tank crew is better educated than the German or not etc. All these things are difficult to measure and to evaluate without lots of scientific research. And these things are always very disputable.

So I have chosen the weight only as a quantitative measure of qualitative characteristics. And the weight of the tank is of course a very brief summary of everything concerning defense and the actual weight is easy to find by searching the Wiki.

Maybe I am wrong and there are other easy-to-find and easy-to-evaluate quantitative measures of qualitative characteristics that are better for the PC2 game purpose than simply the weight of the tank.

Moreover "weight of the tank" is political neutral:
Nobody should say that German engineers were idiots building their super-heavy tanks with a ground defense value even worse than the lightweight British medium tank.

The same applies to U.S. and Soviet units.
For example, U.S. M4A3E2Jumbo costs 630 prestige and has a ground defense of 26. Real weight 38 tonnes.
German Panther costs 710-740 prestige and has a ground defense of 24-25. Real weight 45 tonnes.
More real weight means less ground defense stats?
I will even not try to mention German Tiger I and Tiger II. There should also be much more difference between Panthers and Tigers.

[Kerensky]

Considering the wealth of units and sheer volume of stats, I'm not entirely surprised if a few numbers seem odd.

Putting a magnifying glass on certain aspects will always reveal potential for improvement. More eyes and more focus on unit stats is needed, especially late war units.

That said, there is also the simple reason of preserving game balance to keep in mind. A lot of factions are much more playable because of random scenario feature. Maybe they just wanted to flatten unit stats to be more fair.

[Blade0]

Well... you see, stats are coming from older games. Panzer General started this whole system with the initiative, attack and corresponding values, PC1 was just copying and adjusting that (as it was aimed as a remake rather than a new game), and PC2 has significantly improved the original PG system (eg. with adding accuracy), the base of these values is till the "same old" with systematic adjustments.
As I remember a Mathilda-II had around 5 hard attack and around 14 ground defense in PG - both had to be doubled to account for the 50% accuracy. After this systematic change some relations can be off. This is a quite complex system, and in many cases we just don't have enough data to judge. Does the added 2 tons of armor on the KV-1 1942 was only worth 1 point of ground defense, or was it 3? We'll never able to tell, as there is no surviving tank of that specific model, and the Red Army lacked the systematic records of the Wermacht we could be using for analysis.
So... we can only guess. You have a point that a lighter tank could probably carry much less armor. But size also matters, a smaller vehicle can be easier to protect, like the Hetzer built on the Pz38t chassis.
Beside that, ground defense won't tell you how good a tank was. It signals what hard attack value does the attacker need to dependably penetrate the tank's armor, thus destroying it without outflanking or critical hits. Initiative and speed are also huge factors - you can't kill anything if you can't get to it in time, and initiative will decide who wins when both tanks can penetrate each other easily (which is typical for these late-war heavy tanks).
So, I guess there is a ground for a debate if you spot a tank too OP by these stats. Don't expect everything to be perfectly balanced out-of-the-box, it is a very complex system.

[Spiret3z]

Considering the wealth of units and sheer volume of stats, I'm not entirely surprised if a few numbers seem odd.

Putting a magnifying glass on certain aspects will always reveal potential for improvement. More eyes and more focus on unit stats is needed, especially late war units.

That said, there is also the simple reason of preserving game balance to keep in mind. A lot of factions are much more playable because of random scenario feature. Maybe they just wanted to flatten unit stats to be more fair.

Dear Kerensky,
I am grateful to the PC2 designers as I have already mentioned and I do not want to underestimate their work.

But it's not about "few numbers seem odd". It's about complete lack of system approach in main unit stats (attack/defense). And it is especially noticeable because everybody has access to the basic info at least on Wiki.

I am not a authorized military expert and English is not my mother language. But even I managed to find out some basic info of all tanks of the PC2 in 2-3 hours spent on Wiki. Game designers don't need to have PhD in physics in order to understand that lightweight 33-tonnes tank can not have almost the same ground defense as a super-heavy 70-tonnes tank.

And only within the "tank" category and only within the ground defense stats there are not few but more than ten examples that prove that lack of system approach and very random numbers. And mostly only German tanks are very underestimated.

I do not understand why the PC2 game designers "just wanted to flatten unit stats...". Few German heavy/super-heavy tanks outnumbered by Allied/Soviet medium/heavy tanks - it will only create more diversity and challenge in multiplayer than flattening unit stats of all countries.

"...to be more fair".
Weight is political neutral. Some hidden thoughts to make Allied/Soviet lightweight tanks to have better/almost equal unit stats as German heavy/super-heavy monster are not fair.

P.S. My grandfathers fought against Axis. So for me to underestimate German units in PC2 is like to underestimate the efforts of my grandfathers.

[Horseman]

Still using weight as a measure?

Ok only a very basic bit of research shows that the comet has comparable thickness of armour as a Panther........So that theory is blown.

Also Panther V Tiger. Guess which was harder to knock out from the front? I'll give you a clue it wasn't the heaviest one. Helped in part by the sloped armour. (Note the Tiger had far superior protection to the sides and rear)

Also Panther (75mm gun) V Tiger (88mm gun) Guess which had better armour penetration?

You also have to consider profile and ability to hide/nimbleness when deciding GD.

Also, for the record both my grandfather's served in the war. Two of my Great Uncles never came home from it. Nothing is being diminished.

[Spiret3z]

Well... you see, stats are coming from older games. Panzer General started this whole system with the initiative, attack and corresponding values, PC1 was just copying and adjusting that (as it was aimed as a remake rather than a new game), and PC2 has significantly improved the original PG system (eg. with adding accuracy), the base of these values is till the "same old" with systematic adjustments.
As I remember a Mathilda-II had around 5 hard attack and around 14 ground defense in PG - both had to be doubled to account for the 50% accuracy. After this systematic change some relations can be off. This is a quite complex system, and in many cases we just don't have enough data to judge. Does the added 2 tons of armor on the KV-1 1942 was only worth 1 point of ground defense, or was it 3? We'll never able to tell, as there is no surviving tank of that specific model, and the Red Army lacked the systematic records of the Wermacht we could be using for analysis.
So... we can only guess. You have a point that a lighter tank could probably carry much less armor. But size also matters, a smaller vehicle can be easier to protect, like the Hetzer built on the Pz38t chassis.
Beside that, ground defense won't tell you how good a tank was. It signals what hard attack value does the attacker need to dependably penetrate the tank's armor, thus destroying it without outflanking or critical hits. Initiative and speed are also huge factors - you can't kill anything if you can't get to it in time, and initiative will decide who wins when both tanks can penetrate each other easily (which is typical for these late-war heavy tanks).
So, I guess there is a ground for a debate if you spot a tank too OP by these stats. Don't expect everything to be perfectly balanced out-of-the-box, it is a very complex system.

Dear Blade0,
thanks for your feedback!

"This is a quite complex system, and in many cases we just don't have enough data to judge...We'll never able to tell, as there is no surviving tank of that specific model, and the Red Army lacked the systematic records of the Wermacht we could be using for analysis."

Basic data about all the tanks of WW2 is at least on the Wiki as I have written to Kerensky in my previous message. More data is always very disputable. Therefore only the basic data can be used in the PC2 and 2-3 hours spent on Wiki is enough to understand that a lightweight 35-tonnes tank of the same era can not have better ground defense than a heavy 45-tonnes tank. 10 tonnes extra should give advantage and not disadvantage.

"You have a point that a lighter tank could probably carry much less armor. But size also matters, a smaller vehicle can be easier to protect, like the Hetzer built on the Pz38t chassis."

Less weight means worse defense stats. More weight means better defense stats. Otherwise there is no explanation, that all WW2-nations always tried to create bigger and heavier tanks that they had had before:

Germans 1942 from Panzer IV (25 tonnes) into Tiger 1 (57 tonnes) / Panther (45 tonnes) etc.
Americans 1944 from M4 (30-38 tonnes) into M26 (42 tonnes) and later into T28 (86 tonnes) etc.
Soviets also tried to use more heavy tanks, but their KV/IS series (46 tonnes) seems to be the maximum of their technical level in the WW2-era.
British 1944 from lightweight cruiser and medium infantry tanks into Tortoise (79 tonnes).
So every WW2-nation had not known, that the real smaller vehicle can be easier to protect than the bigger one.

"Initiative and speed are also huge factors..."
Using the basic data from the Wiki we can easily find enough information about that:
for example,
initiative - range of the main weapon from the Wiki and speed - horsepower to weight ratio also from the Wiki.

These are only examples. Game designers can use other characteristics. My idea is simple: no random unit stats.

"Does the added 2 tons of armor on the KV-1 1942 was only worth 1 point of ground defense, or was it 3?"
If you decide that for every 2 tonnes of weight tank gets 1 point of ground defense - than it is 1 point.
It's up the game designers how they decide. But please no random unit stats!

[Spiret3z]

Still using weight as a measure?

Ok only a very basic bit of research shows that the comet has comparable thickness of armour as a Panther........So that theory is blown.

Also Panther V Tiger. Guess which was harder to knock out from the front? I'll give you a clue it wasn't the heaviest one. Helped in part by the sloped armour. (Note the Tiger had far superior protection to the sides and rear)

Also Panther (75mm gun) V Tiger (88mm gun) Guess which had better armour penetration?

You also have to consider profile and ability to hide/nimbleness when deciding GD.

Also, for the record both my grandfather's served in the war. Two of my Great Uncles never came home from it. Nothing is being diminished.

"the comet has comparable thickness of armour as a Panther........So that theory is blown."
Comet I (33 tonnes) has comparable thickness of armour as a Panther (45 tonnes)?

"Also Panther V Tiger. Guess which was harder to knock out from the front? I'll give you a clue it wasn't the heaviest one. Helped in part by the sloped armour."
Depends on the angle wherefrom the projectile comes.

"Also Panther (75mm gun) V Tiger (88mm gun) Guess which had better armour penetration?"
On the closer range Panther (75mm gun) and on the longer range Tiger I (88mm gun).
Panthers were used on closer range where straight anti-tank projectiles faced sloped Panther armour.
Tigers I were used on longer range where projectiles coming from the 30-45 angle faced straight Tiger I armour that was "more sloped" on these angles. And vice versa for sloped Panther armour projectiles coming from the 30-45 angle were facing "more straight" armour.

"You also have to consider profile and ability to hide/nimbleness when deciding GD."
As I have already written to Blade0, all WW2-nations always tried to develop heavier and heavier tanks that they had had before. So they had not known, that "ability to hide when deciding GD" is more important than weight.

Profile, nimbleness etc. - qualitative things are always difficult to evaluate. Therefore I use quantitative measures of qualitative characteristics. Weight is:
- political neutral;
- quantitative measure;
- easy to find on Wiki.

[Retributarr]

Christie Sloped Armor For Slope-Heads!:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Walter_Christie


John Walter Christie... was an American engineer and inventor.[1] He is best known for developing the Christie suspension [Greater movement in the suspension system... allowed for Tanks to have considerably greater cross-country-speeds] system used in a number of World War II-era tank designs, most notably the Soviet BT and T-34[2] series, and the British Covenanter and Crusader Cruiser tanks, as well as the Comet heavy cruiser tank.[3]

He produced the revolutionary prototype tank chassis M1928 (Model 1928) design. What made this prototype revolutionary was its new "helicoil" suspension system, whereby each wheel had its own spring-loaded assembly. This reduced space in the interior of the tank, but (combined with a very light overall weight) allowed for unprecedented high-speed cross-country mobility, albeit at the cost of extremely thin armor.

Another interesting feature of the M1928 and later Christie designs was sloped armor in front, which could better deflect projectiles. The sloped armor helped to compensate for its thinness.


Two Christie tanks, falsely documented as agricultural farm tractors, were sold without prior approval of the U.S. Army or Department of State, and were shipped without turrets to the Soviet Union.[citation needed] The Soviets later improved upon the basic Christie tank design, adopting its sloping front armor for its BT tank series of infantry tanks. The BT itself was further refined into the famous Soviet T-34 tank of WWII, retaining the sloping front armor design, now adopted for side armor as well.

[Spiret3z]

Christie Sloped Armor For Slope-Heads!:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Walter_Christie


John Walter Christie... was an American engineer and inventor.[1] He is best known for developing the Christie suspension [Greater movement in the suspension system... allowed for Tanks to have considerably greater cross-country-speeds] system used in a number of World War II-era tank designs, most notably the Soviet BT and T-34[2] series, and the British Covenanter and Crusader Cruiser tanks, as well as the Comet heavy cruiser tank.[3]

He produced the revolutionary prototype tank chassis M1928 (Model 1928) design. What made this prototype revolutionary was its new "helicoil" suspension system, whereby each wheel had its own spring-loaded assembly. This reduced space in the interior of the tank, but (combined with a very light overall weight) allowed for unprecedented high-speed cross-country mobility, albeit at the cost of extremely thin armor.

Another interesting feature of the M1928 and later Christie designs was sloped armor in front, which could better deflect projectiles. The sloped armor helped to compensate for its thinness.


Two Christie tanks, falsely documented as agricultural farm tractors, were sold without prior approval of the U.S. Army or Department of State, and were shipped without turrets to the Soviet Union.[citation needed] The Soviets later improved upon the basic Christie tank design, adopting its sloping front armor for its BT tank series of infantry tanks. The BT itself was further refined into the famous Soviet T-34 tank of WWII, retaining the sloping front armor design, now adopted for side armor as well.

Dear Retributarr,
thank you very much! Very interesting article!

T-34 (1940) is a good tank. It was very innovative in its time. Germans have studied T-34 a lot and finally came 1942 with both Tiger I and Panther and used both Tigers I and Panthers simultaneously in the same battles for different tasks.

British Comet I tank is a good heavy cruiser tank. It should have unit stats in PC2 like good cruiser tank for captures, manoeuvres, surroundings etc. But unit stats not like real heavy tank for face-to-face engagements.

[Horseman]

"the comet has comparable thickness of armour as a Panther........So that theory is blown."
Comet I (33 tonnes) has comparable thickness of armour as a Panther (45 tonnes)?

"Also Panther V Tiger. Guess which was harder to knock out from the front? I'll give you a clue it wasn't the heaviest one. Helped in part by the sloped armour."
Depends on the angle wherefrom the projectile comes.

"Also Panther (75mm gun) V Tiger (88mm gun) Guess which had better armour penetration?"
On the closer range Panther (75mm gun) and on the longer range Tiger I (88mm gun).
Panthers were used on closer range where straight anti-tank projectiles faced sloped Panther armour.
Tigers I were used on longer range where projectiles coming from the 30-45 angle faced straight Tiger I armour that was "more sloped" on these angles. And vice versa for sloped Panther armour projectiles coming from the 30-45 angle were facing "more straight" armour.

"You also have to consider profile and ability to hide/nimbleness when deciding GD."
As I have already written to Blade0, all WW2-nations always tried to develop heavier and heavier tanks that they had had before. So they had not known, that "ability to hide when deciding GD" is more important than weight.

Profile, nimbleness etc. - qualitative things are always difficult to evaluate. Therefore I use quantitative measures of qualitative characteristics. Weight is:
- political neutral;
- quantitative measure;
- easy to find on Wiki.

Yes the Comet has armour as thick in places as the Panther.

No the Panthers gun had better penetration at long ranges too. The Tigers gun did have a much better HE shell though.

Tiger crews were taught to angle their hulls to get the angled hull effect- this would have improved their defence somewhat (helped by pretty decent side armour which is something the Panther did not have).

And I don't think anyone tried to design heavier tanks - quite the opposite they would have been designed to be as light as possible. But they would be designed to achieve their planned role.

Weight is not a good indicator of how good a tank is. The KV2 was over 50 tons - so by your measure a better tank than the Panther?

Like it or not we need to look at the whole package and whilst I'd agree that some of these things are not easy to measure the Devs should (and I believe have) include them within the stats. Some of the stat distribution is IMO based on game balance (especially late war Allied tanks)

The IS-2 was only 45 tons - so a worse tank than the Tiger?
The PzIII was what? around 25 tons as was the PzIV. The T34 was 26ish tons? So the T34 didn't totally outclass those Panzer in 1941?

I think my point is clear - you can NOT use weight as the sole measure of a tanks effectiveness.

[PoorOldSpike]

My two pennies- Armour thickness is just one factor in determining a tanks ground defence rating.
Other factors are-
Armour slope, (AP shot tended to go through unsloped slab armour instead of ricocheting off)
Armour type, (some armour was "face hardened")
Thickness differences of front/side/rear armour. (For example a Panther's front was thick, but the sides/rear not so thick)
New innovations and manufacturing techniques.
Tank size (the bigger they are, the easier to hit)

So all the above have to be factored in to arrive at a tanks ground defence stats..

Tiger-




Sherman at Bastogne-




Panther-




KV-1-




Cromwell at Villers-Bocage-

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php? ... orum&f=134

[Spiret3z]

Weight is not a good indicator of how good a tank is.

Weight is neither good nor bad indicator. It is the quantitative measure of qualitative characteristics (armour profile, design, thickness in places, etc.) for the game purpose only.

The KV2 was over 50 tons - so by your measure a better tank than the Panther?
...The IS-2 was only 45 tons - so a worse tank than the Tiger?
The PzIII was what? around 25 tons as was the PzIV. The T34 was 26ish tons? So the T34 didn't totally outclass those Panzer in 1941?

Better/worse - it is qualitative evaluation. I do not discuss qualitative things as they are always very disputable.

Im my opinion KV2 (52 tonnes) should have +15% more defense stats in PC2 than Panther (45 tonnes).
IS-2 (46 tonnes) should have -20% less defense stats in PC2 than Tiger 1 (57 tonnes).
T-34 1940 (26 tonnes) should have +13% more defense stats in PC2 than Panzer III (23 tonnes) and +4% more defense stats in PC2 than Panzer IV (25 tonnes).

Other stats like attack, movement, initiative should also be measured in system approach and not randomly.
As I have already written to BladeO:

BladeO: "Initiative and speed are also huge factors..."
Spiret3z: "Using the basic data from the Wiki we can easily find enough information about that:
for example,
initiative - range of the main weapon from the Wiki and speed - horsepower to weight ratio also from the Wiki.

These are only examples. Game designers can use other characteristics. My idea is simple: no random unit stats."

BladeO: "Does the added 2 tons of armor on the KV-1 1942 was only worth 1 point of ground defense, or was it 3?"
Spiret3z: "If you decide that for every 2 tonnes of weight tank gets 1 point of ground defense - than it is 1 point.
It's up the game designers how they decide. But please no random unit stats!"

I think my point is clear - you can NOT use weight as the sole measure of a tanks effectiveness.

I have never written anywhere anything that can be a measure of any effectiveness. Because effectiveness is a qualitative thing and therefore is always very disputable.

My point is: tank weight is quantitative, political neutral and easy to find in Wiki. Thus it could be transformed into tank defense stats in PC2 to avoid random numbers and very disputable subjective thoughts.

[Spiret3z]

My two pennies- Armour thickness is just one factor in determining a tanks ground defence rating.
Other factors are-
Armour slope, (AP shot tended to go through unsloped slab armour instead of ricocheting off)
Armour type, (some armour was "face hardened")
Thickness differences of front/side/rear armour. (For example a Panther's front was thick, but the sides/rear not so thick)
New innovations and manufacturing techniques.
Tank size (the bigger they are, the easier to hit)
So all the above have to be factored in to arrive at a tanks ground defence stats..

Dear PoorOldSpike,
all these factors are important in real life. But in PC2 we do not have a real life. In PC2 we have only the spreadsheet with unit stats. And there are 50+ tanks to be ranked within this spreadsheet.

Thus we need some quantitative numbers from the real life to be transformed into unit stats within PC2 to avoid random unit stats.
We can not use qualitative characteristics for PC2 spreadsheet as qualitative things are always very disputable.
I have chosen "tank weight" for defense stats within the PC2 spreadsheet to avoid randomness. "Tank weight" is quantitative, political neutral and easy to find in Wiki.

[Rood]

In general: all unit stats need a thorough pass!
There are a few instances of units that are under performing (BF 109) or over performing (T-60).
I have no doubt that within a few months we will see new player created unit sheets. And probably different ones for MP and SP.

Personally I would have really like that PC had the same system as OoB where there a different stats for the type of unit that you attack. For example an infantry unit has 11 attack vs infantry but only 3 vs tanks.
It is kind of emulated with the ground vs close defense but that is only in 'close' terrain.
I would also really would have like that each unit had it's own accuracy rating (for example the Germans shined with their optics).

But PC is a game and not a simulation, so shortcuts need to be taken and many factors need to be compressed in a few stats.

In regards to the weight vs ground defense, in general more weight would equal to more armor. It would also mean lower speed (thus easier to hit) and larger profile i.e. bigger target which would also make it easier to hit but not necessarily mean a debilitating hit.

What the "right" value is, is rather hard to say, it's based on real statistics, real performance and player expectations and than it still needs to be balanced in a way that each scenario is challenging.

After I've finished my campaign I will certainly make some changes/additions for myself!

[Horseman]

Personally I would have really like that PC had the same system as OoB where there a different stats for the type of unit that you attack. For example an infantry unit has 11 attack vs infantry but only 3 vs tanks.

PC2 does have separate attack stats for attacking infantry or tanks. Soft attack and Hard attack.

Or did you mean something else?

[Spiret3z]

In regards to the weight vs ground defense, in general more weight would equal to more armor. It would also mean lower speed (thus easier to hit) and larger profile i.e. bigger target which would also make it easier to hit but not necessarily mean a debilitating hit.

Dear Rood,

tank movement stats in PC2 could be measured like "horsepower/weight" data available on Wiki:
For example,
- Panther tank 15,39 hp/tonne
- Tiger I tank 13 hp/tonne
- Comet I tank 18 hp/tonne
Therefore Comet I tank should have +17% movement stats than Panther tank and +38% movement stats than Tiger I tank.

Profile size could also be measured using data available on Wiki. For example,
rough tank volume without gun in meters:
- Comet I tank 6,55(hull length)*3.07(width)*2.67(height). Thus 54 m3.
- Tiger I tank 6,32(hull length)*3.56(width)*2.93(height). Thus 66 m3.
- Panther tank 6,87(hull length)*3.27(width)*2.99(height). Thus 67 m3.

And you can adjust weight with rough tank volume:
for example
weight/volume ratio:
- Comet I tank 0.61
- Tiger I tank 0.86
- Panther tank 0.67
Therefore Comet I tank defense stats should be -30% less than Tiger I tank and -9% less than Panther tank.

PC2 can of course use other data available. There is so much data about WW2 and it is very easy to find.
But even small quantitative analysis helps to avoid randomness more than thousands subjective words.

[FunPolice749]

So if weight is such a big factor than if we were to add a modern day M1 Abrams (60 tons) to the game it should have a worse GD than a tiger II (68 tons)?

I think if yes to that question than there is a big misunderstanding on what makes a tank effective armor wise because the weight alone means little compared to stuff like what it’s made of, is it sloped, and the actual thickness of it.

I think the comet might be a little high on GD but in actuality it’s frontal armor when all the factors combine to give it similar armor to the Panther and only a little short of the tiger.
Comet I effective frontal armor 102mm
Tiger 120mm
Panther 100mm
This is all information that can be found with a quick google search (although Wikipedia is not the best of sources I highly prefer tank encyclopedia when looking for tank info).
Plus like others have stated even the thickness of the armor isn’t everything in ground defense because the profile of the tank can be a big factor in how the tank performs (larger profiles are easier to hit than smaller profiles).