RC2 New Balance Thread

pstamatis · Post by **pstamatis** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:12 am

I find that the AD units are not really effective at all. With a range of 3, they still will not cover out to the 3 hex range. Mechanized AD units also only cover to a range of one hex. I liked PG2 better- AD units shot at everything that attacked a ground target within their range. That does not happen here.

Having in mind the distance a hex represents, I think it is just fine.
On the other hand, one could expect this behavior on Artillery support (but with limited effectiveness perhaps?)

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:02 pm

Obsolete wrote:
Sherman M4A3E2(76) is currently better than Panther Gs (Sherman 19 HA, 22 gd, 483 price vs Panther at 19 ha, 16 gd, 729 price). Price needs to go up or stats need to go down.
It is a bit of a shocker when I run into a Sherman that has a +2 better HA than my Tiger... And not very realistic.

I've take a look at E2 Sherman and nothing is wrong with it in terms of GD, HA. Compared with Germans what is wrong is its relation to Panther and that is due Panthers GD is not set properly. Was it you Obsolete who mentioned, was it couple of months ago, Panthers armour was equivalent to Tiger I. I do not think Panthers armour should be set so high but somewhere in the middle between where it stands now and Tiger (maybe around 18 ) and than to lower Sherman. It was experimental version not issued in significant numbers and intended to perform role of assaulting heavy enemy positions. It had more than 100mm frontal armour. 76mm gun was officially added in March 1945 although field modifications existed. Availability date is not set correctly in e-file.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:17 pm

The Panther did not have as much armour thickness as the Tiger, but in order to keep up with its rival, this was changed to a more sloping armour which helped in deflecting shoots.... and the same was then adapted to the Kings.

What I really can't understand, is how can you consider a 76mm to have a (+2) higher HA than a Tiger's 88mm? It is out-classed, out-ranged, and out-gunned.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:30 pm

Obsolete wrote:What I really can't understand, is how can you consider a 76mm to have a (+2) higher HA than a Tiger's 88mm? It is out-classed, out-ranged, and out-gunned.

For penetration (HA) we discussed it for Wolverine. Higher calibre doesn't mean better penetration and only guns bigger than 100mm got +2 on their HA as effect of damage done. For out-ranged note we have concept of initiative to show it. I used gun length to help calculate this.

8.8cm KwK 36 L/56------------- 4.9m (11)

76mm 3 Inch M7 L / 53------------ 4.02m (10)

Scale

1m = 4 In

1.5m = 5

2m = 6

2.5m = 7

3m = 8

3.5m = 9

4m = 10

4.5m = 11

5m = 12

5.5m = 13

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:32 pm

Well if you're going to modify the release date, can you also modify the price? We're talking about something half the price of a Panther G that requires 2 if not 3 Panther Gs to knock out.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:38 pm

I am going trough all prices.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:56 pm

Great

The worst offenders are on the first post of this thread, but by no means is it definitive (no mention of air units).

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:16 pm

Higher calibre doesn't mean better penetration...

Did you factor in the huge momentum the 88 carries?

I will try to look for that discussion but I have my doubts on 76mm being better than 88mm. And giving the 88 higher initiative, but lower HA just seems a bit of a cop-out.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:19 pm

Obsolete wrote:Did you factor in the huge momentum the 88 carries?

No. I simply consulted penetration tables.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:27 pm

oh, and the Sherman 105 isn't configured properly.

From The Bug Thread:

101. Enemy units do not retaliate against Sherman 105 in tank mode (unsolved)

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:35 am

I noticed not only does the Panther D come before the A, it is better than even the Panther-G.

Not sure if this is an over-sight, or intended as designed. In the original PG2 E-file, there was a slight error in some of the Panther stats, maybe they were followed too closely here?

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 1:56 am

Obsolete wrote:I noticed not only does the Panther D come before the A, it is better than even the Panther-G.

Not sure if this is an over-sight, or intended as designed. In the original PG2 E-file, there was a slight error in some of the Panther stats, maybe they were followed too closely here?

This has been discussed and it is correct. I checked several sources and could not come up with valid argument.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:37 am

Obsolete wrote:I noticed not only does the Panther D come before the A, it is better than even the Panther-G.

Not sure if this is an over-sight, or intended as designed. In the original PG2 E-file, there was a slight error in some of the Panther stats, maybe they were followed too closely here?

Can you explain in more detail what is better on Panther D compared to G version in e-file. I just checked and G has better fuel, better GD and AD as well as CD and it has air attack. I didn't saw any stats where D is better than G.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:08 pm

"Flying fortresses are armed to the teeth and hence, have more brute fire-power than even fighters built to counter that unit. "

Yes but the problem is ever tried hitting with a cannon a moving target flying twice your speed ? Not to consider the turning speed of the turrets was not so quick, etc. etc.

Whilst a fighter pilot could use his entire plane to maneuver...

Having a higher initiative for fighters though is the most important factor, I agree but consider there is a certain amount of luck involved in the aircombats and it is totally unrealistic that a bomber unit on the defensive would wipe out more then halve of a fighter wing because it luckily won the initiative ?

Rather lower the AA values to limit the impact on the fighterwings and increase the AD of bombers so they cant be shot down as quickly so it takes 3,4 or 5 fighter attacks to wipe out a really heavy B17 or B29.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:25 pm

Iscaran wrote:"Flying fortresses are armed to the teeth and hence, have more brute fire-power than even fighters built to counter that unit. "

Yes but the problem is ever tried hitting with a cannon a moving target flying twice your speed ? Not to consider the turning speed of the turrets was not so quick, etc. etc.

Whilst a fighter pilot could use his entire plane to maneuver...

Having a higher initiative for fighters though is the most important factor, I agree but consider there is a certain amount of luck involved in the aircombats and it is totally unrealistic that a bomber unit on the defensive would wipe out more then halve of a fighter wing because it luckily won the initiative ?

Rather lower the AA values to limit the impact on the fighterwings and increase the AD of bombers so they cant be shot down as quickly so it takes 3,4 or 5 fighter attacks to wipe out a really heavy B17 or B29.

Discussion about balancing should be more focused on real combat predictions in the game than picking one stats out of the context. I just made a test. Fw190A kills 5 points of B-17G and in return gets one point lost. Bf 109K kills 4 points for 2 lost, not to mention any fighter better than Fw190A. B-17G has higher AA than both of those fighters I mentioned.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:28 pm

This is a very important point:

Please base any feedback on actual in game combats - its almost impossible to work out exactly what would happen on paper as the combat mechancis are quite involved.

You can create a test map with the editor to try stuff out if you want but please dont just look at the numbers.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:51 pm

The Panther did not have as much armor in absolute thickness as Tiger Is. Especially not from side and rear.

But due to its sloped character the armor of the Panther was quite comparable if not superior from front and not as week as the shear numbers imply from sides and back.

75L70 of the panther was even superior to the 88L56 of the Tiger I in terms of armor penetration. Mostly because of the higher projectile speed, due to smaller caliber + longer cannon.

The GD values of Panther definitely need to be buffed towards Tiger I values....Maybe 18-20 for the G model and slightly lower values for A and G.

I dont know who questioned it but historically the first Panther version was D, followed by A and then G....I know this is confusing but the game is correct about this. D-> A -> G.

The E2 was indeed heavily armored so the GD values of it is pretty fitting IMO - but there is absolutely NO WAY the 76mm gun of the E2 would compare to the Panther, Tiger or Tiger II armament.
In fact the problem for shermans even with the longer 76mm was they could not penetrate the front armor of the german tanks, until closest distance far BELOW 500m.

So the high HA value is indeed not fitting - should be around the same as the standard M4A3....basically it was nothing else than an M4A3 with an extreme armor package.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:54 pm

I hope you did multiple tests ? Because the problem is with just one result it can get pretty "biased".

Perhaps 10 of each and make the median kills.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:56 pm

I would go on the predictions first - these tell you what will happen on average which is what matters most. Checking the combats results match up to this is worth doing as sometimes odd extreme results can occur when the average is sensible.

uran21 · Post by **uran21** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:13 pm

Iscaran wrote:I hope you did multiple tests ? Because the problem is with just one result it can get pretty "biased".

Perhaps 10 of each and make the median kills.

Just look at prediction to have sense of it. Engaging combat has dice in it. Luck is also a war factor.