RC3 balance thread

[yoshyusmc]

All the German artillery has become cheaper.


Now we can spam even more. Artillery is too powerful.

That's why I suggested an increase in costs not a decrease.............

Um I have to completely reject this statement because the only thing Artillery is good for is hitting soft targets, against tanks they do next to no damage and does not even suppress tanks unless it is the railgun arty.

I also have to agree about the cost of tanks being too expensive for the germans, has anyone actually played the Eastern Front Campaign? On the middle difficulty, I am getting stomped by the Red Horde and the impervious Is2s, which give the King Tiger a vary hard challenge.

The King Tiger cost 980, while the Is2 cost 550, so I think there is room for adjusments. I want to see an AAR of someone actually winning Bagration on normal difficulty.

Also the Soviet Air power is insane, and I have tried two different strategies, tried countering with BF109s and tried the AA and Flak Wagons combo, but I am still being swarmed from above.

One option I might try is the infantry spam, but even in Bagration there is so much Soviet Armor it is insane. I have killed a ratio of 9 to 19 tanks but I think there were just the T34s and KVs.

[Kerensky]

The King Tiger cost 980, while the Is2 cost 550, so I think there is room for adjustments. I want to see an AAR of someone actually winning Bagration on normal difficulty.

This cost has been changed in Rc3, actually, 890 King Tiger 817 IS2. Doesn't affect pre-placed units though.




This is the problem you are having with Bagration, BTW:

[AXIS]
Total units: 26 (cost=8754)
Core units: 26 (cost=8754)
Aux units: 0 (cost=0)


[ALLIES]
Total units: 59 (cost=22975)
Core units: 59 (cost=22975)
Aux units: 0 (cost=0)

[Razz1]

M4A3E2
M4A3E2(76)

Have ground defense of 22

That is a typo, it should be 12. Similar tanks below it are 11 and above it are 13

Shermans are not invincible! A Tiger is 23 GD Sherman is no where near that!

Please fix these Shermans

Also Close defense of 5 is way too high.

Sherman tanks are now better than German tanks.

[wyldman68]

M4A3E2
M4A3E2(76)

Have ground defense of 22

That is a typo, it should be 12. Similar tanks below it are 11 and above it are 13

Shermans are not invincible! A Tiger is 23 GD Sherman is no where near that!

Please fix these Shermans

Also Close defense of 5 is way too high.

Sherman tanks are now better than German tanks.

Those are Jumbos, heavy assault Shermans for D-Day invasion. They had lots of extra plate welded on.

[Kerensky]

French Light Cruiser stats are phenomenal, 16 naval attack and 17 naval defense.
A British battleship, but comparison, has 15 naval attack and 17 naval defense.

[yoshyusmc]

The King Tiger cost 980, while the Is2 cost 550, so I think there is room for adjustments. I want to see an AAR of someone actually winning Bagration on normal difficulty.

This cost has been changed in Rc3, actually, 890 King Tiger 817 IS2. Doesn't affect pre-placed units though.




This is the problem you are having with Bagration, BTW:

[AXIS]
Total units: 26 (cost=8754)
Core units: 26 (cost=8754)
Aux units: 0 (cost=0)


[ALLIES]
Total units: 59 (cost=22975)
Core units: 59 (cost=22975)
Aux units: 0 (cost=0)

Wow no wonder, would love to see an AAR on this one.

Anyways I am playing RC3b, how is it we have different values? I made sure and purchased a new KT for that scenario.

[Kerensky]

Start a brand new campaign/scenario for RC3 update to take effect.

[Razz1]

M4A3E2
M4A3E2(76)

Have ground defense of 22

That is a typo, it should be 12. Similar tanks below it are 11 and above it are 13

Shermans are not invincible! A Tiger is 23 GD Sherman is no where near that!

Please fix these Shermans

Also Close defense of 5 is way too high.

Sherman tanks are now better than German tanks.

Those are Jumbos, heavy assault Shermans for D-Day invasion. They had lots of extra plate welded on.

WRONG!

Sherman were easy to defeat. Extra armor does not make a good CD, it's the ability to fight is close quarters.

There is no why Shermans are close to Tiger 1 PERIOD. Do some research.

[Iscaran]

Yes there are the Jumbos M4A3E2 types had nearly a Tiger class Armor - yet they were mostly undergunned. The early models had still the Low velo 75mm gun. They were then step by step upgraded to the better 76mm but still no match for Panther or Tiger guns in terms of armament.

Dont mix up the different sherman types !

Though the overall impact of Jumbos was rather small as only a few hundred of these were built.

[Iscaran]

Just played Bagration Scenario and continued in my Campaign through Russia.

A few observatsions from that and a few other scenarios I just only quickly loaded and played a turn or two in.

1.) BF109G has less initiative than 109F....I dont think this is quite a good idea in terms of balancing and I also would not think so from a historical viewpoint as the G model was though to be the culmination point of development.
It does not even cost less or so....so why would one want to buy a G over a F model fighter ?
2.) I think IS-2 tank is slightly overpowered from historical aspects. Also some ISU and SU-Tank Destroyer models might be too strong ?
This is despite the cost changes for these models in RC3 which are fitting for these tanks IMO.

EDIT: I just tested the IS-2 with Initiative 11 and GD24 and I think this is more fitting. Similar adjustments for other SU- and ISU units should be done then.

3.) I think that generally unit costs are too high now in RC3 for most tanks / Tank Destroyers, well just about any unit apart from infantry and perhaps artillery units.
Maybe overall reduction of prizes for Tanks, Tank destroyers around 25% would be OK.

4.) Artillery suppression is way too strong I think. I don't know any more how exactly that worked in original PG or the follow ups of the series - but in PzC the suppression of a unit stays which makes it "ultra" easy to kill superb units. This drastically reduces the "cost" effectiveness of high quality equipment in general. There is just little use for a KingTiger which is easily killed by firing an arty shot on it and killing it then off with 3x300 Prestige tanks.

I think the lasting effect of suppression is too high.
Similar for Levelbombers though these seem to be more "fitting" at their current spot.

5.) Tactical Bombers are somewhat doing too little damage to nearly everything, but especially tanks. Fighters on the contrary are doing exceptionally good damage against ground targets - not sure why that is so, initiative perhaps ?

6.) The FW190F has a lower air fighting capability than a ME410 - that is IMO clearly a mistake.
The FW190F was basically the figher FW-190A with some modifications so it could drop bombs instead. It was still considered a "fighter-bomber" craft. The ME410 was designed and used as a closed "ground support bomber" with NO anti aircraft fighting intended It had comparably lower fighting capabilites (maneuverability, speed, etc.) but a higher payload of cannon and machine gun ammo.

EDIT:
cost ammo fuel movement spotting initiative SA HA AA NA GD AD CD
146 Me 410A 492 7 105 14 1 9 5 4 15 3 15 16 0 2 0
147 Fw 190F 488 5 68 14 1 9 5 7 12 3 15 18 0 2 0


The FW190F should be more towards the FW190A
129 Fw 190A 583 8 86 14 2 11 1 2 20 1 15 20 0 2 0

[skarczew]

1.) BF109G has less initiative than 109F....I dont think this is quite a good idea in terms of balancing and I also would not think so from a historical viewpoint as the G model was though to be the culmination point of development.
It does not even cost less or so....so why would one want to buy a G over a F model fighter ?

Me-109F was regarded by many German pilots as the best variant of Me-109 and a lot of them said it should be the final one. Gustav was much more heavier, less maneuverable and gave little improvement over Fritz back in that time...
Imho F version was the culminating point in the development, not G (even though Gustav was the most numerous one - but numbers do not say anything about quality - look at Russian equipment).

In terms of stats, Gustav should have more Air Attack, maybe Soft Attack as well, but less Air Defense and maybe Initiative.

6.) The FW190F has a lower air fighting capability than a ME410 - that is IMO clearly a mistake.
The FW190F was basically the figher FW-190A with some modifications so it could drop bombs instead. It was still considered a "fighter-bomber" craft. The ME410 was designed and used as a closed "ground support bomber" with NO anti aircraft fighting intended It had comparably lower fighting capabilites (maneuverability, speed, etc.) but a higher payload of cannon and machine gun ammo.

Me-410 in some subvariants had very heavy AA armament, and was used in a heavy fighter role (against allied bombers).

"Some modifications" of Fw-190 included also increased armor. When you add to it the weight of torpedo (Fw-190F could act as a torpedo bomber), I am not sure if it is "clearly a mistake" that Me-410 may be better at fighter tasks.

I guess Me-410 can have higher Anti Air and SA stats, Fw-190F can have higher NA and Air Defense stats.

[wyldman68]

1.) BF109G has less initiative than 109F....I dont think this is quite a good idea in terms of balancing and I also would not think so from a historical viewpoint as the G model was though to be the culmination point of development.
It does not even cost less or so....so why would one want to buy a G over a F model fighter ?

The Me109f was the best combination of aerodynamics (nose was redesigned from the E series)and maneuverability of the Me109 series. The 15mm nose canon was lighter than the 20mm of the E and G and made the plane so much better to fly, according to the actual pilots. Just do some reading about the planes and you will come to the same conclusion, that initiative has more to do with the flying quality of a plane and less to do with the hitting quality.

[wyldman68]

M4A3E2
M4A3E2(76)

Have ground defense of 22

That is a typo, it should be 12. Similar tanks below it are 11 and above it are 13

Shermans are not invincible! A Tiger is 23 GD Sherman is no where near that!

Please fix these Shermans

Also Close defense of 5 is way too high.

Sherman tanks are now better than German tanks.

Those are Jumbos, heavy assault Shermans for D-Day invasion. They had lots of extra plate welded on.

WRONG!

Sherman were easy to defeat. Extra armor does not make a good CD, it's the ability to fight is close quarters.

There is no why Shermans are close to Tiger 1 PERIOD. Do some research.

Should this game just be called Spreadsheet General? Using your logic, Tigers, King Tigers are also not invincible either. There are other factors involved in defense of 23 is not invincible or the Germans would never lose. Tigers, King tigers and early panthers were notorious for being unreliable and breaking down and being abandon on the battlefield, shouldn't that be factored in. Shermans were very reliable and when they went to a wet ammo system, they had less problem of explosions. The Germans never solved the ammo problem. IMHO the bonus for having multiple units around a target is to small and is hardly even worth using.

Also combined arms should receive a bonus, a Tank next to an Infantry unit, because they were a lot more effective.

The Maus should have to stop on every river due to being to heavy to cross any bridge also.

Lastly, we should include something about the German Panzers in 1945 getting a -5 to-10 CD due to the crap steel that Germany was putting out. There is a picture in 1 in a museum with a 75 or 76mm penetrating the thick armor of a King tiger, where it should never have been able to penetrate with good steel.

[wyldman68]

One more thought if the German Tanks were so great and the Shermans were so awful, why did Germany lose WW2? Battle of the Bulge should have been a German cake walk.

[Iscaran]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschm ... 9#Bf_109_F
(Unfortunately a german text).
Comparable info is available on the english wiki though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

Now...Sorry I have to disagree here. The early 109G models have been indeed slighlty less maneuverable, but still had a better engine and higher ammo capacity so could load more ammo for dogfight whilst the flight capabilities were decreased only marginally.

Basically the flight capacity therefore was identical but the armament was higher.
From Wiki: "The G series, or "Gustav", was introduced in mid-1942. Its initial variants (G-1 through G-4) differed only in minor details from the Bf 109F, most notably in the more powerful 1475 PS (1,455 HP) DB 605 engine."

Mostly because of the better engines used in G the later G models also were even faster, more maneuverable and could fly to higher altitudes (and performed better in higher altitudes than the F models)

Compare Speed:
Bf109 F-4: 670 km/h in 6300 m altitude
Bf109 G-6: 650 km/h in 6600 m altitude
Bf109 G-10: 685 km/h in 7400 m altitude

Also highest possible altitude:
Bf109 F-4: 11.600 m altitude
Bf109 G-6: 12.000 m altitude
Bf109 G-10: 12.500m altitude

Compare armament:
F-4: 2x7.92mm, ammo 500 rounds (each), 1x20mm 200 rounds
G-6 and G-10: 2x13mm, ammo 300 rounds each, 1x20mm 200 rounds

Additionally Optional armament possibilites for G ("fighter-bomber role"):
2x20mm mounted below wings
2x30mm mounted below wings
2xrocket mounts below wings
4x50 kg bomb mount below wings
1x500kg bomb mount below wings

btw. F-4 was already the heaviest armed of the F-variants, others had either even smaller calibers or less ammo onboard

So just from that I would say the G was an overall improvement on the F. There should be Tacbomber and Fighter version of this craft. To simulate the optional equipment possibilities which also heavily impacted on flight capabilities.

But without the additional bomber equipment the G-Types were to be considered equal or better than F-Types. Probably the reason why more G than F had been built I'd say ?

Therefore:

In terms of stats, Gustav should have more Air Attack, maybe Soft Attack as well, but less Air Defense and maybe Initiative.

So, IMO higher AA (+2 or even +4 compared to F), Initiative same for fighter role but lower for TacBomber role, AD same.

Me-410 in some subvariants had very heavy AA armament, and was used in a heavy fighter role (against allied bombers).

"Some modifications" of Fw-190 included also increased armor. When you add to it the weight of torpedo (Fw-190F could act as a torpedo bomber), I am not sure if it is "clearly a mistake" that Me-410 may be better at fighter tasks.

I guess Me-410 can have higher Anti Air and SA stats, Fw-190F can have higher NA and Air Defense stats.

I know that ME-410 was used as a "bomber killer" because of its heavy guns. And a torpedo was much heavier than the usual TacBomber load for a FW190F. Anyway I think even a heavy armed FW190F would outmaneuver and outfly a ME410 because of the basic machine specs. Therefore the much lower AA is somewhat irritating. Perhaps give the FW190F 10 intitiave then and the ME410 a higher AD instead of the FW190F.

I agree that the naval attack of the FW190F should be higher, maybe a +1 for that stat.

[Iscaran]

@Wyldman:

One more thought if the German Tanks were so great and the Shermans were so awful, why did Germany lose WW2?

Because the total number of built Tiger tanks was around 100:1 compared to the number of allied tanks built.

6000 Panther
1350 Tiger
500 Tiger II

So thats not even 8.000 heavy tanks total.

Of those roughly only 50-70% of them reached the frontlines due to the heavy bombardment to railway stations and roads from 1943 onwards.

These + the ATs and Pz IVs were fighting against:

20.000 M4 tanks US
+ British tanks (+ 2000 british firefly M4s)
+ 25.000 T-34/85 + other russian models.
+++

So just the basic models are already over 50.000 units or 6:1 outnumbering the german tanks. Maybe thats been one reason for the lost war, there are others though...

If it had not been for the high quality equipement, germany would never been able to continue to fight the war for so long after 1941.

Even during field operation, especially on the western frontlines MOST tank hits were achieved by aircraft.

An official tank lecture for american and british units clearly stated that combat with Tiger Tanks should only be started if at least a 5:1 majority was achieved, otherwise they should tactically retreat and call for air support.

I think that should make you think a little more about this.

[skarczew]

Now...Sorry I have to disagree here. The early 109G models have been indeed slighlty less maneuverable, but still had a better engine and higher ammo capacity so could load more ammo for dogfight whilst the flight capabilities were decreased only marginally.

The engine had more horsepower, but it was much more heavier (because it was basically resized version of an old engine). The plane's aerodynamics went worse, because the heavier engine required new, bigger wheels - and it was needed to introduce "bulbs" on wings. For the same reason similar "bulbs" appeared on fuselage, to make some space for armament.
You can see both there:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... ockpit.jpg

Basically the flight capacity therefore was identical but the armament was higher.
From Wiki: "The G series, or "Gustav", was introduced in mid-1942. Its initial variants (G-1 through G-4) differed only in minor details from the Bf 109F, most notably in the more powerful 1475 PS (1,455 HP) DB 605 engine."
Mostly because of the better engines used in G the later G models also were even faster, more maneuverable and could fly to higher altitudes (and performed better in higher altitudes than the F models)

Faster, yes. More maneuverable - joke.
Btw, late engines had more HP, but were far less reliable than from E and F versions.

btw. F-4 was already the heaviest armed of the F-variants, others had either even smaller calibers or less ammo onboard

And heavy armament makes you think that something is automatically better?

So just from that I would say the G was an overall improvement on the F. There should be Tacbomber and Fighter version of this craft. To simulate the optional equipment possibilities which also heavily impacted on flight capabilities.

Reading the info from Wiki made you think that. Good.
Ignoring my and wyldman68 comments (which are based on pilots' opinions) made you think that you cant be wrong. Even better.

Btw, introducing tactbomb and fighter versions for every possible subvariant is a thing that has no place in PzC now. The same thing would have been introduced for every other plane for every side - and then we would have hundreds of different types - thats simply too much.

But without the additional bomber equipment the G-Types were to be considered equal or better than F-Types. Probably the reason why more G than F had been built I'd say ?

There were quite a lot of political reasons for which Messerschmitt could produce faulty and aging machines, and other producers were shut down - even though they had better types available.

So, IMO higher AA (+2 or even +4 compared to F), Initiative same for fighter role but lower for TacBomber role, AD same.

AA agree, Initiative lower/the same, AD lower. And no separate tactbomber.

Anyway I think even a heavy armed FW190F would outmaneuver and outfly a ME410 because of the basic machine specs. Therefore the much lower AA is somewhat irritating. Perhaps give the FW190F 10 intitiave then and the ME410 a higher AD instead of the FW190F.

I once thought that T-34 was the best tank. But I had to change my opinion after MANY articles.

Fw-190F - lower AA, higher Initiative probably, higher AD. (hits for less, but better vs other fighters)
Me-410 - higher AA, lower Initiative, lower AD. (hits harder, but also gets more damaged by enemy fighters)


P.S. Don't base your opinions on Wiki, please. It is not a reliable, historical source.

[Razz1]

Random damage happens way too often and usually is much worse than combat predeictions.

This should be toned down 10 to 20%

[skarczew]

One more thought if the German Tanks were so great and the Shermans were so awful, why did Germany lose WW2?

Because the total number of built Tiger tanks was around 100:1 compared to the number of allied tanks built.

The war is not a duel between tanks. You got the completely wrong idea about it.

+ 25.000 T-34/85 + other russian models.

Believe or not, but there were less than 25k T-34/85 tanks produced during war.
And T-34/85 was not a main tank, it was T-34.

So just the basic models are already over 50.000 units or 6:1 outnumbering the german tanks.

I think you forgot to count the real German workhorse tanks.

Even during field operation, especially on the western frontlines MOST tank hits were achieved by aircraft.

Source, please.

An official tank lecture for american and british units clearly stated that combat with Tiger Tanks should only be started if at least a 5:1 majority was achieved, otherwise they should tactically retreat and call for air support.

I think that should make you think a little more about this.

But it doesn't mean British/Yankee tanks were worse. Also, source please.

[wyldman68]

So just from that I would say the G was an overall improvement on the F. There should be Tacbomber and Fighter version of this craft. To simulate the optional equipment possibilities which also heavily impacted on flight capabilities.

Reading the info from Wiki made you think that. Good.
Ignoring my and wyldman68 comments (which are based on pilots' opinions) made you think that you cant be wrong. Even better.

Btw, introducing tactbomb and fighter versions for every possible subvariant is a thing that has no place in PzC now. The same thing would have been introduced for every other plane for every side - and then we would have hundreds of different types - thats simply too much.

But without the additional bomber equipment the G-Types were to be considered equal or better than F-Types. Probably the reason why more G than F had been built I'd say ?

There were quite a lot of political reasons for which Messerschmitt could produce faulty and aging machines, and other producers were shut down - even though they had better types available.

+1