Slitherine

If you find something unbalanced or unfair, post it here.

British M7 Priest and Sexton still to cheap (167 and 137 should be closer to 270 and 245) By Comparison, the SU-122 has 4 ammo 12 SA 10 HA to the Priest 7 Ammo 11 SA 9 HA.
All American self propelled artillery guns are also priced too cheaply. Priest, 75mm, 155mm, sherman 105 are too cheap compared to the normal towed artillery guns of the same calibre. American 75mm HMC should have gun range 2.

Sherman M4A3E2(76) is currently better than Panther Gs (Sherman 19 HA, 22 gd, 483 price vs Panther at 19 ha, 16 gd, 729 price). Price needs to go up or stats need to go down.
Sherman M4A3E2 should also get nerf to ground defense.
American Sherman M4A3E2, Sherman M4A3E2(76) both need reduction in close defense (In addition to other nerfs). 5 -> 3.
British Sherman Firefly needs a buff in close defense. 1 -> 2 or 3.

British and American M3 Stuart needs a reduction in close defense. 5 -> 3 or 4.

Low end Rocket artillery guns have too little ammunition (all rocket artillery currently has 4 ammo. Wufrahmen and BM-31 should stay at 4, low end units such as the 15cm Nbl 41 and BM-13 should have ~6 or 7)
Also applies to Hummel/Wespe, both are at 4. Hummel should be 5, Wespe at 6.


Close defense values on super heavy armor needs to be reduced. King Tiger 6, IS-2 6, and M26 5 should be reduced to 4s and 5s, preferably all 4s.



M7 Priest (armed with a 105mm) compared to a standard American 105 towed artillery piece.


Currently:
5cm PaK 38
HA 13, cost 165

7.5cm PaK 40
HA 14 cost 367

8.8cm PaK 43/41
HA 24 cost 165

HA of 5cm PaK 38 needs to be reduced to ~10, price of 7.5 needs to be reduced to 200-250 , price of 8.8 needs to be increased to 300-350.

Italian Bersaglieri infantry needs a 2 HA, up from current 1.

Kerensky wrote:If you find something unbalanced or unfair, post it here.

...

Sherman M4A3E2 should also get nerf to ground defense.
American Sherman M4A3E2, Sherman M4A3E2(76) both need reduction in close defense (In addition to other nerfs). 5 -> 3.
British Sherman Firefly needs a buff in close defense. 1 -> 2 or 3.

British and American M3 Stuart needs a reduction in close defense. 5 -> 3 or 4.

...

I'm curious as to why you feel they should be nerfed in close defense. Wouldn't it make sense to improve the hard attack of specific units against these tanks to simulate the late war anti-tank weapons (but only for specific units) rather than nerfing the tanks against all close defense?

Because that would cripple otherwise balanced late war armor.

The units who would need to be buffed are 43 iterations of infantry. If you do this, they are now even more deadlier against well balanced tanks in the range of 3-4 CD just to make your infantry more potent against a few super heavy tanks.

So nerf Sherman, M26, King Tiger, and IS-2.
OR
Buff 1943 versions of infantry for all nations (going to need to create 43 versions for nations that don't have them too), and also buff close defense values of all armor except the ShermanE2, M26, King Tiger, and IS-2.

The end result is the same, which makes more sense do you think?

TBUOYFM

I know it's a different game and the mechanics operate differently but why can't PG2 unit statistics be used as a base? The efiles that have been created since SSI's original one have been used and debated for years - why not start with the stats from one of those? Or was that done?

I think some Bomber Aircraft have WAY too high air attack values.

B17s have better air attack than even LATE ware fighters (Except Me-262) - I hardly believe that is a good idea.

I would agree on having late ware bombers high defense values as they were
a) were large compared to fighter air craft
b) more durable built compared to fighters

Also that they should have quite decent air attack values (at least as high as early war fighters) because of their lots of turret guns mounted.

BUT an air attack of 24 or 26 ?!?!

Whilst most fighters only have 20 ?

Quite a few air units are still questionable, so I haven't really listed their individual stats and problems like I have for specific ground units. Mostly because I'm not sure the direction air units are headed towards. Without knowing this, balancing their stats is problematic.

Iscaran wrote:I think some Bomber Aircraft have WAY too high air attack values.

B17s have better air attack than even LATE ware fighters (Except Me-262) - I hardly believe that is a good idea.

I would agree on having late ware bombers high defense values as they were
a) were large compared to fighter air craft
b) more durable built compared to fighters

Also that they should have quite decent air attack values (at least as high as early war fighters) because of their lots of turret guns mounted.

BUT an air attack of 24 or 26 ?!?!

Whilst most fighters only have 20 ?

They are penalized in initiative and they can shoot back only if attacked so individually looking at AA of some heavy bombers my seem high but in real combat it is not the case.

"Quite a few air units are still questionable, so I haven't really listed their individual stats and problems like I have for specific ground units. Mostly because I'm not sure the direction air units are headed towards. Without knowing this, balancing their stats is problematic."

"They are penalized in initiative and they can shoot back only if attacked so individually looking at AA of some heavy bombers my seem high but in real combat it is not the case."

I know that - but I still think the overall AA of some heavy bombers is too high (or the comparative AA of fighters is too low).

In terms of general balancing I would rather give bombers high defense values and fighers rather high AA values with mid defense values.

Consider it that way a fighter just needs a few hits before it goes down - whilst a (heavy) bomber can take quite a massive impact of machine gun fire or even some flak hits before it goes down.

So roughly an AD value ~2x of ´fighters, but an AA value roughly 1/2 of fighters would fit very well ?

Just my points though - still have a lot more playtesting to do before I see every aspect of the balancing as it is atm.

Soviet lend lease equipment is too cheap.
Soviet M4 Sherman costs 124, American M4 Sherman costs 301. American Sherman does have 2 more HA for some reason though.

Other lend lease equipment is also very cheap compared to the normal US/UK unit (Valentine III and M3 Lee).

EDIT: Deleted my own message because I got mixed up.

Btw. Is there a spreedsheet available with unit values ? Would ease up comparison and help in posting "balancing" issues.

Iscaran wrote:So roughly an AD value ~2x of ´fighters, but an AA value roughly 1/2 of fighters would fit very well ?

I don't believe it will. Can you provide a specific example of this formula for analysis?

No I cant give an example atm for this formula. Its more kind of a "feeling" how it could work.

I dont remember the values on original PG - too long ago but I think the heavy bombers had quite "high" AD and medium AA values and it worked pretty well. Whilst only real high end fighters had even higher AD values.

I think they started with AD on BF109E of 10 and had somehting around 15 max.

Whilst bombers were even higher in AD but had around AA 10 in the late war ? If you have access to PG original series unit stats might use those as a starting point ?

Maybe 2x AD and 1/2 AA is too harsh but could be a good starting point ?

Could you perhaps simulate a few combats with such unit balancing for test purpose and post the outcome ?

Is there a spreedsheet available with unit values ?

You can open the equipment.pzeqp file from Excel and everything is there in neat columns with headings.

Kerensky wrote:Soviet lend lease equipment is too cheap.
Soviet M4 Sherman costs 124, American M4 Sherman costs 301. American Sherman does have 2 more HA for some reason though.

Other lend lease equipment is also very cheap compared to the normal US/UK unit (Valentine III and M3 Lee).

This is a good thing to modify Kerensky, historically speaking, the Murmansk convoy route and the associated resources used and involved, should be reflected in the cost to the player.

85mm 1939 for Russia still needs to be able to switch

"You can open the equipment.pzeqp file from Excel and everything is there in neat columns with headings."

Thanks !

Sherman M4A3E2(76) is currently better than Panther Gs (Sherman 19 HA, 22 gd, 483 price vs Panther at 19 ha, 16 gd, 729 price). Price needs to go up or stats need to go down.

It is a bit of a shocker when I run into a Sherman that has a +2 better HA than my Tiger... And not very realistic.

I think some Bomber Aircraft have WAY too high air attack values.

I thought that odd at first too, but after looking closely at the stats I think its more realistic than everyone here realizes. Flying fortresses are armed to the teeth and hence, have more brute fire-power than even fighters built to counter that unit.

HOWEVER, the trade-off (as with all heavy equipment) is mobility. Not so much distance in this case, but INITIATIVE over all. These bombers simply can't maneuver in dog-fights and are sitting ducks, hence the doctrine of always sticking more guns on them to fend for themselves.

The high fire-power is countered by their low initiative, so I think it's just fine.

Obsolete wrote:It is a bit of a shocker when I run into a Sherman that has a +2 better HA than my Tiger... And not very realistic.

Yes, this Sherman is quite unbalanced. I have no doubt of this, heheh.

Obsolete wrote:The high fire-power is countered by their low initiative, so I think it's just fine.

This is especially important, and a fact people would do well to keep in mind.

I find that the AD units are not really effective at all. With a range of 3, they still will not cover out to the 3 hex range. Mechanized AD units also only cover to a range of one hex. I liked PG2 better- AD units shot at everything that attacked a ground target within their range. That does not happen here.