Wasn't the standard Sherman gun low velocity 75mm? 76 being a different story. I know relaying on data can be misleading as well. For example what kind of ammunition is taken into account, how was the availability of that ammunition, different nations defined penetration differently. But still I would like to see some numbers to compare American 76mm gun with German ones.Iscaran wrote:So the high HA value is indeed not fitting - should be around the same as the standard M4A3....basically it was nothing else than an M4A3 with an extreme armor package.
RC2 New Balance Thread
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
I agree and have been curious about those values for a while. I think part of the problem is the PG series always made Panthers a bit weaker than the Tiger Is, and people have come used to that. Part of the reason I think may have been for play-balancing? They didn't want a unit with similar armour & attack values, that can move almost 2x as fast. Another reason, could be how we humans get biased by Tiger-Phobia effects, and seem to always under-rate anything else that isn't in that class of a wild-cat.The GD values of Panther definitely need to be buffed towards Tiger I values....Maybe 18-20 for the G model and slightly lower values for A and G.
Back to the +2 attack of 76mm over 88mm, one also has to be weary of data from Detroit Motors & GM, etc. These corporations always tended to exaggerate or twist results on paper in order to win contracts and sales pitch to as may bidders as possible. Not that it doesn't happen today either, same shit but different time.
In any case, mark my words when the public sees a Sherman with not just the same HA as a tiger, but an actual +2 above that, they are going to be griping all over about it on the threads when the first person spots it. And they'll be whining: "OMG, I CAN'T believe that these developers could have screwed that up so bad. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!? How can a PG-clone get their basic stats even reversed!? Fix it!"
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
Stats for Panzer General: Panther G ground defense 18, Tiger I 15. Contrary to what you say.Obsolete wrote:I think part of the problem is the PG series always made Panthers a bit weaker than the Tiger Is, and people have come used to that.
I am always open for changes, only it will take something more solid than that to change my mind on this.Obsolete wrote:In any case, mark my words when the public sees a Sherman with not just the same HA as a tiger, but an actual +2 above that, they are going to be griping all over about it on the threads when the first person spots it. And they'll be whining: "OMG, I CAN'T believe that these developers could have screwed that up so bad. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!? How can a PG-clone get their basic stats even reversed!? Fix it!"
The first M4A1s had the low velocity 75mms.
The M4A3s and E2 had already the better 76mm L52 which was closer to the german 75L70 or the 88L56 / 88L71 guns. But still inferior to these.
The E2 should have the same HA as the standard M4A3. Btw. all the M4A3 W76 models should not have a 19 HA....I would see a 17 or 16 fitting from the actual performance of the gun.
Have to look further into game mechanics though and no time anymore today
.
The M4A3s and E2 had already the better 76mm L52 which was closer to the german 75L70 or the 88L56 / 88L71 guns. But still inferior to these.
The E2 should have the same HA as the standard M4A3. Btw. all the M4A3 W76 models should not have a 19 HA....I would see a 17 or 16 fitting from the actual performance of the gun.
Have to look further into game mechanics though and no time anymore today
.Which version & e-file did you look at?Stats for Panzer General: Panther G ground defense 18, Tiger I 15. Contrary to what you say.
The last e-file from PG2 I had Panther's were weaker than the Tigs. HOWEVER, in PG-III I remember the Tigs having higher defense values than the Panther, but this was a bit misleading, since the Panthers were given more PIPS, which in essense meant they could take more damage before being destroyed.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
You, gentleman, are quite rightIscaran wrote:The Panther did not have as much armor in absolute thickness as Tiger Is. Especially not from side and rear.
But due to its sloped character the armor of the Panther was quite comparable if not superior from front and not as week as the shear numbers imply from sides and back.
75L70 of the panther was even superior to the 88L56 of the Tiger I in terms of armor penetration. Mostly because of the higher projectile speed, due to smaller caliber + longer cannon.
The GD values of Panther definitely need to be buffed towards Tiger I values....Maybe 18-20 for the G model and slightly lower values for A and G.
I dont know who questioned it but historically the first Panther version was D, followed by A and then G....I know this is confusing but the game is correct about this. D-> A -> G.
The E2 was indeed heavily armored so the GD values of it is pretty fitting IMO - but there is absolutely NO WAY the 76mm gun of the E2 would compare to the Panther, Tiger or Tiger II armament.
In fact the problem for shermans even with the longer 76mm was they could not penetrate the front armor of the german tanks, until closest distance far BELOW 500m.
So the high HA value is indeed not fitting - should be around the same as the standard M4A3....basically it was nothing else than an M4A3 with an extreme armor package.
.Speaking about Panthers, I would reduce movement speed of Panther D (the first one) to 5. Teething problems of first production tanks, that is (transmission and final drive breakdowns).
Same for early T-34.
Hmm, I really don't agree with slowing down speed of tanks, just because a single one in its division may have a mechanic problem that day. All tanks on all sides of the war had their mechanical problems.
IIRC, the brits often had more than 50% of their Matildas out of action after just a couple of hours of battle just due to mechanical problems alone. So do you want to nurf their movement to 50% to reflect this... when they already had a very poor movement rate (realisticaly speaking). So we can have a 1 or 2 hex movement unit and then think we somehow made the game more realistic?
Nonsense.
This is starting to remind me of the breakdown gimmick BF-Academy did. Tigers had I think a 25% chance to break down, or was that a 4-to-1 chance... Seems they wanted a gimmic to reflect breakdowns, the problem was no tiger ever broke down that much in a day. But then they felt if they reduced the breakdown chance stats, it would make it too rare of an event to be considered a 'game gimmick'.
IIRC, the brits often had more than 50% of their Matildas out of action after just a couple of hours of battle just due to mechanical problems alone. So do you want to nurf their movement to 50% to reflect this... when they already had a very poor movement rate (realisticaly speaking). So we can have a 1 or 2 hex movement unit and then think we somehow made the game more realistic?
Nonsense.
This is starting to remind me of the breakdown gimmick BF-Academy did. Tigers had I think a 25% chance to break down, or was that a 4-to-1 chance... Seems they wanted a gimmic to reflect breakdowns, the problem was no tiger ever broke down that much in a day. But then they felt if they reduced the breakdown chance stats, it would make it too rare of an event to be considered a 'game gimmick'.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
Back to the whole debate over initiative with bombers vs fighters and the whole deal with fire-power etc. We have to deal with an abstraction here, and it will always be controversial. The problem is PC does NOT use the Profile statistic which PG had added in which had potential to help solve these many problems.
Right now, Initiative is just an abstraction that takes into effect many variables, and will end up getting counter-intuitive resolutions.
Just to see how silly things get, lets take a Stuart tank and decide he is going after a King today. (Yes, I know this does not sound like a good idea today, but America had a LOT of Stuarts to burn back then), so bear with me...
Kings have a very high initiative, despite the Stuarts are so much faster, and have other agility bonuses. Yet, the King still keeps the same initiative advantage (this just doesn't seem right), because it's also factoring in the extra range of the 88 over that silly cannon the M3's often had.
Profile should change everything here. Stuart SHOULD get a maximum profile bonus here, while a King gets the worst penalty, which when factored in should help get a more realistic viewpoint of the results. Of course, I'd still expect the M3 to go burn up in flames of gasoline, but that's another story.
When you look at the matchup of heavy axis tanks vs the T-34, now you can see why these things are important and quite common. T-34's often were ambush tanks needing to get close to the bigger tanks, and get in shots at specific angles. The profile gives the T-34 a nice bonus here, as it should. They were harder to spot, and when spotted still harder to hit, the worst of both worlds for its opponents.
B-17s again are going to be big on the profile, easier to hit & spot, etc. Fighters on the lower scale... There is less abstraction needed then when it comes to the whole initiative debate.
Not to mention, in the FUTURE if PC ever wants to migrate into a SELECTIVE FoW mechanic, the profile is always used in that calculation (for obvious reasons).
Right now, Initiative is just an abstraction that takes into effect many variables, and will end up getting counter-intuitive resolutions.
Just to see how silly things get, lets take a Stuart tank and decide he is going after a King today. (Yes, I know this does not sound like a good idea today, but America had a LOT of Stuarts to burn back then), so bear with me...
Kings have a very high initiative, despite the Stuarts are so much faster, and have other agility bonuses. Yet, the King still keeps the same initiative advantage (this just doesn't seem right), because it's also factoring in the extra range of the 88 over that silly cannon the M3's often had.
Profile should change everything here. Stuart SHOULD get a maximum profile bonus here, while a King gets the worst penalty, which when factored in should help get a more realistic viewpoint of the results. Of course, I'd still expect the M3 to go burn up in flames of gasoline, but that's another story.
When you look at the matchup of heavy axis tanks vs the T-34, now you can see why these things are important and quite common. T-34's often were ambush tanks needing to get close to the bigger tanks, and get in shots at specific angles. The profile gives the T-34 a nice bonus here, as it should. They were harder to spot, and when spotted still harder to hit, the worst of both worlds for its opponents.
B-17s again are going to be big on the profile, easier to hit & spot, etc. Fighters on the lower scale... There is less abstraction needed then when it comes to the whole initiative debate.
Not to mention, in the FUTURE if PC ever wants to migrate into a SELECTIVE FoW mechanic, the profile is always used in that calculation (for obvious reasons).
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
I just installed the original PG2 now. Right out of the box we have Ground Defense of:Stats for Panzer General: Panther G ground defense 18, Tiger I 15. Contrary to what you say.
Tiger I : 18
Panther A: 16
Panther D: 15
Unfortunately I"m missing the tool right now to get screen-shots with PG2 to work on Win-7.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
Hmm!
I got around in my entire 'General' collection, and took a look at the SE release. Seems they used the same stats as PGII, but for some reason the Tiger I's actually have 20% more pips than the Panthers. Maybe it was the Kings I'm thinking of that they reduced now...
I got around in my entire 'General' collection, and took a look at the SE release. Seems they used the same stats as PGII, but for some reason the Tiger I's actually have 20% more pips than the Panthers. Maybe it was the Kings I'm thinking of that they reduced now...
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
@Obsolete, PG III Scorched Earth was my favorite of the series and your screenshot brings back some great memories (thought your sig looked familiar; what unit is that? stats look like an AA). Hey, did you have the same problem I had with some menus having random, pinkish/purple splashes on them (almost the same color as the unit name and stats in your pic). I had it no matter what PC I installed it on. Could be because the DX is so old and not very compatible with newer OS's (XP, Vista, Win7). Did you have the same problem? And, were you ever able to get rid of it?
Haha, because of your post I decided to change my old sig. Yup, I got rid of it.
Here's how:
http://panzercentral.com/forum/viewtopi ... 30#p678230
BTW, if you looked at the AA values of the my previous stats, it became obvious it was an 88. My most valuable unit in that whole game, unlike the 88's in the other versions of the series.
Here's how:
http://panzercentral.com/forum/viewtopi ... 30#p678230
BTW, if you looked at the AA values of the my previous stats, it became obvious it was an 88. My most valuable unit in that whole game, unlike the 88's in the other versions of the series.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
Which version? It is in the sentence you quoted. Panzer General.Obsolete wrote:Which version & e-file did you look at?Stats for Panzer General: Panther G ground defense 18, Tiger I 15. Contrary to what you say.
The last e-file from PG2 I had Panther's were weaker than the Tigs. HOWEVER, in PG-III I remember the Tigs having higher defense values than the Panther, but this was a bit misleading, since the Panthers were given more PIPS, which in essense meant they could take more damage before being destroyed.
Now to be honest, I was convinced they are. Checking the game they are not but looking at the other Shermans now I remember some stats were made different as well as for T-34 when I was trying to get better differentiation among similar units. Such effects exist in whole e-file for many nations mainly tweaking attack, defense and initiative to get better differentiation.Iscaran wrote:The E2 should have the same HA as the standard M4A3.
Unreliability of Panther D was switch on its fuel stats meaning tweaking its operational range.skarczew wrote:Speaking about Panthers, I would reduce movement speed of Panther D (the first one) to 5. Teething problems of first production tanks, that is (transmission and final drive breakdowns).
Same for early T-34.
Well, I agree this is some solution. Why then the worst versions of T-34 have so much in fuel stats? Should be also reduceduran21 wrote:Unreliability of Panther D was switch on its fuel stats meaning tweaking its operational range.skarczew wrote:Speaking about Panthers, I would reduce movement speed of Panther D (the first one) to 5. Teething problems of first production tanks, that is (transmission and final drive breakdowns).
Same for early T-34.
.Speaking about Panthers, I would reduce movement speed of Panther D (the first one) to 5. Teething problems of first production tanks, that is (transmission and final drive breakdowns).
Same for early T-34.
Might be an interesting suggstion as well in terms of upgrade path. I like this idea.
As for the M4A3s you currently have both versions in the game the 75mm gunner one and the 76 gunned one (labelled as 76 W).
The 76Ws all have identical HA If I did not look in the wrong place. So thats ok....I just think the 19 HA is too high for that gun/tank type in general. Thats all.
Same for early T-34.
Might be an interesting suggstion as well in terms of upgrade path. I like this idea.
As for the M4A3s you currently have both versions in the game the 75mm gunner one and the 76 gunned one (labelled as 76 W).
The 76Ws all have identical HA If I did not look in the wrong place. So thats ok....I just think the 19 HA is too high for that gun/tank type in general. Thats all.
viewtopic.php?t=25458
All artillery must be weakened in statistics or restrict suppresion effect. More artillery unit disarms defender unable to fight instead of limiting. Then it is too easy to recharge any position!
All artillery must be weakened in statistics or restrict suppresion effect. More artillery unit disarms defender unable to fight instead of limiting. Then it is too easy to recharge any position!