All RC3 balance issues hear.
Please
RC3 balance thread
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
Uhhh.... no?Razz1 wrote:SU152 cost is too cheap.
234 vs 270 for SU-122
What I want to know is why the price of tanks and anti-tank units has completely exploded.
IS-2
Comet
M26
The IS-2 and M26 (comet to nearly 700) have shot way up to the 800 range of the King Tiger (even though the King Tiger still mops the floor with them) and yet infantry have not have a price adjustment. So you can buy 13 or 14 fifteen (15) strength conscripts now at a mere 60 a piece or you can buy one IS-2.
I don't know about you, but I'll never buy a tank ever again, it's going to be pure infantry spam in campaign or multiplayer now.
Any armor caught in close terrain will be decimated, and any armor in the open will simply be swarmed on a 10 to 1 ratio.
Close Terrain, not bad for a unit that costs 60.
Open Terrain. King Tiger kills 6 at loss of 0. Each Conscript has 15 strength. Conscripts costs less than 1/10th of a single King Tiger. How many shots to kill a conscript unit? How much ammo does a King Tiger have?
If you answer that question right, you'll never buy another IS-2 or SU-100 ever again.
Issues copied over from RC2:
American 75mm HMC should have gun range 2.
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.
I was going to repeat super heavies need a close defense rating nerf, but with the new prices, infantry are going to be kings of this game.
American 75mm HMC should have gun range 2.
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.
I was going to repeat super heavies need a close defense rating nerf, but with the new prices, infantry are going to be kings of this game.
All the German recon prices have gone up, I'll reserve judgement.
However, all the German Mobile AT went up in price.
This is wrong. They are not worth the cost. Tanks are cheaper.
The Marders were good at the previous price as they are not too useful.
They can not defend. When they attack, they take allot of damage due to weak armor. So the old cost would justify the expense, but now they are worthless.
However, all the German Mobile AT went up in price.
This is wrong. They are not worth the cost. Tanks are cheaper.
The Marders were good at the previous price as they are not too useful.
They can not defend. When they attack, they take allot of damage due to weak armor. So the old cost would justify the expense, but now they are worthless.
Agreed, but it's not just the German prices.Razz1 wrote:All the German recon prices have gone up, I'll reserve judgement.
However, all the German Mobile AT went up in price.
This is wrong. They are not worth the cost. Tanks are cheaper.
The Marders were good at the previous price as they are not too useful.
They can not defend. When they attack, they take allot of damage due to weak armor. So the old cost would justify the expense, but now they are worthless.
M36Jackson doubled to 544, SU-100 skyrocketed to 712, Jagdtiger is 852. I cannot believe for a moment these units are worth their price anymore. They were hardly worth their price before this increase (low ammo low SA made Assaults Guns very questionable and very counter-able in RC2), but now they're just a waste of prestige. There's nothing a single Jagdtiger can do better than 852 prestige worth of alternatives can.
Generally speaking concerning Allies.
USA 30 to 35% cheaper than Germans
Russians 20% cheaper
British 10% cheaper
You should have to use three Shermans or two with HW Inf or Engineer /Ranger to due series damge to a German heavy tank.
The USA and British tanks are not as good so making prices the same does not make sense.
They can not go toe to toe.
Same with Russians until later war where their units were much better and close or superior to German Armor units.
Also, Lend lease is cheap, which is good.
However their effectivity of those weak tanks doesn't look promising.
Has anyone tried buying allot of those in place of Russian unit to go for a win?
It may be possible.
USA 30 to 35% cheaper than Germans
Russians 20% cheaper
British 10% cheaper
You should have to use three Shermans or two with HW Inf or Engineer /Ranger to due series damge to a German heavy tank.
The USA and British tanks are not as good so making prices the same does not make sense.
They can not go toe to toe.
Same with Russians until later war where their units were much better and close or superior to German Armor units.
Also, Lend lease is cheap, which is good.
However their effectivity of those weak tanks doesn't look promising.
Has anyone tried buying allot of those in place of Russian unit to go for a win?
It may be possible.
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
From just quickly going through the list from the posters in this topic so far I think I would agree on most issues.
Prices were nearly OK in RC2 - why now such drastic changes ?!?
Why is the infantry so dirt cheap doesnot make sense since infantry is much stronger in PzC than in PG before - especially in close defense/combat infantry is a real killer. Why buy tanks at all then ?!?
Prices were nearly OK in RC2 - why now such drastic changes ?!?
Why is the infantry so dirt cheap doesnot make sense since infantry is much stronger in PzC than in PG before - especially in close defense/combat infantry is a real killer. Why buy tanks at all then ?!?
That is completely unnecessary and WRONG.Kerensky wrote:A system where PVE (campaign) and PVP (multiplayer) are balanced separately and use different equipment files? Oh yea, that would be awesome!iainmcneil wrote:I'll check on the reason for the changes. It does seem radical but there may be a reason for it!
If only it were true...
One file for balance. Then if you must... re-balance the campaigns via prestige.
In an effort to foster a more constructive environment, let's try to avoid labeling time proven ideas from other games as "WRONG", shall we?
Besides, there's just something comically ironic about that statement when this thread started with inaccurate information.
Besides, there's just something comically ironic about that statement when this thread started with inaccurate information.
Razz1 wrote:SU152 cost is too cheap.
234 vs 270 for SU-122
)
Regarding prices. Two things were being addressed. Making prices for Allies and Axis equal which was the issue in previous file and making units more comparable in cost effectiveness.
Prices are reflection of unit statistics.
Where are the problems and what is explanation for some decisions?
To make cost effectiveness work it is not enough to pull two parameters in e-file, compare them, make changes and make the case close. Cost effectiveness needs to work among all units. This is why units with higher combat statistics have added value to their combat stats to reflect cost effectiveness. Why this isn't working totally precise? Reason is because of certain variables in unit statistics and subsequently their prices.
For example one of things affecting it is value of non combat stats. In combat only three stats are important, initiative, attack and defence.
So for example if we have Unit A that has initiative of 10, attack of 10 defense of 10 and movement of 3 and Unit B that has same combat statistics but movement of 6 and we want to chose which to buy difference in movement (non combat stats) needs to be present in the price. Now if we confront both of those units with Unit C that has initiative of 10, attack of 10 and defence of 10 we will get same predicted losses for Unit A and Unit B but the price at which we are going to replace them is going to be different and their cost effectiveness will be different but for difference in price you will have added value in non combat stats.
Other thing influencing this is variability of value for stats when they are distributed differently. For example if you confront unit with initiative of 20 with unit with initiative of 8 lots of initiative points are going to be wasted in this particular combat but they are going to be used in more equal combat. But difference in initiative is not a big problem, problem begins when you have disproportional distribution of attack and defense values. In practice this is an issue for some tank destroyers and some tanks. Their price is reflection of their stats but much of their stats is wasted in combat.
Problem with artillery prices exists and it is evident. Reason is they didn't get added value for every higher stats and this is also the case for anti aircraft and towed anti tank.
Tank destroyers were directly compared to tanks and their lower soft attack as well as initiative penalty is calculated in price.
Prices for infantry was not changed and they should! Prices for late war infantry is ridiculously low and this is the issue even in RC2. Comparing infantry vs tanks and their usefulness in close terrain instead of using other tanks, tank destroyers is not an issue for pointing in e-file but for discussing game rules because although this change in close combat made infantry more useful it created certain anomalies in combat.
I will try to sum current problems and list their solutions:
-price for all artillery. increase in price.
-price for infantry. increase in price plus making early war infantry available at late war so if player wants anti soft infantry it can have it at lower price and if it wants anti hard infantry it will pay it at higher price.
-price for tank destroyers. lowering the price
-usefulness of tank destroyers that have disproportional distribution between attack and defense values. increase their ground defense.
Prices are reflection of unit statistics.
Where are the problems and what is explanation for some decisions?
To make cost effectiveness work it is not enough to pull two parameters in e-file, compare them, make changes and make the case close. Cost effectiveness needs to work among all units. This is why units with higher combat statistics have added value to their combat stats to reflect cost effectiveness. Why this isn't working totally precise? Reason is because of certain variables in unit statistics and subsequently their prices.
For example one of things affecting it is value of non combat stats. In combat only three stats are important, initiative, attack and defence.
So for example if we have Unit A that has initiative of 10, attack of 10 defense of 10 and movement of 3 and Unit B that has same combat statistics but movement of 6 and we want to chose which to buy difference in movement (non combat stats) needs to be present in the price. Now if we confront both of those units with Unit C that has initiative of 10, attack of 10 and defence of 10 we will get same predicted losses for Unit A and Unit B but the price at which we are going to replace them is going to be different and their cost effectiveness will be different but for difference in price you will have added value in non combat stats.
Other thing influencing this is variability of value for stats when they are distributed differently. For example if you confront unit with initiative of 20 with unit with initiative of 8 lots of initiative points are going to be wasted in this particular combat but they are going to be used in more equal combat. But difference in initiative is not a big problem, problem begins when you have disproportional distribution of attack and defense values. In practice this is an issue for some tank destroyers and some tanks. Their price is reflection of their stats but much of their stats is wasted in combat.
Problem with artillery prices exists and it is evident. Reason is they didn't get added value for every higher stats and this is also the case for anti aircraft and towed anti tank.
Tank destroyers were directly compared to tanks and their lower soft attack as well as initiative penalty is calculated in price.
Prices for infantry was not changed and they should! Prices for late war infantry is ridiculously low and this is the issue even in RC2. Comparing infantry vs tanks and their usefulness in close terrain instead of using other tanks, tank destroyers is not an issue for pointing in e-file but for discussing game rules because although this change in close combat made infantry more useful it created certain anomalies in combat.
I will try to sum current problems and list their solutions:
-price for all artillery. increase in price.
-price for infantry. increase in price plus making early war infantry available at late war so if player wants anti soft infantry it can have it at lower price and if it wants anti hard infantry it will pay it at higher price.
-price for tank destroyers. lowering the price
-usefulness of tank destroyers that have disproportional distribution between attack and defense values. increase their ground defense.