Slitherine

Posted: **Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:46 pm**

The IS2 has a soft attack strength of 12 and the Tiger 2 has a soft attack strength of 9. Is that imbalance historically accurate?

Posted: **Sat Oct 15, 2011 8:28 pm**

Kriegsheld wrote:The IS2 has a soft attack strength of 12 and the Tiger 2 has a soft attack strength of 9. Is that imbalance historically accurate?

As PC is a "Beer & Bretzel" game, comparing of the soft attack properties of the main armament of tank and anti-tank units by simply comparing the weight of the their HighExplosive-Fragmentation (HE-Frag) grenades should be sufficient (assuming that the ratio of explosive stays the same):

Code: Select all

JS-2 HE-Frag shell:        12.2cm 'OF-471(H)'    ,25.0 kg
vs.
Panther HE-Frag shell:    '7,5 cm Spr.Gr. 34'    , 5.74kg
Tiger II HE-Frag shell:   '8,8 cm Spr.Gr. 43'    , 9.4 kg
Jagdpanther HE-Frag shell:'8.8 cm Spr. 43'       , 9.4 kg
Jagdtiger HE-Frag shell:  '12,8 cm Spr.Gr. L/5,0',28.0 kg

So yes, it makes sense that the JS-2 has a significant higher SA value compared to the Tiger-II.
But if the numerical values are correct might be a different story:

PC 1.01:

Code: Select all

JS-2:            SA=12
Panther G:       SA= 8
Tiger II:        SA= 9
Jagdpanther:     SA= 5
Jagdtiger:       SA= 7

All of those tank/anti-tank units had at least one MG which could be fired without exposing the machine-gunner, so i subtract 1 to get the value of the main armament:

Code: Select all

JS-2:            SA=11 <=> 25.0 kg
Panther G:       SA= 7 <=>  5.74kg
Tiger II:        SA= 8 <=>  9.4 kg
Jagdpanther:     SA= 4 <=>  9.4 kg
Jagdtiger:       SA= 6 <=> 28.0 kg

The SA value of the JS-2 might even be underpowered.

But what really stands out are the very low SA values of the tank destroyers. Having no turret can't be the explanation, as soft targets were mainly slow moving, which somehow negates the advantage from being able to also aim by (slowly) rotating the turret instead of aiming only by rotating the whole vehicle.

Sources:
Die deutschen Panzer 1926-1945, F.M.v. Senger und Etterlin
Datenblätter für Heeres - Waffen - Fahrzeuge - Gerät / Dokumentation W 127, ISBN 3-88088-213-4, contains official 1944 Wehrmacht (RfRuK) datasheets

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:12 am**

I don't think the IS 2 is underpowered in the game but its interesting that some of the heavy soviet TD's SA values are slashed in half when compared to their equivellent tank gun. Add to this the penalty they receive when attacking troops and they seem to lack some penetrating power against troops that are out in the open. The ISU vehicles carried some of the most fearsome weapons in the war but can't seem to push back a defenseless Grenadier in Panzer Corps while the IS 2 tank just blitzes through.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:46 am**

Your tank comparison really over simplify it. You are virtually looking just at the weight of the explosives but there are many other factors that need to be taken into account. The main gun if the IS2 was using separate shell and powder charge which really hampered it's rate of fire due to difficult handling. I am not saying the SA values are wrong here, frankly i do not know enough to tell that but the argument you used to back it up are certainly flawed.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:51 am**

SA or Soft attack is more like the ability to engage soft targets like infantry, trucks and crewed guns. Most of the time you are not going to use the main gun of a tank or selfpropelled antitank gun. Your going to use the machine guns of these vehicles instead due to the higher rate of fire. So the reason a TigerII has a higher SA over the JadgPanther is because the TigerII had 3 machine guns that it can fire while the JadgPanther had 1.

Yes the high explosive of a tank HE round does add to the SA attack too. It is the machine guns make up most of the number.

Having a turret with a coxial machine gun makes a big difference when engaging soft targets.

The ISII had 4 machine guns

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:29 am**

Tarrak wrote:Your tank comparison really over simplify it.

Well, it is a "beer & bretzel" comparison.

Tarrak wrote:You are virtually looking just at the weight of the explosives but there are many other factors that need to be taken into account.

As a big part of the effect of HE-frag shells in open is provided by the fragments created from the shell casing, i think it is reasonable to compare HE-frag shells based on their weight.
But yes, there are other factors. E.g. the bouncing of shell only works if the ground is hard enough. As the shells were not equiped with setable timer/distance fuses, this would seriously impact the effectiveness of the main armament if used in an open ground battlefield with soft soil.

Tarrak wrote:The main gun if the IS2 was using separate shell and powder charge which really hampered it's rate of fire due to difficult handling.

This would surely reduce the rate of fire if used in an artillery role. But with direct fire against slow moving targets i don't see it having as big an impact.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:08 pm**

Carius wrote:Most of the time you are not going to use the main gun of a tank or selfpropelled antitank gun. Your going to use the machine guns of these vehicles instead due to the higher rate of fire.

Carius wrote:Having a turret with a coxial machine gun makes a big difference when engaging soft targets.

Yes, but what was the effective range of the MG, as you don't want to get too close to avoid getting into Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck range or an ambush. The MG 34/42 is specified with a range of 2000-3500m, but what sort of target optics were available for the machine gunner? According to what i have read the MG in the hull glacis plate allowed for fast aiming, but was more of a spray & pray weapon, useful at short range. While the coax MG in the turret was depending on the turret for aiming, which due to the rather slow turrent rotation reduced it effectivenes against targets at short range and made it more useful at medium range.

Carius wrote:So the reason a TigerII has a higher SA over the JadgPanther is because the TigerII had 3 machine guns that it can fire while the JadgPanther had 1.

The third MG was designated as Anti-Aircraft weapon. As using it exposed the machine gunner to enemy fire, i am of the opinion that the third MG should not influence the SA value, but instead give the AA value of -1.
So lets agree for the moment that the Tiger I/II with its two MGs should have a higher SA value compared to the Jagdpanther with only one, as the two MGs allows attacking two target areas at the same time and also cover a wider effective range (short to medium, compared to short).

Carius wrote:It is the machine guns make up most of the number.

How is this already represented in the unit statistics, and how should it be represented ?

The PC 1.0.1 statistics show a SA value of 7 for the '7.5 cm FK 16 nA', and a SA value of 8 for all tanks equiped with a 75 mm gun. All of those tank were also equiped with two MGs. It seems to me that the tank SA values in the game were derived by taking the SA value of a comparable artillery shell, and a bonus of 1 added in case the tank had at least one MG. This would also fit with the original SA value of the Panzer I of 1.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:26 pm**

I think you guys are going a bit to far here. Not everything can be explained historically. First of the game is using a highly abstract and simplified model. The units are reduced to only a few statistics. On top of that there are game balancing issues. Sometimes you have to divert from being 100% accurate to allow for balanced game play, especially in multiplayer.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:55 pm**

Tarrak wrote:Not everything can be explained historically. First of the game is using a highly abstract and simplified model. The units are reduced to only a few statistics. On top of that there are game balancing issues. Sometimes you have to divert from being 100% accurate to allow for balanced game play, especially in multiplayer.

True.

But as this game uses equipment and vehicles which were really existing, shouldn't those be modeled realistically within the limits of the game mechanics/engine? If two units are compared in game, shouldn't the same characteristic differences be visible as when the real two unit would have been compared (e.g. unit x has the same HA as unit y, compared to tank x could penetrate about the same armor thickness as tank y at the same range)?

If details like this are sacrified for the greater good of game balancing, wouldn't it have been better to simply use a fantasy or SciFi background instead of a historic one? As in this case, the designers would have been free to characterize the units as they see it fit without having to consider technological/historical details.

And for balancing the game, there are also other ways to optimise, like tweaking unit prestige costs (within limits), or by the design of the scenarios.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:57 pm**

Some1 wrote:But as this game uses equipment and vehicles which were really existing, shouldn't those be modeled realistically within the limits of the game mechanics/engine? If two units are compared in game, shouldn't the same characteristic differences be visible as when the real two unit would have been compared (e.g. unit x has the same HA as unit y, compared to tank x could penetrate about the same armor thickness as tank y at the same range)?

Well yes but there are multiples thing to factor in. You could start looking at RoF, mechanical reliability and so on .. you got to stop at some point or you create something more complicated then War in the East. I agree that unit of similar power should have similar stats but not necessarily identical. After all if the tank got HA 22 or 20 the difference is not to big. As soon things do not start to look really riddiculous it's fine imho.

Some1 wrote: If details like this are sacrified for the greater good of game balancing, wouldn't it have been better to simply use a fantasy or SciFi background instead of a historic one? As in this case, the designers would have been free to characterize the units as they see it fit without having to consider technological/historical details.

It would certainly make balancing a lot easier without anyone digging out some source claiming that unit x was stronger then unit y but z ....

Some1 wrote: And for balancing the game, there are also other ways to optimise, like tweaking unit prestige costs (within limits), or by the design of the scenarios.

I agree to some extent there are but again you often run into problems with the limit of your units. You can't work with quantity beats quality as you are limited on slot for your units. So you are going to take whats offer best bang per core slot. Even if for example 5 PzIV would beat one TigerII if you are limited to 10 slots you rather still take 3 TigersII instead of 10PzIV. You could try to balance it with prestige costs but if you make the costs to high you are going to make the game to hard for the average player. If you adjust prestige for the average player then the really good ones will still swim in prestige .. catch 22.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:09 pm**

Yes, at some point you simply need to close up your history books and eyeball it.

Especially in a beer and pretzels game.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:02 pm**

There's nothing wrong with trying to get the units right. After all look at the amount of time and effort they have put in to get the excellent 3d models of each tank. Why go for such an accurate visual representation without putting similar time and effort into the numbers ?

not that there's much wrong in this thread. I think IS 2 should have higher SA than Tiger 2.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:29 pm**

If we talk about tanks ...
Tiger II is overrated and too godly compared to its real performance from WWII

.
The same about IS tanks.

Not for a reason Panzer III, IV, Stug, T-34, T-34/85, Sherman (in various versions) were the bread & butter in that war.

On a related note, soldier & Some1 is right about IS-2 having higher SA. Russian guns were not the best ones when it comes to efficiency HA, but the big caliber was somehow making up for it (this is also true for the post-war tanks' development - NATO tanks usually had smaller caliber than the Warsaw Pact ones).

A lot of those guns came from AA, Howitzers, therefore the ability to damage soft targets was not that bad.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:51 pm**

Experience should matter more in this game. A latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2
And if a 3 star 13 strenght PzIV goes up against a 0 star 10 strenght IS2 i dont think it should be a total blowout victory for the IS2.
But the tank battles is not nearly as bad as the air battles.
If i field 5 Me-262 i will have air superiority against western allies by turn 4 or 5. This is annoying as the Me-262 was not even a good plane.
Why is the Me-262 vs P-51 a no-contest? This is even worse than the tank battles.
If this is goingto be such a super plane, why not make it so expensive that you can perhaps afford one. If you didnt buy a Tiger2 the previous round.
Beyond 1943 i stop enjoying this game. Because all that matters is big shit tanks, cannonbirds, ufo planes, wurfrahmen and pioneers.
Forget recon vehicles, AT, AA, and strategic bombers, their useless.

And why not make the strategic bombers as usefull in PzC as they were in panzer general? Like, not allow re-supply if the stra bomb is standing right on top of a unit. this would make them usefull against cities and AA.
In Panzer General i would have more strategic bombers, than i had tac. But here they are useless.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:10 pm**

A latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2

A late war PZ IV would have to close in to near suicidal range to penetrate IS 2 armour. The IS 2 could destroy it long before then

Why is the Me-262 vs P-51 a no-contest

Don't know much about the planes but i gather Me 262 was a lot faster and had more firepower

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:11 pm**

TigerIII wrote:Experience should matter more in this game. A latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2
And if a 3 star 13 strenght PzIV goes up against a 0 star 10 strenght IS2 i dont think it should be a total blowout victory for the IS2.
But the tank battles is not nearly as bad as the air battles.
If i field 5 Me-262 i will have air superiority against western allies by turn 4 or 5. This is annoying as the Me-262 was not even a good plane.
Why is the Me-262 vs P-51 a no-contest? This is even worse than the tank battles.
If this is goingto be such a super plane, why not make it so expensive that you can perhaps afford one. If you didnt buy a Tiger2 the previous round.
Beyond 1943 i stop enjoying this game. Because all that matters is big shit tanks, cannonbirds, ufo planes, wurfrahmen and pioneers.
Forget recon vehicles, AT, AA, and strategic bombers, their useless.

And why not make the strategic bombers as usefull in PzC as they were in panzer general? Like, not allow re-supply if the stra bomb is standing right on top of a unit. this would make them usefull against cities and AA.
In Panzer General i would have more strategic bombers, than i had tac. But here they are useless.

While I agree with some of the things you said, and we are hoping to address them, I'm curious why you feel that way about strategic bombers. The general consensus on them, myself included, is that they are actually far superior to tactical bombers.

viewtopic.php?t=28446

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:38 pm**

soldier wrote:
A latewar PzIV was more than capable of destroying a IS2
A late war PZ IV would have to close in to near suicidal range to penetrate IS 2 armour. The IS 2 could destroy it long before then

Here is where we come to long-forgotten class of equipment: AT.

According to a Russian tactical guidelines, a tank was the last mean of destroying the other tank. The similar was on the German side. Tank duels exist mostly on Military Channel and in some games.
Last but not the least: Germans earlier and Yankees later were facing enemy heavy tanks with their funny light/medium ones. Still, they were winning.
Having a Maus or Ratte does not mean you are immune.

soldier wrote:
Why is the Me-262 vs P-51 a no-contest
Don't know much about the planes but i gather Me 262 was a lot faster and had more firepower

Me-262 vs P-51 may be not a contest, but if you make it "2 Me-262 vs 500 P-51", then it is clear who shall and will win.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:43 pm**

thats because the p51 is just terrible it has weaker stats than an me109

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:45 pm**

skarczew wrote: Me-262 vs P-51 may be not a contest, but if you make it "2 Me-262 vs 500 P-51", then it is clear who shall and will win.

Yes and 500 P-511 will lose against 10000 I-16 but this is not the question here. You need to compare the single unit performance against eachother.

Posted: **Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:54 pm**

Tarrak wrote:
skarczew wrote: Me-262 vs P-51 may be not a contest, but if you make it "2 Me-262 vs 500 P-51", then it is clear who shall and will win.
Yes and 500 P-511 will lose against 10000 I-16 but this is not the question here. You need to compare the single unit performance against eachother.

But the USSR did not have 10k I-16, while I bet the USA&Britain easily had 500 Mustangs (and do not forget Jugs, Spitfires, Tempests and even some Meteors).
Moreover, the experience of Allied pilots (and inexperience of German ones) and total air superiority was minimizing the impact of Me-262.

In Russia it was different.

I do not know exact stats for P-51, how is it weaker than Messer?

Slitherine

tank comparisons

tank comparisons

Re: tank comparisons