JagdpanzerIV wrote: I agree with what yuo are saying, so what i do, or did rather in panzer general II, when editing units, i went like this. 60% front, 30% sides and 10% rear for armor values. So say the tiger was 110/82/82, i did (0.6 x 110) + (0.3 x 82) + (0.1 x82) = which gave me a number. I did this for all tanks lol. so roughly, doing this for panthers and tigers they had the same GD values. (if i recall well)
It is a shame that it is lost for good as it has to be done again now, I suppose. However, how about the turret? And the gun mantlet? For example, the Panzer IIIM had 57 mm turret armour in the front, sloped at 15°, and most of it was covered by a 50+20 mm gun mantlet, and only to make things a bit more cheesy, that was curved, with a slope between 0° and 45°... And than its hull front armour was only 50 mm sloped at 21°. In contrast, the Panzer IVH had an 80 mm front hull armour, sloped at 10°, but its front turret armour was only 50 mm sloped at 10°, and it was only partially covered by a 50 mm gun mantlet. Now, according to your formula, the PzIVH would get a higher GD value thanks to its thicker front hull armour, even though the PzIIIM had a much stronger front turret which would not be represented in the final value. And given the fact that a tank's turret stands out the most, obviously being on the top of the structure, it should always be a good aiming point even if the tank is in a hull-down position, standing behind a hill or some other terrain feature.JagdpanzerIV wrote:as for the PG2 edited game values, i don't have them anymore, but i remember my formula, which basically was what i wrote above. Ah yes, i was also calculating the slope armor in the numbers. so for example, Panther G front was 85mm divided by 55 cosinus = 148mm effective front armor. side was 50mm divided by cosinus 30 = 57,7mm and rear was 40mm divided by cosinus 30mm = 46,2mm. so (0.6 x 148) + (0.3 x 57,7) + (0.1 x 46,2) etc.
And if we are here, how would you rate additional armour bolted to the basic one? Many tanks had additional armour plate added, like the late series PzIVG had 50 mm basic and 30 mm additional bolted, while the PzIVH had 80 mm basic armour. If I am right a solid armour plate is regarded stronger than two bolted together and then having the same thickness added. And it is seemingly reflected in the current GD values of PzC. When checking the stats of PzC I came up with an approximate formula and it seems that the game takes the maximum frontal armour as a basis for the GD value:
Max armour - GD in vanilla PzC
14/18mm – 6
20/25mm – 7
30/35mm – 8
25+25mm – 9
30+30mm – 10
50mm – 11
60mm – 12
65/70mm – 13
50+30mm – 14
80mm – 16
90mm - 17
100mm - 18
120mm - 19
100mm all around heavy - 22-23 (e.g. Tiger I)
180mm - 25-26 (Tiger II, IS-2 (???))
Unfortunately, as we all know now, it is not always consistent even to its own house rule, e.g. the PzIVF has 11 GD, and oddly the PzIVF-2 has 10 GD even though the two had the same armour and the only difference was the longer main gun in the latter.
But it seems to make a distinction between solid basic armour and additional armour added to the basic one as in the case of the PzIVG - PzIVH (GD 14 and 16 respectively) or the PzIIIH - PzIIIJ, the PzIIIJ having a higher GD even though it had a 50 mm basic frontal armour and the PzIIIH having a 30 mm basic and an added 30 mm armour plate to it, the two making a 60 mm armour together.
Yeah, in some cases I also gave a bonus 1-2 GD to smaller units like the Hetzer or StuGs.good points, indeed size and speed should effect GD. But how, hmm. maybe normal size 0, small size +1 armor, and huge -1 GD. as for speed, i think being able to move 4, 5 or 6 hexagons is already a big bonus.
