and the German player wouldn't ?The idea has one problem: Russian player will be using 30-50% of time for reinforcing weakened units.
While historically accurate, the game may not be fun to play at all .
Soviet KV-2...totally wrong(not only the pic)
Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
A perhaps better suggestion is that KVs are designated "usable but not purchasable" in the equipment list.
(Like capital ships, which you can use but not buy new ones. But unlike capital ships too; in that you can repair/replace lost strength points of tanks)
This way, scenario designers gain control over how many KVs are fielded, while avoiding the current scenario where it is clearly the best tank to buy in the early war; without having to code a new mechanism.
Zapp
Is this your normal conversational tone...?
(Like capital ships, which you can use but not buy new ones. But unlike capital ships too; in that you can repair/replace lost strength points of tanks)
This way, scenario designers gain control over how many KVs are fielded, while avoiding the current scenario where it is clearly the best tank to buy in the early war; without having to code a new mechanism.
Zapp
Linai wrote:if by sparingly you mean not at all, yea
what a terrible idea you should be ashamaed of yourself
Is this your normal conversational tone...? 
Would, but not as much ...the life of typical T-34 was really short.soldier wrote:and the German player wouldn't ?The idea has one problem: Russian player will be using 30-50% of time for reinforcing weakened units.
While historically accurate, the game may not be fun to play at all .
While the quality of German equipment gradually degraded (and Russian improved) throughout the war, the quality of German equipment was still better than Russian one at the end of war, I believe.
when i see stupid?Molve wrote:A perhaps better suggestion is that KVs are designated "usable but not purchasable" in the equipment list.
(Like capital ships, which you can use but not buy new ones. But unlike capital ships too; in that you can repair/replace lost strength points of tanks)
This way, scenario designers gain control over how many KVs are fielded, while avoiding the current scenario where it is clearly the best tank to buy in the early war; without having to code a new mechanism.
Zapp
Linai wrote:if by sparingly you mean not at all, yea
what a terrible idea you should be ashamaed of yourself
all day every day
Linai wrote:if by sparingly you mean not at all, yea
what a terrible idea you should be ashamaed of yourself
Linai, your attitude to the other forum member was rude, aggressive and unjustified.Linai wrote: when i see stupid?
all day every day
We don't tolerate this kind of behaviour, here in the forum.
So in the future try to restrain yourself of such behaviour.
Consider this as a first warning.
I've done a bit of thinking on this issue, and I can say I haven't come across a better solution than to mark these units as unpurchasable in the equipment file.
* The fix is simple and needs no code change.
* It automatically avoids the most pressing issue: that the AI buys KVs and not T43s.
* It in no way means the units become unplayable - they're still there for you to use (provided the scenario designer thought to include some). You can even have core KVs (in an allied campaign), the scenario just needs to place a core unit and it is yours!
* It means the unit stats aren't degraded in any way. The tanks remain excellent. It's just that factors beyond the scope of the game engine (i.e. the reasons why the real Russians didn't spend all its prestige on KVs and skipped the T43 series entirely) are simplified into "you can't buy them".
As I see it it is too fiddly and complex to think of a solution that retains the KVs as purchasable units, but changed in such a way that neither you nor the AI don't want to buy them.
Reducing their movement, fuel/ammo capacity or making them cost much more are all unsatisfactory. Changing them so that you can't move-then-shoot (like with towed units) would perhaps work, but that needs a definite code change. I thought up even wilder solutions, but you quickly create a situation where the AI can't use the units. And if it still buys 'em, what's the point?
Molve
PS. Obviously, the "real" solution - implementing "restricted" units (adding a field in the equipment file allowing you to say "you can't have more than, say, 3 units from this family in your core army") would be best. But again, toggling the purchasability flag is much quicker to implement and requires no effort from the team coders.
* The fix is simple and needs no code change.
* It automatically avoids the most pressing issue: that the AI buys KVs and not T43s.
* It in no way means the units become unplayable - they're still there for you to use (provided the scenario designer thought to include some). You can even have core KVs (in an allied campaign), the scenario just needs to place a core unit and it is yours!
* It means the unit stats aren't degraded in any way. The tanks remain excellent. It's just that factors beyond the scope of the game engine (i.e. the reasons why the real Russians didn't spend all its prestige on KVs and skipped the T43 series entirely) are simplified into "you can't buy them".
As I see it it is too fiddly and complex to think of a solution that retains the KVs as purchasable units, but changed in such a way that neither you nor the AI don't want to buy them.
Reducing their movement, fuel/ammo capacity or making them cost much more are all unsatisfactory. Changing them so that you can't move-then-shoot (like with towed units) would perhaps work, but that needs a definite code change. I thought up even wilder solutions, but you quickly create a situation where the AI can't use the units. And if it still buys 'em, what's the point?
Molve
PS. Obviously, the "real" solution - implementing "restricted" units (adding a field in the equipment file allowing you to say "you can't have more than, say, 3 units from this family in your core army") would be best. But again, toggling the purchasability flag is much quicker to implement and requires no effort from the team coders.
I would just change the statistics, no code change needed
Just change the KV-2's GD from 22 down to 17 like the early KV1, (they had the same armour anyway ?). That way it doesn't double the T-34's GD of 11 and the KV 41 retains its rightful place as the toughest soviet tank with GD 20
With the KV 2 at 22 and T-34 piss weak at 11 the whole soviet heavy tank profile is messed up, especially in MP
Just change the KV-2's GD from 22 down to 17 like the early KV1, (they had the same armour anyway ?). That way it doesn't double the T-34's GD of 11 and the KV 41 retains its rightful place as the toughest soviet tank with GD 20
With the KV 2 at 22 and T-34 piss weak at 11 the whole soviet heavy tank profile is messed up, especially in MP
Similiar to how we're looking at the Soviet Air Force, the Soviet Armored Corps are also in line for an overhaul.soldier wrote:I would just change the statistics, no code change needed
Just change the KV-2's GD from 22 down to 17 like the early KV1, (they had the same armour anyway ?). That way it doesn't double the T-34's GD of 11 and the KV 41 retains its rightful place as the toughest soviet tank with GD 20
With the KV 2 at 22 and T-34 piss weak at 11 the whole soviet heavy tank profile is messed up, especially in MP
Here is my initial thoughts on the topic, but it is by no means the final verdict on balance.
Line omitted are things I'm not allowed to openly discuss yet, just know there are other facets to this discussion.Line omitted
Line omitted
Similar to late war German tank and anti tank air defense values, the KV1 variants, KV2, IS2 all have extremely high air defense values where even the Stuka G has a hard time posing a threat to these tanks. Drop their air defense values accordingly.
Rebalance the KV5 to be a functional unit, but it will still mostly likely be flagged as nopurchase.
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1325
Reduce KV2 SA and HA and GD. 1943 pioneer attacking a KV2 in a city hex has a combat prediction of -7 -6, which is nearly suicidal for german infantry to attack.
Get more use out of the T34 line of equipment.
Nerfs to the T34/40, slight buffs to the T34/41, major buffs to the T34/43 (German panthers and tigers should annihilate this unit in open terrain which they currently do, but it should be at least mildly threatening when the superior German initiative is reduced by weather/terrain), increased ground armor and initiative for the T34/85
Since this game engine is so very much about concentrating into a few competitive units rather than spreading out into loads of semi-worthless units (just as long as you avoid being overwhelmed, meaning you want a core of truly great tanks surrounded by a screen of perfectly average units), I can't see how mere equipment tweaks can change the balance between T43s and KVs.
Without changing how the KVs are superior tank units, I mean. The drawbacks of KVs have more to do with economics, manufacture, maintenance and strategy, which isn't modeled by this game.
Trying to force the "why not KVs" into their combat capabilities will only lead to deleting their unique characteristics.
The end goal must be to make good human players purchase T43s in large numbers, right? It would be sad to see this happening by crudely making the KV into an inferior tank (which is the only way it will happen if you only look at combat stats).
At least* make it so by nerfing its secondary statistics rather than its main tank characteristics. I mean, if you halve its ammo and fuel capacity, and cap its speed to 3, that's a better (more gameplay focussed) change than lowering its combat values just to make it less appealing than the T43s. (Of course, the AI probably needs a tweak or it will keep on buying them and then very little has been gained).
Like with your reevaluation of Soviet air units, I sincerely hope you aren't merely increasing the unit stats for T43s. A big allure of this kind of game is that your mighty Panzers should gain those 10:1 kill ratios (until the party ends with the IS tanks, that is). So be careful with those T43 upward tweaks!
*) I mean, making it into a "restricted" unit is still far far preferable, but now I am assuming we only have the pzequip file to play with...
Without changing how the KVs are superior tank units, I mean. The drawbacks of KVs have more to do with economics, manufacture, maintenance and strategy, which isn't modeled by this game.
Trying to force the "why not KVs" into their combat capabilities will only lead to deleting their unique characteristics.
The end goal must be to make good human players purchase T43s in large numbers, right? It would be sad to see this happening by crudely making the KV into an inferior tank (which is the only way it will happen if you only look at combat stats).
At least* make it so by nerfing its secondary statistics rather than its main tank characteristics. I mean, if you halve its ammo and fuel capacity, and cap its speed to 3, that's a better (more gameplay focussed) change than lowering its combat values just to make it less appealing than the T43s. (Of course, the AI probably needs a tweak or it will keep on buying them and then very little has been gained).
Like with your reevaluation of Soviet air units, I sincerely hope you aren't merely increasing the unit stats for T43s. A big allure of this kind of game is that your mighty Panzers should gain those 10:1 kill ratios (until the party ends with the IS tanks, that is). So be careful with those T43 upward tweaks!
*) I mean, making it into a "restricted" unit is still far far preferable, but now I am assuming we only have the pzequip file to play with...
The KV2 tank unit had many problems on the field, actual combat deficiencies, as well as logistical troubles.Without changing how the KVs are superior tank units, I mean. The drawbacks of KVs have more to do with economics, manufacture, maintenance and strategy, which isn't modeled by this game.
Thats not my goal at all. A more realistic appraisal of a machines actual combat capability is. Why should the KV 2 be so much stronger than the KV 1a when its armour was the same (and the KV 1 c which was actually more heavily armoured than both). How does this benefit game balance ?The end goal must be to make good human players purchase T43s in large numbers, right? It would be sad to see this happening by crudely making the KV into an inferior tank (which is the only way it will happen if you only look at combat stats).
Last edited by soldier on Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't recall making this my goal either.soldier wrote:The end goal must be to make good human players purchase T43s in large numbers, right? It would be sad to see this happening by crudely making the KV into an inferior tank (which is the only way it will happen if you only look at combat stats).
Thats not my goal at all. A more realistic appraisal of a machines actual combat capability is. Why should the KV 2 be so much stronger than the KV 1a when its armour was the same (and the KV 1 c which was much more heavily armoured). How does this benefit game balance ?
Still things this game either does not model at all, or does so very crudely.soldier wrote:The KV2 tank unit had many problems on the field, actual combat deficiencies, as well as logistical troubles.Without changing how the KVs are superior tank units, I mean. The drawbacks of KVs have more to do with economics, manufacture, maintenance and strategy, which isn't modeled by this game.
(That's not slamming the game btw - I wouldn't have it any other way)
But representing those issues by slashing combat statistics would be a shame, imo. It would be far more interesting to retain superior tanks which you can't get many of anyway.
Wrong, T-34The end goal must be to make good human players purchase T43s in large numbers, right?
.Regarding discussion about KV-2, something must be done with tanks fighting in close terrain (cities, forests). There is Close Defense already, maybe there should be Close S/H Attack as well.
So there is chance to fix themStill things this game either does not model at all, or does so very crudely.
. Russians may have been bloody butchers when it comes to using cannon fodder, but they were not stupid when they had to choose equipment. T-34 was preferred over KV tanks.Do NOT forget about Lend Lease equipment, a lot of which was superior to Russian one (especially aircrafts).Similiar to how we're looking at the Soviet Air Force, the Soviet Armored Corps are also in line for an overhaul.
Out of curiosity, how would you say the T34/43 compare to... say the PZ IVH? My understanding is they are relatively equal, in terms of armament and armor, but the IVH probably has a slight advantage, especially in gun power.
This seems to confirm my impression:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=54764
Currently the IVH outclasses the T34/43 in every category except speed.
This seems to confirm my impression:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=54764
Currently the IVH outclasses the T34/43 in every category except speed.