Slitherine

JagdpanzerIV wrote: I agree with what yuo are saying, so what i do, or did rather in panzer general II, when editing units, i went like this. 60% front, 30% sides and 10% rear for armor values. So say the tiger was 110/82/82, i did (0.6 x 110) + (0.3 x 82) + (0.1 x82) = which gave me a number. I did this for all tanks lol. so roughly, doing this for panthers and tigers they had the same GD values. (if i recall well)

JagdpanzerIV wrote:as for the PG2 edited game values, i don't have them anymore, but i remember my formula, which basically was what i wrote above. Ah yes, i was also calculating the slope armor in the numbers. so for example, Panther G front was 85mm divided by 55 cosinus = 148mm effective front armor. side was 50mm divided by cosinus 30 = 57,7mm and rear was 40mm divided by cosinus 30mm = 46,2mm. so (0.6 x 148) + (0.3 x 57,7) + (0.1 x 46,2) etc.

It is a shame that it is lost for good as it has to be done again now, I suppose. However, how about the turret? And the gun mantlet? For example, the Panzer IIIM had 57 mm turret armour in the front, sloped at 15°, and most of it was covered by a 50+20 mm gun mantlet, and only to make things a bit more cheesy, that was curved, with a slope between 0° and 45°... And than its hull front armour was only 50 mm sloped at 21°. In contrast, the Panzer IVH had an 80 mm front hull armour, sloped at 10°, but its front turret armour was only 50 mm sloped at 10°, and it was only partially covered by a 50 mm gun mantlet. Now, according to your formula, the PzIVH would get a higher GD value thanks to its thicker front hull armour, even though the PzIIIM had a much stronger front turret which would not be represented in the final value. And given the fact that a tank's turret stands out the most, obviously being on the top of the structure, it should always be a good aiming point even if the tank is in a hull-down position, standing behind a hill or some other terrain feature.

And if we are here, how would you rate additional armour bolted to the basic one? Many tanks had additional armour plate added, like the late series PzIVG had 50 mm basic and 30 mm additional bolted, while the PzIVH had 80 mm basic armour. If I am right a solid armour plate is regarded stronger than two bolted together and then having the same thickness added. And it is seemingly reflected in the current GD values of PzC. When checking the stats of PzC I came up with an approximate formula and it seems that the game takes the maximum frontal armour as a basis for the GD value:

Max armour - GD in vanilla PzC
14/18mm – 6
20/25mm – 7
30/35mm – 8
25+25mm – 9
30+30mm – 10
50mm – 11
60mm – 12
65/70mm – 13
50+30mm – 14
80mm – 16
90mm - 17
100mm - 18
120mm - 19
100mm all around heavy - 22-23 (e.g. Tiger I)
180mm - 25-26 (Tiger II, IS-2 (???))

Unfortunately, as we all know now, it is not always consistent even to its own house rule, e.g. the PzIVF has 11 GD, and oddly the PzIVF-2 has 10 GD even though the two had the same armour and the only difference was the longer main gun in the latter.

But it seems to make a distinction between solid basic armour and additional armour added to the basic one as in the case of the PzIVG - PzIVH (GD 14 and 16 respectively) or the PzIIIH - PzIIIJ, the PzIIIJ having a higher GD even though it had a 50 mm basic frontal armour and the PzIIIH having a 30 mm basic and an added 30 mm armour plate to it, the two making a 60 mm armour together.

good points, indeed size and speed should effect GD. But how, hmm. maybe normal size 0, small size +1 armor, and huge -1 GD. as for speed, i think being able to move 4, 5 or 6 hexagons is already a big bonus.

Yeah, in some cases I also gave a bonus 1-2 GD to smaller units like the Hetzer or StuGs.

Hanny wrote:You can compare PC data sets with PGII sets by looking at Open General, http://sourceforge.net/projects/opengeneral/ this has many data sets and ideas to give you inspiration for a scn or campaign, or changes to unit values, im not yet ready to mod, as im still plying and haveing fun, but i have run Mega to end of 40 with both vanila and Deductor mod to see what game play changes the mod has.

Thanks, I will do so. Of course I know about Open Gen, PG1, PGII and stuff, been playing these since mid '90s. But, as I wrote in my first post there are many different data sets and it possibly means there is not one (and probably never will be) which makes everyone happy.

Has anyone plundered the 1000+ maps for PGII for coversion to PC?.

As far as I know PGII maps cannot be converted to PC, but PG1 maps can be. Nikividd is working on an excellent PG1 -> PC conversion.

JagdpanzerIV wrote:i do play world of tanks, it's pretty fun. arty is a bit annoying tho.

Seriously. Only the arty?

i saw that document, it's russian revisionism bias at his best, contradict everything done by english and american testing.

i too can write numbers on a piece of paper and pretend it came from archives...even if it was true, i would not trust russian archives. they can't even admit how many tanks they lost at kursk or prokorovka, they have to keep the myth that it was a great russian victory and german army was crushed and t34 rammed tiger tanks ...

Well, it works both ways, I guess. Especially American bomber crews made massive claims for enemy fighters shot down. If all their claims were true the Luftwaffe would had ceased to exist by early 1944 the latest. What happened here was bombers flew in close formation and when the gunners managed to shot down an enemy fighter all those who fired at it made a claim for a kill. In this way the same kill got multiplied. I can very easily imagine that the same could happen in tanks vs. tanks engagements and it was not always possible to count the tank wreckages after the battle to justify the number of claims. Still, I think we cannot blame those guys for the overclaims, just imagine being there, fighting for your life, of course you are happy when you see one of your enemies burning and make a claim for it if you had some role in its destruction.

But, true, official propaganda is another thing, but I think the Soviets are not the only ones to blame. In the western world many people still think that Normandy marked the beginning of the end for the Nazis, and they have little knowledge on the previous battles on the Eastern Front which literally decimated the Wehrmacht by that time.

McGuba wrote: It is a shame that it is lost for good as it has to be done again now, I suppose. However, how about the turret? And the gun mantlet? For example, the Panzer IIIM had 57 mm turret armour in the front, sloped at 15°, and most of it was covered by a 50+20 mm gun mantlet, and only to make things a bit more cheesy, that was curved, with a slope between 0° and 45°... And than its hull front armour was only 50 mm sloped at 21°. In contrast, the Panzer IVH had an 80 mm front hull armour, sloped at 10°, but its front turret armour was only 50 mm sloped at 10°, and it was only partially covered by a 50 mm gun mantlet. Now, according to your formula, the PzIVH would get a higher GD value thanks to its thicker front hull armour, even though the PzIIIM had a much stronger front turret which would not be represented in the final value. And given the fact that a tank's turret stands out the most, obviously being on the top of the structure, it should always be a good aiming point even if the tank is in a hull-down position, standing behind a hill or some other terrain feature.

And if we are here, how would you rate additional armour bolted to the basic one? Many tanks had additional armour plate added, like the late series PzIVG had 50 mm basic and 30 mm additional bolted, while the PzIVH had 80 mm basic armour. If I am right a solid armour plate is regarded stronger than two bolted together and then having the same thickness added. And it is seemingly reflected in the current GD values of PzC. When checking the stats of PzC I came up with an approximate formula and it seems that the game takes the maximum frontal armour as a basis for the GD value:

Max armour - GD in vanilla PzC
14/18mm – 6
20/25mm – 7
30/35mm – 8
25+25mm – 9
30+30mm – 10
50mm – 11
60mm – 12
65/70mm – 13
50+30mm – 14
80mm – 16
90mm - 17
100mm - 18
120mm - 19
100mm all around heavy - 22-23 (e.g. Tiger I)
180mm - 25-26 (Tiger II, IS-2 (???))

Unfortunately, as we all know now, it is not always consistent even to its own house rule, e.g. the PzIVF has 11 GD, and oddly the PzIVF-2 has 10 GD even though the two had the same armour and the only difference was the longer main gun in the latter.

But it seems to make a distinction between solid basic armour and additional armour added to the basic one as in the case of the PzIVG - PzIVH (GD 14 and 16 respectively) or the PzIIIH - PzIIIJ, the PzIIIJ having a higher GD even though it had a 50 mm basic frontal armour and the PzIIIH having a 30 mm basic and an added 30 mm armour plate to it, the two making a 60 mm armour together.

well, in all honesty, to keep the game as simple as possible, i decided to take the front plate armor, the upper hull side armor and the rear hull armor. It would have been too much time consuming to find the numbers for the lower hull, gun mantlet, front, side and rear turret, lower hull side and so on, and come up with a GD number that made sense. Why i picked upper front plate, upper side hull and rear hull ? because when facing an enemy tank at normal engagement distance (around 800m) it would be the easiest part to shoot at first. They were also the best armored parts on most tanks. now, if i knew, for example i could not pen a panther, obviously i would try to aim for a weak spot or tracks (or decide to pick on another target), but then, that also meant possible retaliation coming at me.

As for the added extra plating armor, whether it was stronger, weaker or equivalent, it's a debate with no real conclusion, depending which authors i read. so, i went and go with same GD whether its 50+30 or 80.

i went 60+30+10 because, i thought it would be reflective on flat armor and sloped armor as well. if i give too much importance to front plate, then sloped armor gets super high GD. say 75-15-10... i also decided 60+30+10 to stimulate 60% of fighting occurred facing forward, 30 % getting flanked and 10% shot in the behind!

Also, if your GD values for PC vanilla are right, it means they never took into account the slope on panther tanks, giving them a GD of 17 ? which make no sense whatsoever. For example, a tiger II tank, when taking the slope into account, had an effective front armor above 200mm, even tho it's 150mm. In essence, it was twice as hard to achieve penetration in the front plate of a tiger 2 than it was on a tiger 1 tank. So, the GD value should be in the 40s ...

good points, indeed size and speed should effect GD. But how, hmm. maybe normal size 0, small size +1 armor, and huge -1 GD. as for speed, i think being able to move 4, 5 or 6 hexagons is already a big bonus.

McGuba wrote:Yeah, in some cases I also gave a bonus 1-2 GD to smaller units like the Hetzer or StuGs.

i am looking at some ground defense values for some units, so i can get an idea of what i am going to do.
IS2 26, Tiger 1 23, Tiger II 26, Maus 29, Panther G 19, PzIV J 17, T35-85 17, etc. seems the highest is the maus. but 29 seems way too little when looking at the maus armor compared to what i just listed. when i am done modding it will probably be near 40. Also i am pretty sure the upper hull side and front plate of t34-85 is the same as t34/42-43, so no real reason to improve it's ground defense, from 12,13-15 to 17. it is still 45mm sloped at 60d. Which give it an effective 90mm front armor.

anyone knows how they calculated ground defense values? for example tiger 1 got 23 and maus 29. to me it makes no sense, cos tiger 1 got +/- 100/80/80 of armor and the maus got minimum twice as much all around. Should not it get at least 46?

JagdpanzerIV wrote:anyone knows how they calculated ground defense values? for example tiger 1 got 23 and maus 29. to me it makes no sense, cos tiger 1 got +/- 100/80/80 of armor and the maus got minimum twice as much all around. Should not it get at least 46?

The idea is good in theory, but it would make the Maus way too powerful (look at my WWI mod artillery or the A11V tank) - a difference of 14 is enough to guarantee virtual destruction of the opposing side.

Overall though, GD (and nearly every other stat in the game) is not determined by any one real set of data. Rather, they just test a bunch of values to see if the proportions balance out as desired.

- BNC

The weak Panther armour is a bit of an odd one - excellent slope and few shot traps so it should be noticeably better than the Panzer IV.

Some of the attack values are a bit of an oddity - 75mm AT guns generally have HA17 to 19, but the 75mm Pak gun has HA 13 - same as the 57mm. Also, most 37mm tank guns that fired HE shell have SA 4, but the British 2pounder tank guns, while excellent against armour, were not supplied with an AT shell. So the SA should probably be 3 (the same as the MG-only tanks) or maybe 2 to emphasise the historic weakness against soft targets. Curiously, some of the French tanks (which were equipped with low velocity HE guns with lousy AT capacity) typically have SA3 rather than 4.

Fortunately editing the equipment file is easy!

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:

JagdpanzerIV wrote:anyone knows how they calculated ground defense values? for example tiger 1 got 23 and maus 29. to me it makes no sense, cos tiger 1 got +/- 100/80/80 of armor and the maus got minimum twice as much all around. Should not it get at least 46?

The idea is good in theory, but it would make the Maus way too powerful (look at my WWI mod artillery or the A11V tank) - a difference of 14 is enough to guarantee virtual destruction of the opposing side.

Overall though, GD (and nearly every other stat in the game) is not determined by any one real set of data. Rather, they just test a bunch of values to see if the proportions balance out as desired.

- BNC

had the maus been used during ww2, it would have been untouchable by allied guns, even at point blank range. maybe a su-100 at 5 meters shooting at his back on 100% flat angle would have penetrated it. maybe. Also the maus top speed was 20kmh on road. maybe 10-13 in the field. So in game movement should be 2, rendering it useless mostly, as it was during ww2; useless

Also i have reduced the maus initiative considerably, under 10.

captainjack wrote:The weak Panther armour is a bit of an odd one - excellent slope and few shot traps so it should be noticeably better than the Panzer IV.

Some of the attack values are a bit of an oddity - 75mm AT guns generally have HA17 to 19, but the 75mm Pak gun has HA 13 - same as the 57mm. Also, most 37mm tank guns that fired HE shell have SA 4, but the British 2pounder tank guns, while excellent against armour, were not supplied with an AT shell. So the SA should probably be 3 (the same as the MG-only tanks) or maybe 2 to emphasise the historic weakness against soft targets. Curiously, some of the French tanks (which were equipped with low velocity HE guns with lousy AT capacity) typically have SA3 rather than 4.

Fortunately editing the equipment file is easy!

i have edited most german units now, have to do allies. for example, based on historical armor values, i get for
Panther HA 19 GD 19
Tiger 17, 19
Tiger2 25, 32 (all 8.8cm L71 guns get HA 25)
maus 27, 50
Pz4J 14, 13 (all the L43, L48 guns have HA 14)+(t34-85 and sherman 76 will probably get HA 14 as well)
Pz3L-M 9, 11
etc.

captainjack wrote: but the British 2pounder tank guns, while excellent against armour, were not supplied with an AT shell. So the SA should probably be 3 (the same as the MG-only tanks) or maybe 2 to emphasise the historic weakness against soft targets.

Fortunately editing the equipment file is easy!

Of course, that should say "were not supplied with an HE shell".

Clearly editing the equipment file is easier than typing in the correct letters in the first place!

I'm resuscitating a very old thread, but how do the values look like in PK2 ? are they for game play only or are based on historical values?

HA values in PZC1 are relatively fine considering the mess they did in PZC2... i dont know who exactly did those based on what, but seeing T-34 M1943 with same HA as Panzer IVH is absolutely crazy (21).. and on top of that T34/85 with HA same as Panther G.. (25) while Tiger 1 with only 23...

JaM2013 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:21 am HA values in PZC1 are relatively fine considering the mess they did in PZC2... i dont know who exactly did those based on what, but seeing T-34 M1943 with same HA as Panzer IVH is absolutely crazy (21).. and on top of that T34/85 with HA same as Panther G.. (25) while Tiger 1 with only 23...

If they based it penetration data then Tiger I should come out slightly below Panther G. That long 75mm gun on the Panther was very good indeed.

But T-34/85 has nothing to do anywhere near that, it should be on par with Pz IVH, and the 76mm T-34 should be some way further below that.

For HA in my EF im using this table: 1000 m (30 degree)
Pz VI 88 L/56 - 100 mm (HA - 18)
Pz V 75 L/70 - 111 mm (HA - 19)

85 mm T-34/85 - same ballistics like FlaK 8.8 (or 8.8 L/56)

The Soviet 85mm gun with HVAP ammo has AP performance similar to 88mm L/56 KwK36 using PzGr39 ammo, yes. But what about PzGr40?

85mm D-5T HVAP ammo was not that good... it matched 8.8cm KWK36 only up to 250m, quickly losing speed and performance... 8.8cm APCBC had much better energy retention over distance. up to the point where 85mm HVAP ended up being worse than 85mmAP at distances greater than 500m

overall, Russian guns underperformed during WW2 due to low quality of ammo... captured ZiS-3 76mm guns were usually issued German ammo based on existing 75mm ammo had much higher performance than what Soviets were getting...

My guess for T34-43 discrepancy in PzC2 is that designers confused the ZiS-3 gun with ZiS-5 which was just another name for F34 L41 gun... yet still, even ZiS-3 was nowhere near the KwK40 performance, let alone PaK40 ( which used even greater charge for AP rounds therefore had even better performance)

There are several puzzling values in Panzer Corps. Panzer IV F1 and F2 GD, Matilda1 and Valentine (which had same or better armour) GD, and Sherman armour was thicker than the Somua S35 and same or better slope but has worse GD.
KwK has higher HA than PaK 37 - though the same gun, the french 47AT which was a bit better than the Czech one on Panzerjager 1 only has HA 6, 75mm PaK was much better than the PaK 50 but has only HA14 (though Panzer IV 75mm tank guns can get to 16). The KwK128 (in most sources) had similar penetration to the long 88, but maintained performance to longer range, so Jagdtiger should have same or better HA to Nashorn and Jagdpanther with higher ini. Plus of course the early M3 and M4 75 guns actually worked (though not specialised AT guns) and should be something like HA 11 or 12.
I could mention strange ammo counts as well, but rather than keep on, I'll stop at "I'm glad I can adjust the equipment file".

So basically values have been coded for game play value only, nothing to do with historical armor thickness or shell penetration ?

Game play is important. The best case is where there's a real benefit in this unit but it loses out on some other angle so it's worth having a mix of different models. German artillery is pretty good here.
Bad examples are US artillery where the sp 155 has ridiculously high ammo count, making other artillery obsolete until the 105 m4 and calliope arrive. Rangers and Soviet guards are the infantry equivalents.
However I can't see what giving valentines cruiser armour and nerfing the french 47 add to game balance. My vals outrange and outrun the other I tanks, can just about work with cruisers if needed and can survive in a fight ( sometimes) and game balance is better for me.

So all the silliness in PC unit statistics (HA, SA, etc.) have been conveyed to PC2 ? That's my question...i don't feel like changing all the stats with an editor again