Slitherine

monkspider wrote:I am really glad that you gave the early panzers a nice boost. One thing I have noticed is that the anti-tank units still seem overpriced. The towed anti-tank that you can buy in the beginning still costs nearly double the price of a Panzer IA, and the Panzer 1A is much more useful, especially now.

Load the AA and AT patch here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2884644

Also includes the 38T upgrade to Marder.

Razz1 wrote:Load the AA and AT patch here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2884644

Also includes the 38T upgrade to Marder.

Just to be clear, that's a mod, not a patch.

Razz1 wrote: Load the AA and AT patch here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2884644

Also includes the 38T upgrade to Marder.

Is this based on the beta patch 1.01-2 eqp file?

Thanks
Erik

Kerensky wrote:

Razz1 wrote:Load the AA and AT patch here

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2884644

Also includes the 38T upgrade to Marder.

Just to be clear, that's a mod, not a patch.

I too think it's a mod and not a patch.

impar wrote: Although I understand your "usefulness" point and appreciate the difficulty of balancing low tier units, the 3 Soft Attack of PzI seems excessive compared to the other initial Panzers models. PzI was obsolete in 1939, it was never intended to be a battle tank, more like a training and experience gathering for the german army.

Agree.

VPaulus wrote:

impar wrote: Although I understand your "usefulness" point and appreciate the difficulty of balancing low tier units, the 3 Soft Attack of PzI seems excessive compared to the other initial Panzers models. PzI was obsolete in 1939, it was never intended to be a battle tank, more like a training and experience gathering for the german army.

Agree.

Our reasoning will hopefully become self-evident soon.

Kerensky wrote: Our reasoning will hopefully become self-evident soon.

Okidoki.

Hmm, it should be interesting to see what Kerensky has in the pipeline for us. I really think the current approach to the early war tanks is pretty brilliant from a game design perspective. It gives each of the tanks a niche of their own. I tried a playthrough on the beta patch playing up to Sealion 40 using only Panzer Is and IIs and I was impressed by how viable they were. One thing that I hadn't fully appreciated until now was just how cheap replacements were for those early tanks!

Thanks for a link to that mod Vpaulus, it seems like it takes the game in the right direction. But, game design-wise, anti-tank units are still problematic. Their role in the game was to be a counter to tanks in the rock-paper-scissors dynamic and they just have too many issues to really serve this role well. They are expensive, slow, excessively vulnerable, and just really within in the context of most Panzer Corps scenarios, they are just of very limited utility. I do like 88's but they are really the only unit of their type that I find are worth a slot in my army. Of course, this is something that the Panzer General series never figured out a solution for, but the Panzer Corps team seems to be pretty bright and willing to try new ideas so I hope they can figure something out.

There are more changes coming but we needed to get the patch out to fix the PBEM issues ASAP. Mod support is one thing we were trying to get in but it was delaying the PBEM fixes so we had to hold it back for fuirther testing and implemntation. It takes a lot of work to add this stuff. I don't think people relaise how liong this game has been in production. Some of you got involved in the last few months to beta but many only got involved after release. The game has been in development for many years. That is how long it takes to refine and polish a game of this quality. Additional features will go in as they're ready but be realistic about when you expect them!

Kerensky wrote:Our reasoning will hopefully become self-evident soon.

Just to be clear, you guys also suffer from Valve-Time Syndrome?

I completely agree with the developers, that the primary focus on the first patch should be to solve the PBEM problems. Modding and tweeking is not the highest priority on the first pacth. I really hope the pacth solves the MP issues so that I can finish the 3 Norway games that have locked up

Seems that it would be fairly easy to make anti tanks useful by giving them very high initiative on defense but low initiative on attack, low defense and VERY high hard attack. This way when they attack, both tank and anti tank take huge losses, when they defend only the attacking tank takes heavy losses (this won't happen unless it is suppressed unless the attacker is stupid).

Also, the mobile AT should be much weaker on hard attack than the imobile as they are becoming more and more tank-like.

Just some thoughts.

monkspider wrote:Hmm, it should be interesting to see what Kerensky has in the pipeline for us. I really think the current approach to the early war tanks is pretty brilliant from a game design perspective. It gives each of the tanks a niche of their own. I tried a playthrough on the beta patch playing up to Sealion 40 using only Panzer Is and IIs and I was impressed by how viable they were. One thing that I hadn't fully appreciated until now was just how cheap replacements were for those early tanks!

Thanks for a link to that mod Vpaulus, it seems like it takes the game in the right direction. But, game design-wise, anti-tank units are still problematic. Their role in the game was to be a counter to tanks in the rock-paper-scissors dynamic and they just have too many issues to really serve this role well. They are expensive, slow, excessively vulnerable, and just really within in the context of most Panzer Corps scenarios, they are just of very limited utility. I do like 88's but they are really the only unit of their type that I find are worth a slot in my army. Of course, this is something that the Panzer General series never figured out a solution for, but the Panzer Corps team seems to be pretty bright and willing to try new ideas so I hope they can figure something out.

Another alternative is to give them the "close defense" terrain quality that infantry have. As it stands, infantry are much better against the huge tanks than anti tanks are given the (very valuable) terrain effects.

ruskicanuk wrote:Seems that it would be fairly easy to make anti tanks useful by giving them very high initiative on defense but low initiative on attack, low defense and VERY high hard attack. This way when they attack, both tank and anti tank take huge losses, when they defend only the attacking tank takes heavy losses (this won't happen unless it is suppressed unless the attacker is stupid).

Also, the mobile AT should be much weaker on hard attack than the imobile as they are becoming more and more tank-like.

Just some thoughts.

monkspider wrote:Hmm, it should be interesting to see what Kerensky has in the pipeline for us. I really think the current approach to the early war tanks is pretty brilliant from a game design perspective. It gives each of the tanks a niche of their own. I tried a playthrough on the beta patch playing up to Sealion 40 using only Panzer Is and IIs and I was impressed by how viable they were. One thing that I hadn't fully appreciated until now was just how cheap replacements were for those early tanks!

Thanks for a link to that mod Vpaulus, it seems like it takes the game in the right direction. But, game design-wise, anti-tank units are still problematic. Their role in the game was to be a counter to tanks in the rock-paper-scissors dynamic and they just have too many issues to really serve this role well. They are expensive, slow, excessively vulnerable, and just really within in the context of most Panzer Corps scenarios, they are just of very limited utility. I do like 88's but they are really the only unit of their type that I find are worth a slot in my army. Of course, this is something that the Panzer General series never figured out a solution for, but the Panzer Corps team seems to be pretty bright and willing to try new ideas so I hope they can figure something out.

I would mind seeing towed ATG and AD guns more useful and not just cheaper, but there are a number of ways of going about this.

I should point out that even though this patch included a lot of Early War tweaks, you will notice the 3.7 PaK ATG did not get any buffs. It's just... well it wasn't a very good gun historically speaking, so we couldn't justify beefing up it's usefulness.

For the 5cm and 7.5cm and some allied guns though, there will probably be some changes down the road.

What about allowing AT guns to be quickly deployed? This is, allowing to embark/disembark on the same turn.

This way you could quickly deploy them where you need them. Since they have a low initiative they won´t be offensive units but could help to fill a breach in your lines.

Or, if allowing embarking/disembarking on same turn is too powerful, maybe an adjacent AT unit could give support to your own units the same way artillery does. Only at range 1 and against hard targets.

If your unit is attacked by a tank, the AT gun could then make a previous round of fire to destroy/supress enemy tank before the actual comba takes place. Or give you extra "hard attack" stats for that round.

This kind of "AT support" would only work in defence.

I think this ideas could help to boost AT guns and make them more useful and desirable.

Like the ideas but whatever suggestion used to beef up AT would require thought that the already powerful infantry may become all the more powerful.

Ryben wrote:Or, if allowing embarking/disembarking on same turn is too powerful, maybe an adjacent AT unit could give support to your own units the same way artillery does. Only at range 1 and against hard targets.

If your unit is attacked by a tank, the AT gun could then make a previous round of fire to destroy/supress enemy tank before the actual comba takes place. Or give you extra "hard attack" stats for that round.

This kind of "AT support" would only work in defence.

I think this ideas could help to boost AT guns and make them more useful and desirable.

Personally I would disagree that the poor old 3.7 cm was a useless AT gun.
Early war, even in the desert it was able to deal with most enemy tanks it faced. By the time Russia rolls around its only good as a paper weight. Considering how thick the French armour was the Germans were lucky they only had 1 man turrets that limited their offensive nature, not to mention lousy mileage requiring trucks to move them about to new battle fields.
Against the early British tanks, Matilda aside, the 3.7 was quite a capable gun. The British 2 pdr was not much better after France either, but was forced to stay in a front line role long after its abilities to deal with German armour were over. Pity the poor British tankers who had to keep using it.

Good suggestions folks, the quick embark/disembark and higher attack values all would go a long way to solving the eternal question of what to do about anti-tank units. And for what it's worth, the Panzer General games haven't been the only ones to struggle with this. If any of you have ever played Tiller's Panzer Campaigns series, ostensibly a more realistic, hardcore series of games, a common complaint for those games as well is that anti-tank guns aren't well-modeled. it is unfortunate because if you look at orders of battle from World War II, it is surprising how incredibly common anti-tank guns were. They don't deserve to be the pariah that they currently are.

I do agree with Deadtorious though. And I would add that from a gameplay perspective that there is no reason to have the units in the game if they are not really intended to be used.

All of that said, I do trust Kerensky and the gang to figure out something awesome.

The 3.7mm was well in use even in 1944. It was used to compliment infantry units.

They also used the gun the tactical bombers like the HS-129 and Ju-88's

http://www.2worldwar2.com/stuka.htm

In the Russian front, a new version of the Stuka was developed, the Ju-87 G was no longer a dive bomber. Instead it was equipped with two 37mm anti-tank guns. Although these guns were no longer effective in ground use against the front thick armor of the modern Russian tanks, they were still very lethal against the much thinner rear and top armor of those tanks.