Slitherine

- Pioniere (Engineer):
when reaching 1943 all infantry units will be improved, more fighting power through automatic weapons and more modern weapons. But the Pioniere are not improved. Why?

- Ju 87 G:
Why is the hard attack of the Ju 87 G identical to the Ju 87 D both have hard attack of 8???? And the G has an "active" air attack of 5???
The Ju 87 G was designed as a Tank destroyer, armed with two 3,7cm cannons ... primary used against the thin upper armor.

The "G" should have a significant higher hard attack but a reduced soft attack!

- Panther:
Panther D
movement: 6
hard attack: 18

Panther A
movement: 5
hard attack: 19

the engine of all Panther modells A / D / G was the same, and the speed was the same, so all Panther's should have the same movement ingame right?

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_V_Panther

This is a link of the german wiki but you can have a look on the tech data

- Capital Ships vs Level Bombers
I think the naval Attack of the level Bombers is too high or the capital ships are too weak. During Overlord i anhilated the whole Allied fleet with 2 x He177a overstrength 15.
One Attack, one ship sunk!!! Only one Capital Ship survided the first attack with two points. After the second attack it was also on the ground.

I think the ships must be tougher, 2 or 3 Attacks too sink one.

Steakenglisch wrote:1.1 Maus: The Hardattack is definitly too low!!! The Maus was armed with an "128-mm-KwK44 L/55" as main gun and an coaxial "7,5-cm-L/44 KwK" as a second gun. For close defense 2 x MG34, one in the turret one in the front chassis. When you look at this armament and compare the hardattack of the Maus with the hardattack of the Königstiger (Tiger II) and

As an Example the PzIV F2 was armed with an KwK 40 L/43 ... ingame you gave it an hardattack of 13, the second Gun of the Maus 7,5-cm-L/44 KwK must be equal or slightly better and this must be added to the hardattack of the main gun the 128-mm-KwK44 L/55 ... with an hardattack of 26 .... the Königstiger (Tiger II) was armed with an 8,8-cm-KwK 43 L/71 you gave him a hardattack of 24 ... so the Maus with 2 guns ... the main gun is much bigger and much more effective than the 8,8cm L71 has only 2 points more? Too low. Whats about a 32 or at least a 30 hardattack?

Penetration tables do not show 128mm KwK 44 L/55 is better in penetrating than 88mm KwK 43 L/71 and it looks like secondary gun for Maus was 75mm KwK 44 L/36.5 not L/44. Nontheless it is somehow hard to define attack values when two guns are available, in cases where second one is in hull even harder but here it is not the case.
For comparition you can check this three statistics (check the bottom of the page):

For Jagdtiger
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/jagdpanzer ... fz-186.htm

For Maus
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkamp ... er-iip.htm

For Tiger II
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkamp ... fz-182.htm

Maus HA is set to be strongest to make it more formidable but our previous experiences showed extraordinary defense values and as well extraordinary attack values are not so good for gameplay.

Steakenglisch wrote:2.1 Fw 190 A: it seems to me that the air attack is too high but if you lower it the stats of the allied fighters must be balanced.

2.2 Fw 190 D-9 : if the air attack of the Fw190 a must be 24 than is the 25 of the D-9 too low - i suggest you can lower the air attack of the "A" to 20 than it makes sense to upgrade to the D-9 and this will make it more realistic, cause the arament of the Fw 190 was raised during the Production. The other option is to raise the air attack

I found Fw 190 D-9 to had less firepower than Fw 190 A-4 and if I am not misstaken it was intended to be used at higer altitudes where Fw 190A was not so good at. We do not have such representation in the game but overall for upgrade path Fw 190 D-9 should be stronger than Fw 190A for gamplay purpose. How much stronger is open question and if increase of 1 air attack point is not enough to use it than definitely something is wrong but against West Allied air power every point is higher is good to have.

Steakenglisch wrote:2.3 Ta152 H / Do 335 A ... i wonder why they are sooo hmmm weak, both are armed with one 30mm cannon and 2 x 20mm cannons, the Ta 152 H was the fastest german figther with one engine (non jet) and the Do 335 A was extremly effective in Dogfights depending on the construction, very fast and with a low fuel consumption ... so i think both fighters are superior designs but they are weaker than the Fw190 D9 ... maybe a higher initiative or movement is possible?

I am not satisfied with other late war fighters myself and this part is open for revision.

Steakenglisch wrote:3. Soviet Anti-Tank
3.1 The hardattack of the Su-85 and the Su-152 is the same, that must be a bug cause the Su-152 was equipped with a much bigger gun.

Bigger gun doesn't mean better penetration. Su-152 was equiped with howitzer and not designed as AT at all but it proved to be a good one. Its strength was blast from explosion was sometimes enough to knock out vehicle by killing the crew but not harming the vehicle. How to model it in e-file is question because either way you look at it it needs to be arbitrary. I used rule to make soft attack equal to calibre in cm and make hard attack to be lower for one point. That is how all artillery pieces are modeled.

Steakenglisch wrote:4.4 The Air Attack of the Hurricane MK.II seems a bit too high?

Hurricane Mk.II is C variant equiped with 4x20mm cannons but its initiative is low.

Steakenglisch wrote: 1.1 Maus: The Hardattack is definitly too low!!!
(...)
so the Maus with 2 guns ... the main gun is much bigger and much more effective than the 8,8cm L71 has only 2 points more? Too low. Whats about a 32 or at least a 30 hardattack?

You are very wrong here. Bigger caliber doesn't mean better penetration. Thats why Panzer III > Panzer IV (early part of war) and Panther > Tiger (later) when it comes to ability to penetrate armor.

Also, more guns doesn't mean more "hard attack".

T-35 had five turrets. More than any other tank! Therefore it should be the best tank of the war! don't you think?

2.2 Fw 190 D-9 : if the air attack of the Fw190 a must be 24 than is the 25 of the D-9 too low - i suggest you can lower the air attack of the "A" to 20 than it makes sense to upgrade to the D-9 and this will make it more realistic, cause the arament of the Fw 190 was raised during the Production. The other option is to raise the air attack

You are all wrong again, uran21 explained it nicely why.

2.3 Ta152 H / Do 335 A ... i wonder why they are sooo hmmm weak, both are armed with one 30mm cannon and 2 x 20mm cannons, the Ta 152 H was the fastest german figther with one engine (non jet) and the Do 335 A was extremly effective in Dogfights depending on the construction, very fast and with a low fuel consumption ... so i think both fighters are superior designs but they are weaker than the Fw190 D9 ... maybe a higher initiative or movement is possible?

Very, very wrong again. Ta 152H may have been the fastest (I still think there may have been something better), but Dornier wasn't "extremely effective" in dogfights.
Do 335 was designed as fast bomber, the first units to receive it were the bomber units. Seeing the plane was decent, the version B was prepared, which would be destined to attack allied bombers.
Do 335 COULD NEVER dogfight, because the construction would not allow dogfighting.
Also, 2 engines and low fuel consumption - think a bit.

3.1 The hardattack of the Su-85 and the Su-152 is the same, that must be a bug cause the Su-152 was equipped with a much bigger gun.

Magic of high caliber guns...

Steakenglisch wrote:- Pioniere (Engineer):
when reaching 1943 all infantry units will be improved, more fighting power through automatic weapons and more modern weapons. But the Pioniere are not improved. Why?

I agree with this.

Steakenglisch wrote: - Ju 87 G:
Why is the hard attack of the Ju 87 G identical to the Ju 87 D both have hard attack of 8???? And the G has an "active" air attack of 5???
The Ju 87 G was designed as a Tank destroyer, armed with two 3,7cm cannons ... primary used against the thin upper armor.

The "G" should have a significant higher hard attack but a reduced soft attack!

Agree.

Steakenglisch wrote: - Panther:
Panther D
movement: 6
hard attack: 18

Panther A
movement: 5
hard attack: 19

I agree this is wrong ...Panther D should be slower than A and G, as it was initial model and had many teething problems (Panther introduction at Kursk was not very successful).

How exactly do units embarcked inside a boxcar on the rail-way tracks still have a vision range of one?

I guess it's there so a unit attacking from an adjacent hex can actually be seen?

Steakenglisch wrote:- Pioniere (Engineer):
when reaching 1943 all infantry units will be improved, more fighting power through automatic weapons and more modern weapons. But the Pioniere are not improved. Why?

Probably legacy of PG where pioneers were ultimate infantry type so they didn't need better version of it.

Steakenglisch wrote:- Ju 87 G:
Why is the hard attack of the Ju 87 G identical to the Ju 87 D both have hard attack of 8???? And the G has an "active" air attack of 5???
The Ju 87 G was designed as a Tank destroyer, armed with two 3,7cm cannons ... primary used against the thin upper armor.

The "G" should have a significant higher hard attack but a reduced soft attack!

This part should be better in current version.

Obsolete wrote:How exactly do units embarcked inside a boxcar on the rail-way tracks still have a vision range of one?

I guess it's there so a unit attacking from an adjacent hex can actually be seen?

Well driver can see! Joking, I do not see need for spotting of 0.

skarczew wrote:

Steakenglisch wrote: 1.1 Maus: The Hardattack is definitly too low!!!
(...)
so the Maus with 2 guns ... the main gun is much bigger and much more effective than the 8,8cm L71 has only 2 points more? Too low. Whats about a 32 or at least a 30 hardattack?

You are very wrong here. Bigger caliber doesn't mean better penetration. Thats why Panzer III > Panzer IV (early part of war) and Panther > Tiger (later) when it comes to ability to penetrate armor.

Also, more guns doesn't mean more "hard attack".

T-35 had five turrets. More than any other tank! Therefore it should be the best tank of the war! don't you think?

2.2 Fw 190 D-9 : if the air attack of the Fw190 a must be 24 than is the 25 of the D-9 too low - i suggest you can lower the air attack of the "A" to 20 than it makes sense to upgrade to the D-9 and this will make it more realistic, cause the arament of the Fw 190 was raised during the Production. The other option is to raise the air attack

You are all wrong again, uran21 explained it nicely why.

2.3 Ta152 H / Do 335 A ... i wonder why they are sooo hmmm weak, both are armed with one 30mm cannon and 2 x 20mm cannons, the Ta 152 H was the fastest german figther with one engine (non jet) and the Do 335 A was extremly effective in Dogfights depending on the construction, very fast and with a low fuel consumption ... so i think both fighters are superior designs but they are weaker than the Fw190 D9 ... maybe a higher initiative or movement is possible?

Very, very wrong again. Ta 152H may have been the fastest (I still think there may have been something better), but Dornier wasn't "extremely effective" in dogfights.
Do 335 was designed as fast bomber, the first units to receive it were the bomber units. Seeing the plane was decent, the version B was prepared, which would be destined to attack allied bombers.
Do 335 COULD NEVER dogfight, because the construction would not allow dogfighting.
Also, 2 engines and low fuel consumption - think a bit.

3.1 The hardattack of the Su-85 and the Su-152 is the same, that must be a bug cause the Su-152 was equipped with a much bigger gun.

Magic of high caliber guns...

I understand the point of armor penetration, i served as a gunner in a main battle tank (in real life) ... but have a look on the main gun of the maus it was the same as in the Jagdtiger, the jagdtiger was able to destroy any Allied Tank with one shot ... i think this sounds like a pretty good penetration. And of course there is a difference between a Tank with more than one turret and guns and a Tank with 2 Guns in one turret, the small gun was coaxial mounted like a turret MG in a "normal" tank.

Not really ... the Do335 Series A was only designed as a Fighter, Nightfighter, unarmed Recon and a Trainings Aircraft, the Series B was designed as Fighter, Heavy Fighter, Destroyer, Nightfighter and Trainingsplane
the fuel consumption was "relative low" compared with other planes with 2 engines, because of the construction the air resitance was low, it had a max speed of 730 bis 770 km/h. Because of the construction, both engines where placed in the axis of the plane, this makes a low moment of inertia and this makes it very good for dogfights compared with other planes with two engines. By the way a lower air resitance make automatically a lower fuel consumtion. My english isnt good enough to explain it better, but you can read it in publications abot this plane.

true story. the do335 could have outclassed all propeller-actuated allied planes, if it had been released in time.

it was designed to be a _figther_.


it should be much more powerful in PzC, just it was in PG.

Steakenglisch wrote:I understand the point of armor penetration, i served as a gunner in a main battle tank (in real life) ... but have a look on the main gun of the maus it was the same as in the Jagdtiger, the jagdtiger was able to destroy any Allied Tank with one shot ... i think this sounds like a pretty good penetration. And of course there is a difference between a Tank with more than one turret and guns and a Tank with 2 Guns in one turret, the small gun was coaxial mounted like a turret MG in a "normal" tank.

Not really ... the Do335 Series A was only designed as a Fighter, Nightfighter, unarmed Recon and a Trainings Aircraft, the Series B was designed as Fighter, Heavy Fighter, Destroyer, Nightfighter and Trainingsplane
the fuel consumption was "relative low" compared with other planes with 2 engines, because of the construction the air resitance was low, it had a max speed of 730 bis 770 km/h. Because of the construction, both engines where placed in the axis of the plane, this makes a low moment of inertia and this makes it very good for dogfights compared with other planes with two engines. By the way a lower air resitance make automatically a lower fuel consumtion. My english isnt good enough to explain it better, but you can read it in publications abot this plane.

I really doubt that Maus will be able to fire from both cannons at the same time. Each cannon had different ballistic, so one would always miss - unless your target was at least the size of a ship.

Regarding Dornier - you really don't need to explain me the technical details of Do 335...

Few facts:
- Do 335 was developed as a response a specification issued on December 1942 for a bomber (precisely: "Schnellbomber") being able to carry 500 kg bombs at a distance 2000 km; the plane was respected to be able to get max. speed 750 km/h.
- first German unit to receive Do 335 A-1 was III./KG2, so bomber unit.
- German Handbuch described Do-335 as "Das Flugzeugmuster 8-335 A-1 ist ein zweimotoriges, einsitziges Kampfflugzeug".
Link 1
Link 2
- it had dedicated bomb bay;
- it was build according to German norm H3, while fighters were build usually according to norm H5; this norm described the durability the plane HAD to have in order to be suited for a certain role;
- Pfeil prototypes were painted in the schema RLM 70/71/65 (schwarzgrün/dunkelgrün), even though the color schema for German interceptors/fighters (Jagdflugzeuge) and fighter-bombers (Jabo) was completely different;
- none of the built Pfeils had armored windscreen, which was a standard for German fighters and fighter-bombers from 1940.

"Kampfflugzeug" meant something around "fighting plane". This term was used in German specifications in order to hide the real purpose of the plane (before the war). The same name was used for example for Do 217 and Ju 188. Bombing units were called in German nomenclature "Kampfgeschwadern", and everything was under "Inspektion der Kampfflieger".

It wasn't first time in history that a typical bomber plane was good enough to be assigned to different tasks. Examples include:
Blenheim Mk. IF, P-70, Ju-88 C/G, Do 217 N/J and even Pe-3. Oh, and Mosquito of course.

In summer 1944 r. Dornier started work on version B - daily fighter plane. The first prototype had its maiden flight on 31.X.1944 r.


Don't fight with "publications about the plane", because I saw lot of them. And a lot of people still make mistakes about it (even in publications).



Question to devs:
Could you change Dornier 335 into Tactical Bomber? It should have similar role as Mosquito ... fast Tact Bomber with very high Air Defense, active Air Attack and relatively low Ground Attack.

apanzerfan wrote: it was designed to be a _figther_.

Nope.

I still think you are mistaken, friend.

Kurt Reider, a famous historian, wrote several books (printed books) mentioning do 355 as a FIGHTER, heavy-fighter, to be exact.

It was mainly designed to be a fighter, but could have been used as a bomber in need

apanzerfan wrote:I still think you are mistaken, friend.

Kurt Reider, a famous historian, wrote several books (printed books) mentioning do 355 as a FIGHTER, heavy-fighter, to be exact.

It was mainly designed to be a fighter, but could have been used as a bomber in need

Authorities, dang. Don't believe everything they say.

Read again the whole explanation that I wrote, please.

Okay, you convinced me

But we can agree that several German fighters are unbalanced, cant we?

Check my topic called german fighters

apanzerfan wrote:So you would describe a P-51 mustang as a bomber just because it was able to carry 907 kg of bombs?

lol

I never said Mustang was a bomber - though there was special ground attack / dive bomber version of Mustang called A-36.

Ok, again:
P-51 was a fighter being capable of carrying bombs.
Mosquito was an unarmed fast bomber, which was so good that was later used as a fighter as well (among other versions).

Do 335 was developed as a response a specification issued on December 1942 for a bomber (precisely: "Schnellbomber") being able to carry 500 kg bombs at a distance 2000 km; the plane was respected to be able to get max. speed 750 km/h.

Because of the change of situation over Europe and political changes in Germany itself - and thanks to some of features of Do 335 - the development of fighter version of Pfeil had started.
So Fast Bomber first, Heavy Fighter later.

Other example: Ju-88. Bomber first, fighter later (one of versions).

you quoted my older, deleted post, lol

apanzerfan wrote: But we can agree that several German fighters are unbalanced, cant we?

Check my topic called german fighters

I agree, there is still lot of work to do.

Main problem is that it is hard to show all qualities / roles of fighters in simply stats.

Example:
- some of planes were very good at low altitudes, while other ones were good at high; Tempest, La-7, FW-190A vs Mustang, FW-190D9, Thunderbolt;
- some of the planes were very agile - should the Air Defense be increased? What about planes that were very agile, but not too sturdy (like Japanese Zero)?
What about planes that were generally very durable, but not too agile (Thunderbolt)?
- some of planes weren't the fastest or best armed, but their power was in the phenomenal climbing ability (Me-109 in early part of war, Spit in 44-45) - how to balance them :] ?

you quoted my older, deleted post

Happens

I guess, we need to admit that we won't be able to model all this precisely anyway, and so just do what makes sense from gameplay point of view.

Airplanes were balanced back in PG, why dont you take the stats from there?

(or just the proportion, correlate them to the working pg system)

apanzerfan wrote:Airplanes were balanced back in PG, why dont you take the stats from there?

(or just the proportion, correlate them to the working pg system)

Two reasons:
a) underlying formulas in PzC are different from PG, so the same stats are not all that meaningful
b) I'm not so sure airplanes were balanced so well in PG. Just remember FW190 which you got in 1940 and which did not see any real opponent for years.

We cannot take any data, art or code from Panzer General. We are not affiliated to it in any way so everything for Panzer Corps has to be built from scratch.