Slitherine

Obsolete wrote:Hmm, another little issue.
I noticed the FuckWulf A is at a disadvantage to even a P-47D. Is that really normal? I had always been under the impression that the FW was the top fighter of the war (excluding jets here). Yet when I look at the current stats...

FW costs more than P047 (Ok I don't have a problem with this...)
P-47 has 50% more spotting range (What? How....!)
P-47 has higher initiative (mmmm...)
P-47 has better air to air attack (mmmm).

Theres some other things that seem a bit off in the stats as well... I thought the FW has special armoured plating to protect the pilot, and so on... If the current stats are correct, then I'd say the P-47 beyond a doubt has been one of the most under-rated fighters of the war.

Anyway, maybe it's too early to discuss it yet, there are probably better FW models available. I'm still surprised at the spotting range of 3 for a P-47, is that a typo?

FW-190A was the best plane of the war the moment it was introduced and it gave allies bloody bath. But eventually, the inner (very often political ones) problems in Germany, and the development of newer types removed the gap.

I would say, FW-190A was comparable to P-47D in few aspects ...and don't forget American plane appeared few years later.

- P-47 was high altitude escort fighter, so maybe thats why it has 50% more spotting.
- I don't know whats the initiative based on in PzC, so I will remain silent;
- AA attack - obviously German fighter should have upper hand here;
- Cost - probably error, FW were not that expensive when compared to American planes; P-47 was most expensive American fighter; one of the reasons why it was replaced by Mustang in escort tasks;

As for armor plating of Focke Wulf, P-47 was known to be one of most durable fighters of the war as well.

More reading on the two types and you will find the P-47 was one of the best planes. It was very heavily gunned and carried rockets most of the time.

It should have a higher rating for attack.

Razz1 wrote:More reading on the two types and you will find the P-47 was one of the best planes. It was very heavily gunned and carried rockets most of the time.

It should have a higher rating for attack.

I was under the impression the armament between P-51 and P-47 wasn't all that different (6 MGs to 8 MGs) but the P-51 was a superior aircraft in terms of performance(extremely important for aerial combat) and range while the P-47 was more rugged and durable.

The P-51 is way too low at 13, and the P-47 is way too high at 25.
P-51 should be 16-20 and the P-47 should be 18-22.

P-51 should maybe be 2/2 SA/HA while he P-47 may be 3/4 SA/HA.

Kerensky wrote: I was under the impression the armament between P-51 and P-47 wasn't all that different (6 MGs to 8 MGs) but the P-51 was a superior aircraft in terms of performance(extremely important for aerial combat) and range while the P-47 was more rugged and durable.

Armament wasn't that great. American planes were using 0.5 cal machine guns because of problems with the 20 mm cannon program (long and entertaining history). Every other nation switched to 20 mm canons where possible.

P-51 was superior in terms of range and it was simply cheaper than Juggernaut. P-51 wasn't also that superb in terms of performance. All it had it was the speed. Spit was better for dogfight, Tempest was better at low altitudes, Jug was butter at high altitudes.

But the range, the lag of development of newer German planes and the numerical superiority (what is better: Me-262 or 50 Mustangs?) made the Mustang one of most important fighters in the 44-45 .

Sdkfz 10/4 very seldom gets a hit against an I-16.

I think all the small AA units need to be reviewed. Perhaps the Air attack should be 3.

What ratio do you have in the background for a hit?

Did you ever fix the USSR SPAA?

How about the bug for PZIIc against Allied units?

In .94 beta Obsolete mentioned entrenchment being destroyed from the air.

Perhaps a better alternative is to 1/2 the entrenchment for each air attack.

Art & Land Attack = -1 level
Air = -1/2 of current entrenchment

Any opinions on this?

Razz1 wrote:In .94 beta Obsolete mentioned entrenchment being destroyed from the air.

Perhaps a better alternative is to 1/2 the entrenchment for each air attack.

Art & Land Attack = -1 level
Air = -1/2 of current entrenchment

Any opinions on this?

I think, tac and strategic bombers should reduce entrenchment more than some ground types, like recon or AT. But we might want to have a class-specific entrenchment damage.

Level bombers already cause long term suppression and destroy supplies, they don't need more. Matter of fact their anti-ship capacities got over-buffed and need a slight nerf, that's what they need.
Tactical bombers may make sense to have this, as an alternative to being killing machines, but I personally disagree. I much prefer units to be killing machines, but perhaps not to the current extent that exists in the game where 10 strength can 1 shot 10 strength.

As a general perspective on balance, if I were you, I would 'balance' the units so that:
No unit fighting a contemporary unit should have odds as low as 0-0 or 0-1, with exceptions for long term suppression and entrenchment.
No unit fighting a contemporary unit should have odds as high as 7-7 or 0-9, again with exceptions for long term suppression and entrenchment.

What does contemporary means? It means a T-34/43 that comes out... 8/13/1942 should be able to put up a fight against German armor of that time period, namely a Tiger I and Panther D.
Does that mean T-34/43 has 3-3 odds? No. But it also means a Tiger I attacking a T-34/43 shouldn't see odds of 0-1. Perhaps 1-4, or 1-5 would be more appropriate.

An even better example is the ISU-122. Against a Tiger, this unit has a prediction of 1-1. Considering both are contemporary units, not like the difference between a Tiger I and a T-60, these predictions are far, far too low. GD of both units is too high. Odds of at least 2-2, or even 3-2 (in favor of the Tiger) would be a much better fit.

Currently people are complaining that killing power is too severe, and this is true in the case of units killing 6+ strength in a single attack. These units need to be readjusted, so long as they are contemporary. For example, a Maus against an M4 Sherman is not a fight between contemporary opponents, and would warrant outrageous predictions in the area of 0-8.

Combat currently seems to exist in one of three states:
1-1, 0-1, 1-0 odds, near ineffectual odds.
2-3, 2-2, 4-2 odds, the sweet middle spot.
6-1, 8-0, 7-2 odds, the outrageous overpowering of one unit over another.

Currently, too many combat encounters in PzC exist in the first or third state, and not nearly enough fall into the middle state. If I had to make up statistics on the spot based my own experience, I would guess the percentage of these three states exists as 30% / 10% / 60% respectively. Combat, currently, is simply too extreme, in both directions.

Lower GD and AD for a lot of units(Just because a unit had awesome frontal armor doesn't mean it should have relative invulnerability), adjust HA and SA to fit the new values.

For example, this picture would be acceptable for combat in open terrain(Although I believe the lucky 3% kill for the T-34/43 should be upped to the 5-10% range, not 3%).


But in close quarters, where the Russians prefer to fight once they learned they were clearly out-gunned at ranged combat against Tigers and Panthers? No. 76mm ATGs in entrenchment should be equally effective against armor, not the current 0-3 odds that exist now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

The Tiger was first used in action on 23 September 1942 near Leningrad. Under pressure from Hitler, the tank was put into action months earlier than planned. Many early models proved to be mechanically unreliable; in this first action many broke down. Others were knocked out by dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns. One tank was captured largely intact, which allowed the Soviets to study it and prepare a response.

In the North African theater, the Tiger first saw action in late 1942 near Robaa Tunisia. In the ensuing battle, a battery belonging to the 72nd Anti-tank Regiment of the British Army equipped with six-pounder managed to knock out three enemy Tigers and rout the remaining forces. As the campaign continued, Tiger tanks did appear in limited numbers. Their heavy armor and powerful armament let them dominate battles in the open terrain of North Africa, but their mechanical unreliability and lack of numbers meant that they were never massed in great numbers and that they served in a primarily supporting role.

The initial Soviet response was to restart production of the 57 mm ZiS-2 anti-tank gun (production was stopped in 1941 in favour of smaller, cheaper alternatives). The ZiS-2 had better armour penetration than the 76 mm F-34 tank gun (used by most Red Army tanks, but inadequate against Tigers) - with APCR rounds, it could ideally penetrate the Tiger's frontal armour.[30] A small number of T-34s were fitted with a tank version of the ZiS-2 but it could not fire an adequate high-explosive round, ultimately making it an unsuitable tank gun. Instead, the 85 mm 52-K anti-aircraft gun was modified for tank use. This was initially used on the SU-85 self-propelled gun (based on a T-34 chassis) from August 1943. By the spring of 1944, the T-34/85 appeared; this up-gunned T-34 matched the SU-85's firepower, but with the advantage of mounting the gun in a turret. The redundant SU-85 was replaced by the SU-100, mounting a 100 mm D-10 tank gun, that could penetrate 185 mm of vertical armour plate at 1,000 m, and was thus easily able to defeat the Tiger's frontal armour at normal combat ranges.

How does the game currently behave?
Tiger I vs SU-100? Ineffectual combat. They'll more likely run out of ammo before they kill each other, especially the SU-100.
Tiger I vs T34/85? Absolutely no contest.
First and third of my three 'odds states' right here.

As a side note, the RNG generator you're using for PzC is going to need serious looking at, because it has an uncanny ability to wreck an otherwise almost 'balanced' encounter.

Here's a Panther G taking on a T-34/85.


2-7 prediction? That's not bad, I would prefer to see maybe 2-5 or 2-6 though. But then I actually fought the battle. LOL RNG.

I have found bombers already terrible for attacking ships (maybe that's not too un-realistic). But do we REALLY need to nerf them even more than this???

Your gonna loose 2 points for sure attacking the Navy.

Pretty sure I said level bombers.
0 Star 10 strength Level bomber vs 0 star 10 strength battleship.

Oh right I did.

Ahhh! Well that level bomber sure made a difference. Now I have a reason to finally buy one... Ahah!

BTW, is it just me, or destroying 6 to 12 prestige from an enemy when it already has something like infinite seems rather pointless.
Also, I'm not sure what real benefit there is to neutralization. I guess on the odd occurrance that a unit isn't inside the city. It's pretty rare.

With artillery to suppress, I tend to prefer bombers which can actually deliver DAMAGE.

Kerensky wrote:As a side note, the RNG generator you're using for PzC is going to need serious looking at, because it has an uncanny ability to wreck an otherwise almost 'balanced' encounter.

Here's a Panther G taking on a T-34/85.


2-7 prediction? That's not bad, I would prefer to see maybe 2-5 or 2-6 though. But then I actually fought the battle. LOL RNG.

68% estimated for kill and you are surprised that you scored some more kills? Don't be silly, man. It is RNG.

I had 4-6 estimation few times in AG and as a result my own unit was totally killed. Should I blame devs for my lack of luck?

skarczew wrote:I had 4-6 estimation few times in AG and as a result my own unit was totally killed. Should I blame devs for my lack of luck?

A battle turning from 2-7 into 0-10, without any influence from 'ambush' or entrechment, is too much RNG for my tastes. If this sort of battle happened rarely, I would accept it of course, but the problem is that this occurrence is not rare. The fact that my very first test between a Panther and a T34-85 resulted in this speaks volumes to this.

Worse than the RNG though, we're still talking about a 10 strength 0 star killing another 10 strength 0 star in a literal one shot. Something that shouldn't be allowed to ever happen with better stat balance, except in the extreme cases of entrechment/ambush, or when one unit massively outclasses another (Maus vs Sherman, PZ IA vs M26)

A Panther G does not, by any means or interpretation, 'massively outclass' a T-34/85.

A bit of an unlikely event, but when you are playing literally a hundred or so battles each scenario, you SHOULD be getting an outcome like this now and then. If you AREN'T then there's probably something wrong.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the projection currently. Balancing and mechanics may be a different story still..

BTW, I wanted to re-ague something. It's bad enough that the 88 doesn't even come close to carrying out its infamouse role. But that being said, just think on how TERRIBLE the weaker AA units are.

Is there anyone who is sane here who has seen a point in purchasing any?

They are the inverse of level bombers.

Level bombers use to be absolutely useless against ships:
viewtopic.php?t=22544&highlight=level+bomber
Now, level bombers were overcompensated to be one shot killing machines against battleships(not to mention lesser ships)
(Over-buff)

AD units used to be the bane of aircraft:
I can't find a specific thread, but if you browse the early BETA ones, you will see lots of complaining. I myself pretty much resigned my air force to fighters only, the previous strength of AD + the amount the AI likes to buy made aircraft useless.
They were nerfed into oblivion as a result of previously being too powerful, 1 high calibre AA gun (This was from a time when Russians only had the 85MM AD unit, so ALL of their AD guns were automatically high calibre) could potentially one shot a 10 strength Stuka with a little RNG.
(Over-nerf)

So like the level bomber, AD needs to be re-tweaked again, hopefully to find that sweet spot I was talking about.

Can you re-program the AI to only put 4 or 5 units around a Victory Hex in place 6?

There's never enough units on the maps to do this type of strategy. If you free up a couple of units it will balance the game better.