Slitherine

Kerensky wrote:A Panther G does not, by any means or interpretation, 'massively outclass' a T-34/85.

It did outclassed (Panther was a bit different class than T-34), but I have to agree that one-hit KO is bad.

Personally, I do not like one thing in PzC now:
Cheap, popular (during war), dedicated and successful tank destroyers like Hetzer are almost as useless against JS-2 as T-34 against Panthers.

JS-2 just love to jump into the river and roll over my Hetzers. The penality of a River should not be -4 less defence. It should be 25-50% less Defense and maybe the same amount to the Initiative.

Out of all the games I've played, I've never seen a 10 vs 10 battle where one guy gets killed.

Your experience is very rare indeed. Can not use that one circumstance to rebalance units.

Out of all the games I've played, I've never seen a 10 vs 10 battle where one guy gets killed.

I've seen quite a few. But to be quite honest, if an allied players wants to take his Stuart and go up against Tigers, Panthers, & Kings, then he gets what's coming to him.

It shouldn't be impossible to get a one-shot kill now and then. Nothing in war is certain, and no matter HOW MUCH you think you've planned & pre-planned and have the initiative, war has uncertain outcomes. The Dieppe fiasco is just one of many examples.

That one shot was just one example, and in the case of a Stuart VS a Tiger, I agree 10-0 should be a rare possibility.

Right now Panther vs T-34 is a rare possibility for a 10-0 1 shot, while Tiger vs Stuart feels like 50/50 for 10-0 knock out.

There's plenty of bad RNG, I have lots of logs(actual screenshots not just rhetoric), not just this case.
Take for example:
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9098/lolrng.jpg

Keren, I have look over battle logs after every damn battle. I still don't agree that there is anything wrong. Everything looks to me as is expected. Being human, it is much easier to remember those STREAKS that stick out, than those random patterns that are hidden.

This is exactly why there are so many suckers at table-games like CRAPs.

Just exactly what do you mean RNG?

The problem isn't that RNG is random(duh), it's that RNG is making an unbalanced game even more unbalanced.

Random = RND

Where does the G come from? Duh?


ha ha... I thought you meant that.

I have noticed a randomness in this version.

I have gone on streaks where most of my units missed.

I still reserve my judgement on this setting.

If you don't like the RNG, then there is Operation Barbarossa for you. That's close to PG without RNG, since the battle results barely vary to the predictions.

Unfortunately for me, it made things feel too static, and closer to chess. And this just doesn't hold much anticipation.

In our current system, things seem more closer to the real-world, and my attention is always held at every battle. I would not want to change that.

RNG stands for Random Number Generator.

Are they going to release the data so we can modify the hit ratios?

Some units never hit anything.

Still on the AA issue. A 2% to 7 kill ratio is too low.

These are defensive units. Sure they may have a good chance for suppression, but what good is it?

Suppression is only good for offense where you attack. This means you have to use a near by fighter to attack.


So AA does not function correctly.

Can we make AA suppress over the next turn?

This was when you are attacked and your AA returns fire, it suppresses the unit for the current and next turn so that the second turn odds will be lower and dissuade the enemy from attacking you.


This will need to be displayed on the planes. So, when it is your turn and you want to bomb you can see what your effective strength is and then weigh that against any plan of attack.

While play testing extended USA scenarios, this happened. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

Naval combat is a little better in the new version. Battleships may be a little too tough (1-0 for a 10 str heavy cruiser vs 3 str battleship) and the French Light Cruiser has really great stats(wrong), better attack values than a battleship and only 1 less defense.

Aircraft are way too powerful at attacking transports and way too weak at attacking normal ground units, especially tactical bombers.

It seems the uber-unit in this release is the BM-31. Despite being a simple truck-artillery unit, they have a whopping 28 AT strength! Even my tigers lose half their strength from a single bombardment.

I'm wondering if there was a typo in the stats.

I just wanted to say in general I found the combat stats for 0.96 much much better. Artillery and suppression seems right, casualty rates in combats seem right. I'd say it was spot on to be honest. Great job

I have not investigated all the possibilities but the interactions in the early scenarios looked very good to me. The only issue migth be late war units if the higher stats through the balance out. I have not tried this and not checked how experience might effect thigns in a campaign game.

A lot of rocket artillery has extreme AT values. 30cm NBL has 30 AT, Wurfrahmen has 26. These units were the old counter to ultra high defensive armor tanks, but after all of those units got nerfed, these artillery units could probably use a toning down as well.

I agree combat is getting better (Mostly in early war), but it's not quite there yet, especially mid and late war stats, including price.

Speaking of Rockets, what about a type of V2 unit? I remember this kept being mentioned over and over in the PG forums ages ago.

Anyhow, the 88 still seems to be a very shitty AA unit. Definitely does not live up to its reputation.

You have the Maus listed as a Tank. As I understand it, this was a Tank-Destroyer with no turret.

* Edit *

Hmm, I just read now that the Maus did in fact come with coaxials. I guess it's ok then as a heavy-tank.

IIRC PG-III had this classified in the AT class.