Slitherine

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2011 2:56 pm**

Rudankort wrote:Looking at the stats, this rebalance might work for Sturmpanzer I:
- Range to 2
- Speed to 5 (after all, it was based on PzIB chassis, and quick search shows that its speed was even a bit higher than that of PzIB)
- Maybe +1 ammo
- Maybe slight reduction in price

Thoughts?

Looks good to me.

Speed 5 is a necessity if it is meant to keep up with the Panzers, and that's the intention of the unit. And to help a bit with the loss of range.
+1 ammo: Not sure about that. I would say it's still awesome with 4 ammo.

It looks almost like a very late re-examination of Panzer General balance!

The sIG thingie was used by literally everyone during the campaign, some probably even never bothered to upgrade it as it was a supreme artillery unit throughout the entire campaign.

It would make the Hummel a desirable upgrade and also be nicely in line with history with these stats.

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2011 3:18 pm**

Rudankort wrote:Looking at the stats, this rebalance might work for Sturmpanzer I:
- Range to 2
agree
- Speed to 5 (after all, it was based on PzIB chassis, and quick search shows that its speed was even a bit higher than that of PzIB)
agree
- Maybe +1 ammo
Would be nice, but not necessary. Historically I favor the 5 ammo (imho), and for game balance there is enough incentive for towed artillery with their higher range then.
- Maybe slight reduction in price
No, please not. Price is ok with changed stats.

Thoughts?

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:14 pm**

Please no increase in prices, it's already inflation is big enough, just look at the price of Tigers ....

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:57 pm**

It looks almost like a very late re-examination of Panzer General balance!
The sIG thingie was used by literally everyone during the campaign, some probably even never bothered to upgrade it as it was a supreme artillery unit throughout the entire campaign.

It would make the Hummel a desirable upgrade and also be nicely in line with history with these stats.

Yes it was certainly a very popular unit, everyone would have a sig (or 2) in their core. Considering it was actually a very rare unit, its probably a bit over rated. Actually the only photo's I've seen of it in action show it in an almost direct fire mode, Shooting directly into buildings obscured by smoke. Its barrel is also quite short which suggests it was not designed for long range bombardment (as it was used in PG).
I'd be in favour of a more realistic appraisal of the sig but i'd sort of miss zipping it up too enemy positions and hitting their artillery with ease and impunity. I also think Stuh 42 and IV Stug need work.

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:28 pm**

DrkCon wrote:
boredatwork wrote:Which would be inline with the fact the Germans never bothered to produce more than 38 of them.
Well, you could always simply not buy one if you dont like it. Or simply never use it to shoot more than 1 hex. Why remove something from the game when the ability to not play with it already exists? We should be looking to increase options, not take them away.

Strict adherence to historical accuracy is sort of ridiculous to bring up in a video game anyhow.

Or it could always be fixed and if you don't like it you can mod it back to being broken? Why suffer with something that spoils immersion when the ability to mod it to personal preference already exists?

*Reasonable* historical accuracy in a *historical wargame* is rediculous?

PzC is abstract so obviously there's a degree of acceptable latitude in interpretation but turning a piece of trash into a super weapon in the mistaken impression that you're balancing the game lessens immersion both because the equipment itself in no way corresponds to it's historical use/effectiveness and because now you have to rebalance a nominally historical scenario around a higher than average core which has become the defacto *average*. (Bagration's waves of IS-2s, cough, cough)

My ideal solution if the developers were inclined to add an attribute or two to the code and make some AI tweaks is to seperate artillery into 2 different categories: Artillery proper (including SP Art) and assault guns (possibly moved to the AT tab).

Artillery - bombards range 2-3, Can only fire BEFORE moving, can defensive fire

Assault Guns - bombards range 1, can fire AFTER moving, counts as AT when firing direct at tanks (ie can suffer return fire), can defensive fire

This keeps assault guns usefull purchases in small numbers for the ASSAULGT GUN/AT role, particularly the hordes of Soviet SPGs coming in 1942+. Likewise it keeps towed artillery usefull AS RANGED ARTILLERY until 1943 when the Hummel/Wespe are introduced and scenario difficulty can be balanced on the assumption there aren't numerous SPG running around zapping everything in sight.

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:44 pm**

Sorry if it's a threadjack, but since we're at discussing unit stats already: what do you guys make of the air attack/iniative changes between Bf109E/F/G? E has more air attack, F has less, but significantly more initiative, and then it goes up with G and K again. What's the rationale for the F stats?

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:22 pm**

bebro wrote:Sorry if it's a threadjack, but since we're at discussing unit stats already: what do you guys make of the air attack/iniative changes between Bf109E/F/G? E has more air attack, F has less, but significantly more initiative, and then it goes up with G and K again. What's the rationale for the F stats?

You can start on Wikipedia doing some research and you will notice that the E had more guns than the F:
E: 2x7,92mm MG17 + 2x 20mm MG FF
F: 2x7,92mm MG17 + 1x 20mm MG 151/20 firing through the center of the propeller.

It's also a bit lighter and has a better engine. In general many pilots said it had the best flight characteristics of the entire series. Later models were improved to climb faster and carry stronger weapons, also to destroy bombers that the early FW-190 had trouble to intercept as their radial engines were rather poor at the usual bomber altitudes.

Posted: **Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:47 am**

DrkCon wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:(are there any 4-range units? )
Tho its very possible to get a +1 Range hero obviously.

Indeed. I'm playing the '40 DLC, I've got 5 Sturmpanzers in my core, and 2 of them are +1 Range.

And, I didn't game the system to get them. I was happy just to get the one.

Posted: **Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:07 am**

+1 Ammo is over kill.

From what I read they were short on Ammo as they could carry very little.

Always needed an ammo tractor or truck.

Posted: **Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:20 am**

Razz1 wrote:+1 Ammo is over kill.

From what I read they were short on Ammo as they could carry very little.

Always needed an ammo tractor or truck.

I don't know about the historical amount of ammo the Sturmpanzer had but considering we are modeling a quite abstract system here i doubt 4 or 5 makes so much difference. Especially when considering that a unit in PC actually contains their logistical structure already.

From the gaming point of view i think the ammo buff will be needed when reducing the range to 2. This will add a major drawback to the Sturmpanzer. I don't know how some of you guys anyway use them almost exclusively. For me this bloody things are permanently out or at least low on ammo. I tend to use the towed artillery to do the bulk of offensive bombardment and use the Sturmpanzers only on defense after a move or when mobility is of a critical importance somewhere. In the DLC the time pressure seem to be a bit lower then in the stock campaign so you can afford a round of doing nothing but resupplying your Sturmpanzers but i just don't like holding my whole advance back just because one unit type runs low on ammo all the time.

Posted: **Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:53 am**

7,5cm = 9
10,15cm = 8
15cm = 7
17cm = 6
21cm = 5

15cm Nbw = 6
Wurfrahmen 40 = 4

StuG IIIB = 8

Sturmpanzer 1 = 4

(somewhat later)

StuH42 = 6
Hummel = 5
Wespe = 6
SiG38 = 4

Dunno, somehow 4 for the Sturmpanzer seems right to me. No matter if range is 2 or 3. The thing is that the 15cm sIG of the Sturmpanzer and the 15cm sFH 18 (first mounted on the Hummel as self-propelled piece) are very different guns, while Panzer General and Corps give the impression they are both the very same 15cm gun by giving the very same stats, maybe for whatever balance reasons.

I would leave it at 4. Germany still has the advantage of having a self-propelled artillery right from the start. Even with 4 ammo I have used it almost exclusively alongside the StuG IIIB. I have 4 Sturmpanzers, 1 sFH 18, 2 StuG IIIB (and 4 Stukas) in my current DLC core.

Posted: **Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:21 pm**

Razz1 wrote:+1 Ammo is over kill.

From what I read they were short on Ammo as they could carry very little.

Always needed an ammo tractor or truck.

The vehicle themselves could carry very little, but they had organic ammo carriers (same vehicle without the gun - same mobility). So imho 5 ammo is good, in comparison to the 10.5cm towed artillery as well, the Sturmpanzers ammo was not further away then the ammo of the towed arty. In those days it was not the shoot and scoot of today.

It would also make a difference to the Wurfrahmen40, which has 4 ammo. Their rockets were far more cumbersome to reload, then the 10.5cm shells of the Sturmpanzer.

Posted: **Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:52 pm**

Revisiting this.

Have the stats for Sturmpanzer I, the range of StuG IV and StuH 42, and the name of the 7.5 field gun changed in the next patch?

Posted: **Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:13 am**

DLC 42 doesn't patch it just adds....so no no changes yet

Posted: **Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:01 am**

I know about DLC 42.
Am asking about future patch.

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:29 pm**

hopefully the sturmpanzer range will go down to 2 in the next patch

Posted: **Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:27 pm**

It should be removed entirely. It's dumb and a-historical to a huge degree. If it absolutely must remain in the game it should have a range of 1 and possibly lower damage.

I'm convinced the availability of the sturmpanzer 1 so early encourages poor play by newer players and prevents them from learning to be better since you can rely on it as a crutch. Not having a range 3 12/9 damaging SPG until much later in the war would force people to learn proper tactics and become better players.

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:15 am**

I have been playing Deducter's mod and he really nails the balancing on the artillery units. Giving the Sturmpanzer I a range of 2 works perfectly and makes your choice of artillery units much more interesting.

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:04 pm**

Point of view :

yes range of 2 and possibly an higher cost (rare material) seems right

it's not an historical typical wargame, but historical materials are very important in this game to avoid a too much anhistorical Core (It's the guy talking about cavalry who say this,-) !

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:03 pm**

monkspider wrote:I have been playing Deducter's mod and he really nails the balancing on the artillery units. Giving the Sturmpanzer I a range of 2 works perfectly and makes your choice of artillery units much more interesting.

Thanks, artillery was one of the areas that took me a long time to figure out, and I think the balance now is very good. For the record, the Sturmpanzer I in my mod has is:

available only in 1940
range = 2
ROF = 10 (up from 9)
SA = 10 (down from 12)
HA = 5 (down from 9)
cost massively increased (498 prestige)

Just out of curiosity, what year are you up to?

Slitherine

The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

Re: The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged