Ok, I remember this now.
The USA is way unbalanced.
Then infantry and rangers are invincable. They made them that way for the Ardennes, then put them in other scenarios.
I can have 3 Panthers next to a unit in a city and I still will loose more strength than the infantry!
ITS BROKEN.
Take those USA units and put them in Poland and WW2 will never happen.
Make the USA the same as other infantry units and design the maps according.
ITS BROKEN!
And I agree with Obsolete. Infantry shoots back too much airplanes.
Balance issue Units
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Re: USA unbalanced
I will agree with both of you that infantry shoots down too much airplanes but I will not agree with you that attacking infantry with tanks in close terrain is best tactics.Razz1 wrote:Ok, I remember this now.
The USA is way unbalanced.
Then infantry and rangers are invincable. They made them that way for the Ardennes, then put them in other scenarios.
I can have 3 Panthers next to a unit in a city and I still will loose more strength than the infantry!
ITS BROKEN.
Take those USA units and put them in Poland and WW2 will never happen.
Make the USA the same as other infantry units and design the maps according.
ITS BROKEN!
And I agree with Obsolete. Infantry shoots back too much airplanes.
Close defense for for tanks is soooooooooo low. Try to bombard them with artillery and rout them out with infantry.
I was going to say, I'm not so sure there is anything wrong here. Terrain is close and I think most players are not even aware of initiative caps.I can have 3 Panthers next to a unit in a city and I still will loose more strength than the infantry!
However, it would be nice to have a COMBINED arms bonus. I know there is a mass bonus, but perhaps an additional strength or so for combined inf + tanks when assaulting against close defense? Maybe we should think on these factors for a bit.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
As a temporary unit cost adjustment, can you increase the price of all units so that no unit, Allied or Axis, costs less than 100, with the possible exception of basic Allied infantry or conscripts costing between 75-90?
I find myself constantly resorting to using these units because I can access so many of them.
If unit 'ability and usefulness' could be put on a scale, it's like buying a 5 A&U unit for a relative cost of 7 or buying a 8 A&U unit for a cost of 15. I'll take the two 5s over one 8 any day of the week.
I find myself constantly resorting to using these units because I can access so many of them.
If unit 'ability and usefulness' could be put on a scale, it's like buying a 5 A&U unit for a relative cost of 7 or buying a 8 A&U unit for a cost of 15. I'll take the two 5s over one 8 any day of the week.
Yes. This is intended not only as temporary solution but pricing was not sorted out in current beta with exception of German infantry and tanks.Kerensky wrote:As a temporary unit cost adjustment, can you increase the price of all units so that no unit, Allied or Axis, costs less than 100, with the possible exception of basic Allied infantry or conscripts costing between 75-90?
Ahah! I was wondering who came up with the 699 price-tag for a Panther D.
Sounded just like some sales-pitch. "Oh our Ronson Lighters are so cheap, only six-nintey-nine!"
I wish all ending digits were even instead of odds. Helps when doing the reinforcement math.
Speaking of Panther D's, I wonder why their G-Def has a -13 malus over that of a Tiger I. I understand the weight is less, but the armour was more sloped which I've heard in many discussions over the years was supposed to make up for the deficiency.
I don't have all the hard facts handy, was this due to metal-quality problems due to shortages?
Sounded just like some sales-pitch. "Oh our Ronson Lighters are so cheap, only six-nintey-nine!"
I wish all ending digits were even instead of odds. Helps when doing the reinforcement math.
Speaking of Panther D's, I wonder why their G-Def has a -13 malus over that of a Tiger I. I understand the weight is less, but the armour was more sloped which I've heard in many discussions over the years was supposed to make up for the deficiency.
I don't have all the hard facts handy, was this due to metal-quality problems due to shortages?
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
Obsolete wrote:Ahah! I was wondering who came up with the 699 price-tag for a Panther D.
Panthers GD should be 15 and Tiger Is 23 so it is not -13 difference. You are right about effects of sloped armour but I must say values were taken from simplified and raw method, only calculating armour thickness. Doesn't need to be the final word on it though.Obsolete wrote:Speaking of Panther D's, I wonder why their G-Def has a -13 malus over that of a Tiger I. I understand the weight is less, but the armour was more sloped which I've heard in many discussions over the years was supposed to make up for the deficiency.
I don't have all the hard facts handy, was this due to metal-quality problems due to shortages?
-
apanzerfan
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:11 pm
I took reference from series that was not represented in big numbers so lowered air attack for I-16 to more appropriate level. It is stronger than CR.42 but weaker than Bf109.Pupec wrote:Russian fighter planes Polikarpov I-16 has air attack 18??
MiG 3 and LaGG 3 got some higher AA so they could take at least 1 strength point from Bf109. High firepower for I-16 (some of the variants) should not be surprising. Here is the quote from Wiki:
Further attempts were made to upgrade the firepower of the aircraft using 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons, making the I-16 one of the
most heavily armed fighters of that moment, able to fire 28 pounds of ammunition in three seconds. Pilots loved the results,
but the cannons were in short supply and only a small number of I-16 Type 12, 17, 27, and 28 were built.
That's too bad you changed the I-16 as the parameters worked fine.
It would loose on attack but great on defense.
Also, once you killed 1 strength point two time the I-16 holds up very well.
Remember there were quite a few Bi-plane Aces in the war.
I have read several stories and Bi-planes were effective until late 1943 when the other planes became more armored and better performance.
The secret of the Bi-plane is; do not engage it. They can out maneuver you and shoot you down.
Latter as performance increased the fighters would just strafe them, fly off, come back and strafe again.
If there is any way you can assign each unit experience in campaigns.... I would give the I-16 25% of one star in all scenarios.
This way it is a functional unit.
On infantry shooting back... have you tried reducing the AD by 2 points?
It would loose on attack but great on defense.
Also, once you killed 1 strength point two time the I-16 holds up very well.
Remember there were quite a few Bi-plane Aces in the war.
I have read several stories and Bi-planes were effective until late 1943 when the other planes became more armored and better performance.
The secret of the Bi-plane is; do not engage it. They can out maneuver you and shoot you down.
Latter as performance increased the fighters would just strafe them, fly off, come back and strafe again.
If there is any way you can assign each unit experience in campaigns.... I would give the I-16 25% of one star in all scenarios.
This way it is a functional unit.
On infantry shooting back... have you tried reducing the AD by 2 points?
One note from me: try not to use Wikipedia when you do research in historical data. Everyone can write there what he/she thinks. Sometimes, the articles are quite ok, but there are many pitfalls ...uran21 wrote:I took reference from series that was not represented in big numbers so lowered air attack for I-16 to more appropriate level. It is stronger than CR.42 but weaker than Bf109.Pupec wrote:Russian fighter planes Polikarpov I-16 has air attack 18??
MiG 3 and LaGG 3 got some higher AA so they could take at least 1 strength point from Bf109. High firepower for I-16 (some of the variants) should not be surprising. Here is the quote from Wiki:
How many of those cannons were there?Further attempts were made to upgrade the firepower of the aircraft using 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons, making the I-16 one of the
most heavily armed fighters of that moment, able to fire 28 pounds of ammunition in three seconds. Pilots loved the results,
but the cannons were in short supply and only a small number of I-16 Type 12, 17, 27, and 28 were built.
There were many aircrafts that had 20mm cannons before the war. Bf 109E also had them, the exact amount varied - depends on version.
The problem about Russian planes (and equipment in general) that it had many design faults (rushed into mass production at all costs; example: LaGG-3), was cumbersome (to name few examples of equipment: Il-2, T-34, La-5FN), made in harsh conditions, by unqualified workers (or even kids), and so. This all affected the equipment soldiers were using - and should also affect "stats" of units in such game as PzC.
Also, please do not base your knowledge on History Channel or other crappy "sources". It is even worse than Wiki.
But there were more of them flying monoplanes.Remember there were quite a few Bi-plane Aces in the war.
If they were that effective, there would not be rush with production of new types in USRR before the war. I-16 and I-153 were OBSOLETE, the ace could score few victories on them, but rookies were just a cannon fodder.I have read several stories and Bi-planes were effective until late 1943 when the other planes became more armored and better performance.
Only green pilots were trying to dogfight more nimble biplanes.The secret of the Bi-plane is; do not engage it. They can out maneuver you and shoot you down.
It sounds like Boom & Zoom tactic, and it was used since the World War I, not in 1943.Latter as performance increased the fighters would just strafe them, fly off, come back and strafe again.
Last edited by skarczew on Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Oop's I'm sorry got confused. Story story is the same for I-15's. Sorry I just woke up.
Here is the thing about Wiki... great source of information, but you can go back to it over and over and see it change over a one year period.
Someone changes the statics to what they like or change it and type in the wrong gun/armor or the do the marketing hype and type in the greatest statistic, like maximum speed not average operational speed. The links are not always credible or are broken.
Here is the thing about Wiki... great source of information, but you can go back to it over and over and see it change over a one year period.
Someone changes the statics to what they like or change it and type in the wrong gun/armor or the do the marketing hype and type in the greatest statistic, like maximum speed not average operational speed. The links are not always credible or are broken.
For reference collecting in this particular example I used this source: http://www.tarrif.net/skarczew wrote:One note from me: try not to use Wikipedia when you do research in historical data. Everyone can write there what he/she thinks. Sometimes, the articles are quite ok, but there are many pitfalls ...
IMO Wiki is the first thing you do if you are finding something fast and you go elsewhere if you are finding something deep.
Check some of this sources:
http://afvdb.50megs.com/index.html
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/index.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/an_intr ... ing_20.htm
http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/