Are the unit stats random?

[Horseman]

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).

Very valid points - I'd avoided looking up modern tanks to compare to further debunk the "It weighs more so has to have better GD" Theory!

The funny thing is - frontally due to the sloped armour the Panther actually has better resistance than the Tiger (just don't ask about its sides...) So yes even armour thickness is not the be all and end all!

[Spiret3z]

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)?

Modern day M1 Abrams (60 tons) is not to compare neither with WW2 tanks nor with WW1 tanks. We compare tanks of the same time period only. And for PC2 unit stats in the game spreadsheet only.

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

So what is your idea how to transform your numbers into PC2 unit stats spreadsheet without randomness?
Would you rank frontal armour of all 50+ tanks in PC2? Frontal armour of the hull or frontal armour of the turret or frontal armour of the gun mantlet etc.?
Please show some exact examples of your idea.

My quantitative analyzes are not ideal. But they are more precise than thousands subjective thoughts and show how to transform real life stats into PC2 spreadsheet unit stats.

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).

These others can not explain how to transform their thoughts (most of them are of course true in real life) into the exact numbers in the PC2 unit stats spreadsheet without randomness. I also have many qualitative things to say but I try not to waste time discussing subjective things.

[Horseman]

Breaking news just in.......

The Allies have started tying lead bars to the back of their tanks - Now they weigh more they're better able to stand up to the German Panzers!!!!

That's basically what you're saying.

Profiles and nimbleness are also important - just because we cant model those 100% accurately doesn't mean we should just forget they exist.

[Spiret3z]

Breaking news just in.......

The Allies have started tying lead bars to the back of their tanks - Now they weigh more they're better able to stand up to the German Panzers!!!!

That's basically what you're saying.

Profiles and nimbleness are also important - just because we cant model those 100% accurately doesn't mean we should just forget they exist.

Dear Horseman,
I don't know to whom you have written this message.

You don't find appropriate for PC2 game purpose only my idea to transform "tank weight" into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet - O.K.
You don't find appropriate for PC2 game purpose only my idea to transform "tank weight/volume ratio" into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet (as I have calculated in my message to Root) - O.K.

How would you transform profiles and nimbleness into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet?
Please show some exact examples. Take at least 3-4 tanks and show how you transform things you find important into PC2 unit stats spreadsheet.

[Horseman]

Breaking news just in.......

The Allies have started tying lead bars to the back of their tanks - Now they weigh more they're better able to stand up to the German Panzers!!!!

That's basically what you're saying.

Profiles and nimbleness are also important - just because we cant model those 100% accurately doesn't mean we should just forget they exist.

Dear Horseman,
I don't know to whom you have written this message.

You don't find appropriate for PC2 game purpose only my idea to transform "tank weight" into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet - O.K.
You don't find appropriate for PC2 game purpose only my idea to transform "tank weight/volume ratio" into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet (as I have calculated in my message to Root) - O.K.

How would you transform profiles and nimbleness into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet?
Please show some exact examples. Take at least 3-4 tanks and show how you transform things you find important into PC2 unit stats spreadsheet.

By doing proper research and comparing contemporary performance. By reading historical accounts and then when all said and done taking a "gut" feel.

As I'm not a game designer and don't have time to do all that research I'll leave it to the pros.

What i wouldn't do is take 1 attribute (in your case weight) and use that to assign values.

I want to play a reasable "simulation" of WWII where my Panzer IIIs duke it out with Matilda's and such. Not a game of this 34 ton tank fights that 28 ton tank.

Another example - the Matilda was only marginally heavier than the Panzer III yet was far better protected as well as a lot slower.

[Retributarr]

Make "Known!"... The "Known-UnKnowns":

As I've been watching the "Fur & Feathers Fly!"... between the two of you... 'Spiret3z' & 'Horseman'... I've had a little time to think about this conundrum. Mind you!... I don't think its a solution... but... perhaps a pathway to a solution.

For example... take all the 'Main-Attributes' or 'Characteristics' of functionality... and separately rate them for each "Tank"... from one-1 to ten-10.

Lets take one item only to start with... "Armor" for example.

Flat-Plate-Armor... Rate these various aspects say... on a scale from one-1 to ten-10.
RATE: Regarding its current state of... whether it is... "Horizontal or Angled-Plate-Armor" [If Angled... is it at an Optimum-or Best Angle? " is it...45-degrees???"]... as well as such as to its... "Thickness of Armor-Plate"... of each of the locations on the "Tank".

Now!-Depending on the 'Locations and Angle of the Armor-Plate... as well as according to what-ever historical information you are able to scrounge-up... make an assessment... as to how frequently or normally these "Tanks" were targeted and hit in these specific locations... then use this information to come up with some-kind of vulnerability or invulnerability-factor for the "Tanks" defense-rating.

This is "No-Simple-Easy-Task",... but!... 'It can be done!', this is easier to do... than flying to the moon!. This then... can also be done for all of the remaining pertinent characteristics of the Armored-Fighting-Vehicles.

Maybe???... the two of You... could work together on this???.

[McGuba]

While I agree with the basic assumption that the Panther and Tiger should have a higher ground defense than the Comet, weight is not everything. Not all the extra weight they put on a tank ends up being armour and thereby increasing protection. A tank equipped with a bigger and heavier gun will be obviously heavier than a similar tank with a smaller and lighter gun. It is easy to understand that the first tank will be heavier because of the heavier gun but it will not increase its protecion. A prime example is the KV-2 which was equipped with a 152 mm heavy howitzer which required a large enough turret and turret turning mechanism and it made the tank very heavy but it did not make it better protected than tanks with similar weight but smaller gun.

And different tanks had of course different engines, radios and other equipment, carried a different amount of ammunition and fuel, had different suspension, tracks, gear, brake etc. etc. and all this equipment had of course different weight depending on the technology and the material they used. For example T-34 tanks had an engine largely made of aluminium which made the tank somewhat lighter than other comparable tanks which had their engine made of steel. But it did not make the T-34 less protected only because of that.

Therefore it would be an overly simplified approach to only take weight as the main factor to determine the overall protection of a tank. However, it can still provide some clues to start with.

Returning to the basic assumtion, yes, the Comet did have a maximum armour thickness of 100 mm which is indeed comparable to the maximum armour thickness of the Panther and Tiger. But again, it is just as misleading to give them the same defense values based on this information alone as it would be to rely on pure weight.

The Comet had a 100 mm armour plate at a relatively small area, in the turret front, and the rest of the hull and superstructure front was protected by much thinner armour plates between 30-76mm. And the sides and the back of the Comet were protected by similar 30-65 mm thick unsloped armour plates which were somewhat typical of the era. Thus it was a relatively lightweight tank. In comparison, the Tiger had 100 mm protection all over its front turret, hull and superstructure and 80 mm all over its sides. Although both had the same maximum armour thickness the Tiger had much more of it and only a small part of the Comet was protected by that armour level. In practise it required a somewhat unlucky shot to hit the part of the Comet which was protected by the thickest 100 mm armour plate as most of the tank was protected by much thinner armour whereas pretty much all of the front of the Tiger was protected by 100 mm armour plates and all of its sides were protected by still farily thick 80 mm plates. If the crew had some brains and angled the tank in battle the effective thickness or these plates increased considerably. In this case it required a lucky shot to hit a vulnerable part to do some actual damage. That's why the Tiger was considerably heavier and that's why it should have a considerably better defense value in the game.

Similarily, the Panther had 80-100 mm armour plates in the front but these were heavily sloped and it resulted in a much thicker effective armour in most circumstances (around 130 mm or more). But it came at the cost of having thinner side armour so in fact it was better protected in the front than the Tiger, but lighter protected in the sides and back. Nevertheless, there is only one defense value in the game so all these should be combined to have an average protection value. I would say that the overall protection of the Tiger and the Panther was more or less the same, maybe the Tiger being somewhat better as it was less affected by flanking attacks even though still having a thinner effective armour in the front. The Tiger also carried a heavier gun (88 mm vs. 75 mm) which may help to understand why it was considerably heavier.

But of course both of these should have a considerably higher defense value than the Comet or the Comet should have lower. On the other hand, the Comet was indeed somewhat faster (at least theoretically) and had a smaller profile and thus it should not be too bad either. It was a quite good medium tank with a good gun and average protection but in a one on one duel I would rather be in a Tiger or Panther than in a Comet for sure.

[Horseman]

While I agree with the basic assumption that the Panther and Tiger should have a higher ground defense than the Comet, weight is not everything. Not all the extra weight they put on a tank ends up being armour and thereby increasing protection. A tank equipped with a bigger and heavier gun will be obviously heavier than a similar tank with a smaller and lighter gun. It is easy to understand that the first tank will be heavier because of the heavier gun but it will not increase its protecion. A prime example is the KV-2 which was equipped with a 152 mm heavy howitzer which required a large enough turret and turret turning mechanism and it made the tank very heavy but it did not make it better protected than tanks with similar weight but smaller gun.

And different tanks had of course different engines, radios and other equipment, carried a different amount of ammunition and fuel, had different suspension, tracks, gear, brake etc. etc. and all this equipment had of course different weight depending on the technology and the material they used. For example T-34 tanks had an engine largely made of aluminium which made the tank somewhat lighter than other comparable tanks which had their engine made of steel. But it did not make the T-34 less protected only because of that.

Therefore it would be an overly simplified approach to only take weight as the main factor to determine the overall protection of a tank. However, it can still provide some clues to start with.

Returning to the basic assumtion, yes, the Comet did have a maximum armour thickness of 100 mm which is indeed comparable to the maximum armour thickness of the Panther and Tiger. But again, it is just as misleading to give them the same defense values based on this information alone as it would be to rely on pure weight.

The Comet had a 100 mm armour plate at a relatively small area, in the turret front, and the rest of the hull and superstructure front was protected by much thinner armour plates between 30-76mm. And the sides and the back of the Comet were protected by similar 30-65 mm thick unsloped armour plates which were somewhat typical of the era. Thus it was a relatively lightweight tank. In comparison, the Tiger had 100 mm protection all over its front turret, hull and superstructure and 80 mm all over its sides. Although both had the same maximum armour thickness the Tiger had much more of it and only a small part of the Comet was protected by that armour level. In practise it required a somewhat unlucky shot to hit the part of the Comet which was protected by the thickest 100 mm armour plate as most of the tank was protected by much thinner armour whereas pretty much all of the front of the Tiger was protected by 100 mm armour plates and all of its sides were protected by still farily thick 80 mm plates. If the crew had some brains and angled the tank in battle the effective thickness or these plates increased considerably. In this case it required a lucky shot to hit a vulnerable part to do some actual damage. That's why the Tiger was considerably heavier and that's why it should have a considerably better defense value in the game.

Similarily, the Panther had 80-100 mm armour plates in the front but these were heavily sloped and it resulted in a much thicker effective armour in most circumstances (around 130 mm or more). But it came at the cost of having thinner side armour so in fact it was better protected in the front than the Tiger, but lighter protected in the sides and back. Nevertheless, there is only one defense value in the game so all these should be combined to have an average protection value. I would say that the overall protection of the Tiger and the Panther was more or less the same, maybe the Tiger being somewhat better as it was less affected by flanking attacks even though still having a thinner effective armour in the front. The Tiger also carried a heavier gun (88 mm vs. 75 mm) which may help to understand why it was considerably heavier.

But of course both of these should have a considerably higher defense value than the Comet or the Comet should have lower. On the other hand, the Comet was indeed somewhat faster (at least theoretically) and had a smaller profile and thus it should not be too bad either. It was a quite good medium tank with a good gun and average protection but in a one on one duel I would rather be in a Tiger or Panther than in a Comet for sure.

Very good information.

I think it's fair to say the comet does seem a touch over armoured in game (many late allied tanks do to be fair)

But I don't think it's GD is too out of whack, probably only a point or 2 too high (IMO)

[johnyoga]

Devs,

Just use the stats stated in Steel Division II. DONE!

Pay me later for my wise counsel.

Marc

[Spiret3z]

While I agree with the basic assumption that the Panther and Tiger should have a higher ground defense than the Comet, weight is not everything. Not all the extra weight they put on a tank ends up being armour and thereby increasing protection. A tank equipped with a bigger and heavier gun will be obviously heavier than a similar tank with a smaller and lighter gun. It is easy to understand that the first tank will be heavier because of the heavier gun but it will not increase its protecion. A prime example is the KV-2 which was equipped with a 152 mm heavy howitzer which required a large enough turret and turret turning mechanism and it made the tank very heavy but it did not make it better protected than tanks with similar weight but smaller gun.

And different tanks had of course different engines, radios and other equipment, carried a different amount of ammunition and fuel, had different suspension, tracks, gear, brake etc. etc. and all this equipment had of course different weight depending on the technology and the material they used. For example T-34 tanks had an engine largely made of aluminium which made the tank somewhat lighter than other comparable tanks which had their engine made of steel. But it did not make the T-34 less protected only because of that.

Therefore it would be an overly simplified approach to only take weight as the main factor to determine the overall protection of a tank. However, it can still provide some clues to start with.

Returning to the basic assumtion, yes, the Comet did have a maximum armour thickness of 100 mm which is indeed comparable to the maximum armour thickness of the Panther and Tiger. But again, it is just as misleading to give them the same defense values based on this information alone as it would be to rely on pure weight.

The Comet had a 100 mm armour plate at a relatively small area, in the turret front, and the rest of the hull and superstructure front was protected by much thinner armour plates between 30-76mm. And the sides and the back of the Comet were protected by similar 30-65 mm thick unsloped armour plates which were somewhat typical of the era. Thus it was a relatively lightweight tank. In comparison, the Tiger had 100 mm protection all over its front turret, hull and superstructure and 80 mm all over its sides. Although both had the same maximum armour thickness the Tiger had much more of it and only a small part of the Comet was protected by that armour level. In practise it required a somewhat unlucky shot to hit the part of the Comet which was protected by the thickest 100 mm armour plate as most of the tank was protected by much thinner armour whereas pretty much all of the front of the Tiger was protected by 100 mm armour plates and all of its sides were protected by still farily thick 80 mm plates. If the crew had some brains and angled the tank in battle the effective thickness or these plates increased considerably. In this case it required a lucky shot to hit a vulnerable part to do some actual damage. That's why the Tiger was considerably heavier and that's why it should have a considerably better defense value in the game.

Similarily, the Panther had 80-100 mm armour plates in the front but these were heavily sloped and it resulted in a much thicker effective armour in most circumstances (around 130 mm or more). But it came at the cost of having thinner side armour so in fact it was better protected in the front than the Tiger, but lighter protected in the sides and back. Nevertheless, there is only one defense value in the game so all these should be combined to have an average protection value. I would say that the overall protection of the Tiger and the Panther was more or less the same, maybe the Tiger being somewhat better as it was less affected by flanking attacks even though still having a thinner effective armour in the front. The Tiger also carried a heavier gun (88 mm vs. 75 mm) which may help to understand why it was considerably heavier.

But of course both of these should have a considerably higher defense value than the Comet or the Comet should have lower. On the other hand, the Comet was indeed somewhat faster (at least theoretically) and had a smaller profile and thus it should not be too bad either. It was a quite good medium tank with a good gun and average protection but in a one on one duel I would rather be in a Tiger or Panther than in a Comet for sure.

Dear McGuba,
thank you very much for your feedback!

In the present thread I have posted my ideas and correspondent calculations to these ideas how to avoid randomness in PC2 unit stats:

1.) transformation of the real "tank weight" into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet;
2.) transformation of the "tank weight/volume ratio" into tank defense numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet (as I have calculated in my message to Root in the present thread).

I find "tank weight/volume ratio" more precise than "tank weight", but the available data on Wiki for real tank volume is very rough.

3.) transformation of "tank horsepower/weight ratio" into tank movement numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet (as I have calculated in my message to Root in the present thread);

4.) For tank attack stats I would transform the real available "shell penetration" WW2-data into attack numbers in PC2 unit stats spreadsheet;
The "shell penetration" of the weapon refers to the amount of flat metal armor the gun can penetrate in millimeters (mm). Penetration is calculated as if firing at flat armor at a range of 100 m.
There is lots of data on Wiki about the "shell penetration" of the WW2-guns for both tank and anti-tank. From the easy-to-find data on Wiki I will take the maximum results of the guns and shells used.

Maybe you have some ideas how would you transform things you find important into PC2 unit stats spreadsheet? Please take at least 3-4 tanks and show some exact calculations.

[Blade0]

Sorry for being slightly off-topic.

Many, especially ex-crews are calling the Sherman "inadequate" for the role it had. I compared stats, and noticed an interesting thing: for many characteristics, and development, the M4 and the PzIV were quite similar. Both had around the same armor, which were strengthened over the years; both had a short barrel 75mm gun at the beginning for similar reasons.
There are two differences.
First is the weight of the two. The PzIV starts at 19 tonnes (Ausf. C) and goes up to 25 with more armor and heavier guns. The Sherman starts at 30, and goes up to 38 tons with the Jumbo Sherman-s.
The other is the availability date: PzIVC was available before the war, while the M4 was available from 1942.
My conclusion is: the PzIV was actually blind luck: it was designed and completed ahead of its age, for a bit different role than it filled later. There was a real good balance between its weight, engine size and power, and size. Later on, around 1942 the PzIV has assumed the vehicle-hunter role of the PzIII as well, becoming the backbone of the Panzerwaffe - because it had a bigger turret ring, it could mount bigger, longer guns.
The Sherman, on the other hand, wasn't exactly inadequate. The expectations were different. The Sherman was late, by the time it was introduced, it was no more than a stop-gap measure.
The other is the role - the Sherman was supposed to be a heavy tank. The 30-ton limit was artificially imposed on the design, as well as some size limitations, to make it easy to transport. Should it be designed larger and heavier, and as an anti-vehicle heavy tank rather than an all-purpose tank, it could have proven to be a challenge to Panthers and Tigers, and would have been superior to PzIVs and PzIIIs. But it wasn't - it was "OK", a bit too heavy for its performance, but not adequate for the need against the Wermacht in its time.
Why the allies had won? Because they have produced around 50,000 Shermans, while PzIIIs and PzIVs altogether were only produced like 13,000 during the whole war. Yeah, and add 84,000 T-34s the Wermacht also had to "tackle".
Let me also bow before the tank crews of the Shermans - they were willing to fight again and again knowing that at least 6 of them will be shot and burn before the 7th has a chance to put a round to the engine of a Tiger. Many of them died, but who survived had the guts to get into a new Sherman and do it again. I respect that courage.

[Horseman]

Sorry for being slightly off-topic.

Many, especially ex-crews are calling the Sherman "inadequate" for the role it had. I compared stats, and noticed an interesting thing: for many characteristics, and development, the M4 and the PzIV were quite similar. Both had around the same armor, which were strengthened over the years; both had a short barrel 75mm gun at the beginning for similar reasons.
There are two differences.
First is the weight of the two. The PzIV starts at 19 tonnes (Ausf. C) and goes up to 25 with more armor and heavier guns. The Sherman starts at 30, and goes up to 38 tons with the Jumbo Sherman-s.
The other is the availability date: PzIVC was available before the war, while the M4 was available from 1942.
My conclusion is: the PzIV was actually blind luck: it was designed and completed ahead of its age, for a bit different role than it filled later. There was a real good balance between its weight, engine size and power, and size. Later on, around 1942 the PzIV has assumed the vehicle-hunter role of the PzIII as well, becoming the backbone of the Panzerwaffe - because it had a bigger turret ring, it could mount bigger, longer guns.
The Sherman, on the other hand, wasn't exactly inadequate. The expectations were different. The Sherman was late, by the time it was introduced, it was no more than a stop-gap measure.
The other is the role - the Sherman was supposed to be a heavy tank. The 30-ton limit was artificially imposed on the design, as well as some size limitations, to make it easy to transport. Should it be designed larger and heavier, and as an anti-vehicle heavy tank rather than an all-purpose tank, it could have proven to be a challenge to Panthers and Tigers, and would have been superior to PzIVs and PzIIIs. But it wasn't - it was "OK", a bit too heavy for its performance, but not adequate for the need against the Wermacht in its time.
Why the allies had won? Because they have produced around 50,000 Shermans, while PzIIIs and PzIVs altogether were only produced like 13,000 during the whole war. Yeah, and add 84,000 T-34s the Wermacht also had to "tackle".
Let me also bow before the tank crews of the Shermans - they were willing to fight again and again knowing that at least 6 of them will be shot and burn before the 7th has a chance to put a round to the engine of a Tiger. Many of them died, but who survived had the guts to get into a new Sherman and do it again. I respect that courage.

I think when people say the Sherman was inadequate they're referring more to fighting the big tanks. Panther, Tiger I&II.

When it first saw service in Africa it did IIRC dominate the Panzers it faced (IIIs & IVs)

As a US design it was built to fill a role in their armoured doctrine. It didn't need a bigger gun because the tank destroyers were supposed to tackle the enemy armour.

The Brits own doctrine was different. Hence the modifications made to create the Firefly.

Good bit of information there though.