Slitherine

Actually, all aircraft weapons theoretical penetration should be greatly reduces due to simple fact that planes are not attacking the target straight on (except maybe stukas) but on shallow dive, therefore angle of impact would be quite steep, greatly increasing the resistance of top armor, even if its was relatively weak.. so while .50cal could penetrate 10-15mm armor flat on, from a plane, hit angle would be much higher, easily over 60 degrees or more.. which would make 10mm armor resist more than twice as much... (10@60=20mm,10@70=30mm LOS)

Together with the fact, that of all combat casualties in WW2, planes were usually responsible only for 5-6% and many countries gave credit to planes when cause was unknown, therefore realistically, it could be below 6%.. I think all fighter planes should have minimal effect on tanks, and other heavily armored vehicles, while they should be only usable against soft targets (but of course, halftracks should be converted to soft)

JaM2013 wrote:(but of course, halftracks should be converted to soft)

Why only halftrack ?
Cant see logic on it.
Becoz armour of 15 mm ? But then ALL units with armour 15 mm must be SOFT target also: light tanks, SP AA/AT.

And what wll be happen with this units after arty/t.bomber strike (for example SA/HA 9/6) ?
Too many questions...

JaM2013 wrote:of course, halftracks should be converted to soft

I'm not convinced of this. I can't see a problem with having a hard target with a low GD. Halftracks (and other lightly armoured vehicles) should offer some protection against rifle calibre weapons and shell fragments as this is what they were designed to cope with, yet have limited resistance against heavier weapons (AT rifles and upwards). That sounds like a classic case for hard target with low GD.

Remember that soft target with high GD can be problematic. The discussions on the M3A1 scout car in Soviet Corps arose because it was soft target with high GD. For a start, all other M3 half tracks were hard targets with low GD, so this was an inconsistency, but the high GD also made it too tough when attacked by tanks. The fact that it was so cheap further distorted game balance.

The arguments in favour of increased CD for troop carriers make good sense, since accompanying infantry are surely one of the best means of keeping enemy infantry away.

its quite simple, it has to do with aircrafts. If we change all vehicles with less than 15mm of armor to soft targets, then aircrafts can strafe them and destroy them. Most fighter planes should have 0 hard attack and unable to destroy tanks.

I tested it, all halftracks and scouts with less than 15mm are soft targets with low GD and this work out just fine. Also it's silly to think a late ww2 tank will fire AP shells at a halftrack, unless its all that is left.

A tank with 8 SA and 14 HA has no problem dealing with soft targets.

JaM2013 wrote: So, with all these changes, i think all halftracks would then require price increase, which would make them a bit rare, as they should be.. Player should no have enough money to equip all his infantry units with halftracks anyway, (even German PanzerGrenadier battalions were mostly using standard trucks)

I agree, but we would have to test if campaigns are still doable with high priced halftracks.

the german and russian army relied on horses a lot to carry their stuff, movies and history channel do not depict the reality.

JagdpanzerIV wrote:I agree, but we would have to test if campaigns are still doable with high priced halftracks.

I have been reading this topic with great interest, which originally started with the "fine tuning" of the Sherman tanks in the game and has seemingly evolved to an in-depth equipment modification thread. It was inevitable, as if one concludes that the Sherman tank (or any other random unit) is not depicted correctly in the vanilla game and manage to fix it to some extent, it instantly becomes apparent that it does not solve anything as the next, and the next, and the next... unit has to get the same treatment as well. But than in the end it will be also apparent that these more accurate units might not fit in the official content at all.

It might also explain why the new German horse transport unit was not activated in the latest patch of the game, even thought the icon and the entry in the equipment file was made. I guess the creators realized that even though historically horse transport was an essential part of the German war machine, it was way too late to add it to the already existing (unhistorical) campaigns in any meaningful way.

By the way, for a time I was thinking to port the equipment file and all the new and modified units in my mod for the base game but soon realized that there is not much point in playing unhistorical campaigns with historically accurate equipment. The unhistorical equipment file of the base game is well suited to the similarily unhistorical official campaigns and this combo has been well tested by thousands of happy players. I was pretty sure that at some point you will come to the same conclusion, which means in the end, if you want to play this game in a more historically accurate way, you need to start to make your own scenarios/campaigns as well...
Which is great!

yes, this sums up pretty well the current state of the unhistorical content of the games vs historical unit stats.
But i modded the equipment file extensively and i am doing the US campaign and it works out just fine. i am using the M7 priest and 105mm guns as the main back bone of my army, cos like it was mentioned already the 155mm spg should have very little ammo and be expensive like crazy and therefore i don't use it at all.
Even if my US tanks are somehow weaker now vs panthers and tigers (especially the tiger 2) i use strategical bombers B17, to drain them and make those tanks useless. one bomber attack + 1 infantry attack, then the tank is without ammo and i finish them up with (now fast moving) hellcats.

McGuba wrote:if you want to play this game in a more historically accurate way, you need to start to make your own scenarios/campaigns as well...
Which is great!

Absolutely ! New equipment file demand new Scenarios/Campaign design.

and one of big benefit of these changes is increased difficulty of Grand Campaigns.. i played German GC42-43 over weekend, and must say, those Panzer III and IVs against T34 M41 and M43 are only manageable when Soviets dont have experience... yet once you start encountering 2-3exp tanks late in 1942, its tough as hell.. experienced PzIVG can handle them, but with casualties, and you have to rotate tank units on the front to be able repair damaged ones.. i've ended up using PzIIIL attacking infantry only, so eventually, i just converted them to Ns.. and even getting first Tigers at the start of GC43 wont change things too much, as they start inexperienced (after upgrade usually with just 1-2 stars), so they cant deal good damage early on.. (i have converted my only two SE tank units to Tigers) Yet, i find German infantry to be the real killer, just have to put them into correct terrain (hills,forests) and back them up with some artillery)

one of my favorite changes in equipment file was to convert all Stugs into artillery units, with secondary antitank switch. These vehicles were used by artillery units, and all of them actually had option for direct and indirect fire (equipped with artillery periscope) up to 5-6km. Having them inside artillery tree it allows me to get proper upgrade path from B to G, with few of them assigned to H versions. Historically, it was one of the most commonly used armored vehicles in Wehrmacht inventory, eventually they even assigned some as replacement for destroyed PzIVH in late 44..

one thing i was investigating recently is the balance between tanks and infantry. I think tank's close defense should also cover how effective infantry weapons were for destroying a tank, based on period. While Close Defense stat for tanks is usually based on amount of MGs tank carries, and special features, like Zimeritt paste or Schurzen, I think these bonuses could have quite an impact on Infantry effectivity against tanks.

For example Schurzen were quite effective way how to prevent early HEAT projectiles to detonate in required distance from armor, which practically made them ineffective. therefore Shurzen alone should give a tank relatively interesting CD bonus, so it could stand a chance against late war ('43) version of infantry typically equipped with these weapons (PIAT, Bazooka) which usually means HA attack 4-7. I think vehicles with Shurzen should get CD up to 4 max, even if they dont have as many MGs to have CD4 (StugIIIG for example)

Zimmeritt paste at the other side was only effective against magnetic mines, which were usually used by combat engineers. therefore tanks with zimmerit should get a small CD bonus but this bonus should be only applied if their overall CD is not greater than 3 (3-5 is typical HA attack for Engineers)

Which brings me to conclusion, that Close Defense could be instead modeled around side armor rating, where amount of machineguns would be actually just a modifier increasing the CD rating up one or two points..

This way, tanks that had weak side armor, vulnerable to infantry weapons would stay vulnerable in close terrain against infantry, while tanks with good protection will have its advantages.. and amount of MGs tank has, will just increase the CD, simulating how hard it was for infantry got get close enough to use its anti-tank weapons against machinegun covering fire..

So, let say side armor 5-15mm would give CD1, armor 20-35mm CD2,40-60mm CD3,70-90mm CD4 and 100+mm CD5. This would be base value. Then multipliers would add/subtract -1 if vehicle doesn't have any machine guns, +1CD if it has more than 2 MGs. Zimmerit paste would add 1CD, unless base CD is not greater than 3, and Shurzen would add 2CD.

So for example, PzIVH, with 30mm side armor has base CD 2, due to 3xMG (bow, turret and AA) +1CD, and Shurzen would add 2CD giving it total 5CD.
Panther at the other side would get CD3 (CD4 for versions with AAMG)
Ferdinand would have base CD4 but -1 for lack of MG for total CD3

technically, max CD defense value unit could have will be CD6 (heavy tanks usually didnt had shurzen)

JaM2013 wrote:one thing i was investigating recently is the balance between tanks and infantry. I think tank's close defense should also cover how effective infantry weapons were for destroying a tank, based on period. While Close Defense stat for tanks is usually based on amount of MGs tank carries, and special features, like Zimeritt paste or Schurzen, I think these bonuses could have quite an impact on Infantry effectivity against tanks.

For example Schurzen were quite effective way how to prevent early HEAT projectiles to detonate in required distance from armor, which practically made them ineffective. therefore Shurzen alone should give a tank relatively interesting CD bonus, so it could stand a chance against late war ('43) version of infantry typically equipped with these weapons (PIAT, Bazooka) which usually means HA attack 4-7. I think vehicles with Shurzen should get CD up to 4 max, even if they dont have as many MGs to have CD4 (StugIIIG for example)

Zimmeritt paste at the other side was only effective against magnetic mines, which were usually used by combat engineers. therefore tanks with zimmerit should get a small CD bonus but this bonus should be only applied if their overall CD is not greater than 3 (3-5 is typical HA attack for Engineers)

Which brings me to conclusion, that Close Defense could be instead modeled around side armor rating, where amount of machineguns would be actually just a modifier increasing the CD rating up one or two points..

This way, tanks that had weak side armor, vulnerable to infantry weapons would stay vulnerable in close terrain against infantry, while tanks with good protection will have its advantages.. and amount of MGs tank has, will just increase the CD, simulating how hard it was for infantry got get close enough to use its anti-tank weapons against machinegun covering fire..

So, let say side armor 5-15mm would give CD1, armor 20-35mm CD2,40-60mm CD3,70-90mm CD4 and 100+mm CD5. This would be base value. Then multipliers would add/subtract -1 if vehicle doesn't have any machine guns, +1CD if it has more than 2 MGs. Zimmerit paste would add 1CD, unless base CD is not greater than 3, and Shurzen would add 2CD.

So for example, PzIVH, with 30mm side armor has base CD 2, due to 3xMG (bow, turret and AA) +1CD, and Shurzen would add 2CD giving it total 5CD.
Panther at the other side would get CD3 (CD4 for versions with AAMG)
Ferdinand would have base CD4 but -1 for lack of MG for total CD3

technically, max CD defense value unit could have will be CD6 (heavy tanks usually didnt had shurzen)

I think the easiest way would be to change how the combat happens in the game. For example, a unit got 6 sides around itself ( hex map ) the 3 facing a unit should be frontal attack, and the remaining 3 would be 2 side attacks ( with GD cut in half ) and 1 rear attack ( GD cut in half too and CD = 0 )

Anti tank weapon (like piat, magnetic mines etc) should only work from side attacks.

to implement this efficiently, a little arrow could point the direction a unit is facing. At the end of a turn we could rotate a unit in a direction we want to face.
______

As for tanks like the Ferdi, enemy infantry could come close on their sides and climb on it and throw grenades inside or whatever. Even if it is probably immune to whatever anti tank weapon infantry would have carried in 1943.

thing is we cant change the game design, but we can adjust things that are already modeled in.. of course, simulating flanking maneuvers would be cool to have, but nothing we can do about it, just hope designers will consider applying it somehow in PC2

But back to CD setup, after some testing, i've made some adjustments to my setup, practically made number of MGs negative modifier with bigger impact, while side armor got bonus increased by 1. This way having no MG on vehicle reduced CD by 3, having just one MG gives penalty -2. 2MGs reduce by 1, and 3MGs give no reduction.

This impacts all tank destroyers properly, making them extremely vulnerable to infantry attacks in close terrain, while tanks, especially those with good armor and lots of machineguns are quite resistant. It actually makes Shermans to be very effective infantry killers, even with SA reduced to 7 (75mm), as high CD gives them fair chance attacking infantry. Similarly, Panzer IVH and J, are now also interesting alternative vs Panthers due to shurzen..

It makes good sense for CD to reflect MGs Schurtzen and armour etc.
I was about to suggest that small light tanks should probably get +1 CD as they could move around more freely, but then I thought of the Italian tankettes in Abyssinia, so I will now say that maybe some light tanks with turrets should get slightly better CD.

technically, coax machinegun is the most important, because its fully protected by armor, and can be used with 360 degree range, hull MG can only fire to the front, while AA mount is high risk position for the machine-gunner.. So, it would seem that having more MGs in turret would be beneficial, yet tanks which carried these initially, got them removed eventually for some reason (PzIII)

Anyway, one thing i forgot to add was penalty for not having a roof on vehicle. These were a lot more vulnerable to close attacks, as any grenade could disable the vehicle.. even US TD branch recognized this weakness, and some TDs even got top cover (M36).

And those Italian tanks, they had 4 machineguns mounted, so they should be relatively decent in CD (2x coax, bow, and AA mount).

btw guys, not really related to tank balance, but how do you approach the Airplanes air defense values? i tried to get power/weight and wing loading values for planes in the game, to get approximate maneuverability rating, anyway these are quite counterproductive, as sometimes they give quite strange results (LaGG-3 gets way too good stats, while Mustangs and Spitfires don't)

Anyway, air defense is not just about the maneuverability, 95% of all shot down planes were typically shot down without ever seeing whoever shot them down, which means air defense value should be not so dominant stat vs air attack.. I'm thinking it could consist of 33% of a value, while plane armor and speed would be responsible for 67% (33/34 each)

For air attack i'm using old Panzer General formulae, with (Air movement - 6) + sum of guns value, but im using specific gun effectivity values based on actual gun performance (rate of fire, muzzle velocity) of air weapons which i got from Anthony G Williams ( http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm )

Ground Defense stat is a bit simpler, thanks to game design - technically, GD should be a combination of operational ceiling and armor, where higher bonus for ceiling should be around 10 points, which is default value which is subtracted from a plane trying to attack ground target, except for strategic bombers. I'm even thinking increase this a bit, let say 12. This way, Air defense systems firing at planes at their usual ceiling would be doing minimal damage due to 12 point GD resistance, but if such planes go strafing a target Air defense is protecting, they will be very vulnerable, practically relying on their armor, which will be not too strong for most planes..

its extremely complex and would require a lot of work to sort out which planes had the advantage over another plane and for what reasons. For example some fighter planes had an advantage at low altitude but lost it climbing higher, some could do tighter turns, some had speed advantage and so on, some had more firepower, some more protection...Personally i am staying out of aircrafts.

the only thing i've done is reduce ALL aircrafts HA by 1, and only fighter planes, SA by 1 ( SA 1 minimum)

So a fighter plane that have SA 3 HA 1, would now have SA 2 HA 0.

i've actually already collected some data for all fighters in the vanilla game using mostly info from wikipedia, and few other sources, and when i combined it with certain criteria, i must say results are really interesting and quite historical - for example, P-51H, Ta-152H, P47N and Spitfire MkXIV are all in top10 of my list, but of course they are lacking some stats on some German wonderweapons, like Me262A He162 or Me163, but those have some other disadvantages (Me 163 extremely short range, it was only able to fly 40km so i gave it range 3 hexes)

even more interesting is the early war balance, with Spitfire and BF109 going closely toe to toe with stats (AA/AD), where Spitfire MKI and MKII usually has an edge in defense(13/12 for MkI; 13/14 for MkII), while BF109 is better on offense(15/13 for E), with exception of 109F which is overcoming Spitfires in defense and has about the same firepower(12/15).

I'm using speed as main value for initiative, as typically faster plane would initiate the combat or would leave it at will, while slower plane will be unable to dictate the fight, unless faster opponent accepts it. Im using a bit more granular values for speed, with 50kmh differences for single point of Initiative. Because of this, even planes that came out with less air defense (mostly Russian planes with low armor due to wooden construction), can be still dangerous due to higher initiative vs slower target.

Be careful tho, because some aircrafts had a speed advantage at low altitude and lost it going higher. Also many aircrafts had a speed burst/boost available to them via NOS.

yes, i know, but for altitude im already using max ceiling, while Panzer Corps doesnt have different altitudes, therefore we can assume each fighter is fighting in its optimal ceiling. Hopefully, developers will consider adding ceiling stat for planes in PC2.

Anyway, no matter the ceiling, it was always the most advantageous to start the engagement from higher position vs enemy, preferably from the sun, so he could not see the attack coming. majority of german aces got their shotdown numbers not because they were best in dogfight, but because they were capable striking undetected and get out before enemy wingman could react

the key to survival in a fighter plane was and always has been, training. Training coupled with combat experience. Overall it wasn't so much the plane itself that made a pilot win a fight, but its training, experience and the ability to learn from different situation...

For example, most agree that the Fw-190 was a better plane overall than the BF-109, but many german aces flew it till the end of the war with great success.