Slitherine

I noticed these units can take a pretty big chunk out of a Tiger. A little too much?

I took a closer look at the stats and see they have the same hard-attack value.

I don't quite see how the 76mm should be on-par with the 88mm.

Tiger I 88mm/L56

M10 Wolverine 76mm/L53

Try to compare best available AP ammo on 500m distance.

uran21 wrote:Tiger I 88mm/L56

M10 Wolverine 76mm/L53

Try to compare best available AP ammo on 500m distance.

I see that 88mm/L71 (Pak L75) with APCR is better at 500 m than 76mm/L55 with APCR at 457 m .

So maybe HA should not be the same?

skarczew wrote:So maybe HA should not be the same?

Neither it is for Tiger II.

From a game play perspective, Tiger also does a heck of a lot of other things better. Much thicker armor, better SA, better CD. M10 is a pretty pure TD, Tiger is more all purpose. There might need to be a little adjustment, but any tweak would be very minor.
Again from a game play perspectives, the Americans need to have SOME answer to the Tiger tank or it results in pretty poor balance.

The historical solution was to either throw over-whelming numbers at it... or use air-power. Problem solved.

The first solution makes for poor game play known as zerging. Swarms of cheap units are already too powerful, especially in a defensive role, so we're trying to discourage this behavior.
As it is, you have to mass up M10s to take on a tiger anyways. M10 vs Tiger in a stand up fight one on one does not end well for the M10.
7-0 odds if the M10 is on the attack.
2-7 if the Tiger is on the attack.

If anything, the maybe M10 needs a minor armor buff (extremely low or high odds are generally bad to have between contemporary units)

There were a lot of early complaints about airpower being too powerful. Personally I was fine with airpower being the answer to armor, and it still is, sort of. Except you don't really bomb the tank directly, you bomb vulnerable support units.

I think you are worrying too much here. In BBC Academy, we gave the allies close to 2x as many units than the axis in order to match the on-line games against the axis due to Tigers & Panthers. No one had had any problems with balancing and it worked out quite well.

I really am against fuzzie-history where we simply beef up American JUNK just to call a game evenly matched. The allies certainly didn't need any BEEFED UP junk in history to win, so why is it a MUST here? Not to mention, everyone is going to point out the flaws in unit stats here.

I feel there is more to an attack value than just numbers.

First of all I'd like to mention that APCR rounds for German tanks were Very rare, the Germans went through their Tungsten reserves during the war. While APCR rounds were much more common in the US army and the Tank Destroyer units got first dibs on them.

Second the tactics were completely different. The US Tank Destroyer battalions used a very inventive "Seek Strike Destroy" doctrine which focused on aggressive action and surprising the enemy with audacity and vigor while the Germans used their tried and true methods depending on individual initiative and focus on tactical advantage. This led to American tank destroyers being very good at hunting tanks and nothing else while German tankers were more well rounded and able to accomplish any task assigned to them.

Third their TO&E was completely different a German Heavy Tank Battalion was 3 Companies of Tigers with an HQ platoon of Tigers (nothing but Tigers) while a US Tank Destroyer Battalion (self propelled) was 3 Companies of Tanks Destroyers (with imbedded M20s for scouting), a Recon Company, Engineer Squads, Logistics trucks and recovery vehicles.

I really am against fuzzie-history where we simply beef up American JUNK just to call a game evenly matched. The allies certainly didn't need any BEEFED UP junk in history to win, so why is it a MUST here? Not to mention, everyone is going to point out the flaws in unit stats here.

Considering the scale of the game you could just imagine a US unit contains more vehicles than it's German equivalent. Allowing the allies to fill up twice as many hexes probably isn't realistic either, and has significant effects on gameplay.

Kerensky wrote:There were a lot of early complaints about airpower being too powerful. Personally I was fine with airpower being the answer to armor, and it still is, sort of. Except you don't really bomb the tank directly, you bomb vulnerable support units.

The Allies had pretty good air cover and cannon on their ground attack aircraft. They went for the lesser top armor on the tanks, as well as being effective at shooting up other mobile Axis units.

See (from Wiki): The DB-7s were shipped in sections to Casablanca for assembly and service in France and French North Africa. When the Germans attacked France and the Low Countries on 10 May 1940, the 64 available DB-7s were deployed against the advancing Panzers. Before the armistice they were evacuated to North Africa to avoid capture by German forces. Here, they fell under control of the Vichy government,

and

P-70
In October 1940, the USAAC felt a need for long-range fighters more than attack bombers, so some of the production run of A-20s were converted to P-70 and P-70A night-fighters. They were equipped with SCR-540 radar (a copy of British AI Mk IV), the glazed nose often painted black to reduce glare and hide the details of the radar set, and had four 20 mm (.79 in) forward-firing cannon in a ventral bomb bay tray.

I can't remember if the Hun took any measures against this by re-inforcing the top armor.

"Considering the scale of the game you could just imagine a US unit contains more vehicles than it's German equivalent. "

If this is the case then we should be allowing higher over-strength of allied units.

According to my Encyclopedia of World War 2, yes an actual non-wiki source, the Germans started taking the doors off of their trucks in Normandy. So when the jabos were attacking, they could just dive directly out of their vehicles.

Obsolete wrote:"Considering the scale of the game you could just imagine a US unit contains more vehicles than it's German equivalent. "

If this is the case then we should be allowing higher over-strength of allied units.

Yes but it has an unfortunate buggy side effect. You can buy a conscript infantry, who has based 15 strength, and upgrade it into guards infantry to get a 15 strength guards unit. So this implementation needs a little bit of refining.

adherbal wrote:

I really am against fuzzie-history where we simply beef up American JUNK just to call a game evenly matched. The allies certainly didn't need any BEEFED UP junk in history to win, so why is it a MUST here? Not to mention, everyone is going to point out the flaws in unit stats here.

Considering the scale of the game you could just imagine a US unit contains more vehicles than it's German equivalent. Allowing the allies to fill up twice as many hexes probably isn't realistic either, and has significant effects on gameplay.

Not nessesarily, they had better logistical trains\supply. i.e.: More ammo of various types available. Also, the Allies had higher Morale, due to better supply. The equipment\training of the Axis was better, but they had less of it available.

Obsolete wrote:I think you are worrying too much here. In BBC Academy, we gave the allies close to 2x as many units than the axis in order to match the on-line games against the axis due to Tigers & Panthers. No one had had any problems with balancing and it worked out quite well.

This worked out quite well tin Blitzkrieg. 3 Shermans for evey Panther/Tiger or 2 to 3 T-34's.

We can not do that here in Panzer Corps.

Why?

The maps are too small for movement.