Proposal: durability

[Sourdust]

An idea to make the use of very heavy tanks and fancy jet aircraft less of a no-brainer. The reason for this is that historically, very heavy tanks like the King Tiger were nice on paper, but very hard to make effective use of in the field, in part because of the difficulty in transporting and maintaining them in service, whatever their battlefield qualities. The Konigtigers and Jagdtigers, for instance, were plagued by mechanical difficulties, and more were lost to mechanical failure than to enemy action in some cases.

In game terms, provided prestige is available, the heaviest tank possible is usually the best choice, which makes force selection less interesting than it could be.

So I'm proposing to introduce a "durability" or "maintenance" rating for units. The rating would operate as a cap on the amount of replacements that a unit could receive in any one turn. So for instance a Jagdtiger might have a maintenance rating of 2, which means it could only replace 2 strength points per turn. More robust tanks like the panther might have a maintenance rating of 5, meaning they could receive up to five replacement points per turn. The "Maus" tank should have a durability rating of one!

Jet aircraft would also tend to have a low maintenance rating.

This additional dynamic would make players pause before filling up their ranks ahistorically with super-heavy tanks. In general, players should be encouraged to focus on medium tanks, using the super-heavies only for critical battles, and with a substantial refit time if they get beat-up.

[deducter]

While this idea is nice, it is unnecessary to balance the game so that medium tanks are more desirable. I refer you to the Grand Campaign Unit Revisions mod, which I think makes medium tanks and heavy tanks both useful.

[dragos]

The basic idea is good, but in case of some experienced and overstrength heavy tanks or aircraft, which rarely suffer losses during the course of a scenario, that's hardly an issue. Also some players prefer to not use replacements at all for some units during scenario.

I would see the "reliability" attribute translate like something into random suppression points (1 or 2 points at the maximum, not to overdo it) every time a battle is resolved. That suppression would represent machines that are present in the unit but are unable to fire or defend because of malfunctions. How often this kind of suppression occurs and how many points should depend on this "reliability" attribute.

[bebro]

At one time I thought there could be random breakdowns on new equipment that for example immobilize a tank for one turn. Dunno if people would like that (another random element specifically), or if it would work well in the game...

[darkiemond]

I would see the "reliability" attribute translate like something into random suppression points (1 or 2 points at the maximum, not to overdo it) every time a battle is resolved.

Building up on that idea:
Heavy tanks could just take less shots (make less rolls) when attacking, like heavy artillery does. But only when attacking, not when defending. This could represent those mechanical failures in real life that you are talking about which I am sure happened more often during offensive operations. A tank that can't move can still shoot for example, so I think this should only apply when attacking.

Although heavy tanks already have less movement points and cost substantially more prestige. I thought that was the balancing drawback of having them vs medium tanks.

In trying to come up with balancing suggestion without introducing totally new game concepts here is what I have:

>>Let heavy tanks use 2 core slots and probabaly allow for a couple of more core slots in general<<

I think this would reflect substantial non-combat costs of fielding heavy tanks and TDs.

[Resolute]

Yeah I like the concept of certain units taking up more core slots. Right now everything is limited by prestige but even on Rommel with some careful play you're still able to upgrade every core slot to the best unit.
AT units e.g. are more or less useless and since tanks perform so much better you try to fill up your core slots which what's best - you usually end up with tanks especially in the East DLCs.

If I could choose between a TigerII or 2 PIV or even 3 Pak units I might really consider that and it would add a lot of diversity.

Deducter's mod takes a different approach through limiting prestige. I played it up to East43 and I think it works quite well but concept wise, I like the idea of certain units taking up more or less core slots.

[soldier]

Yes the AT field guns are still a bit of a hard sell. Granted there not really needed in the DLC campaign but for me there still pretty unappealing and troublesome in MP. A troop in a forest can cause as much trouble for enemy amour at a cheaper cost and an AT gun in the same terrain will get slaughtered by enemy infantry. If left out in the open the AT gun is totally vulnerable to artillery and is then butchered by follow up tank attacks.

As for the heavy tanks, modding or reducing the amount of ammo and fuel for units like the king tiger may do the same thing as a durability feature. I suppose you could imagine the turns spent resupplying and getting "battle ready" are also maintenance delays and it keeps those units from engaging in combat so often. I'm pretty sure deductor has made these units a lot more thirsty and expensive in his mod while maintaining the combat capabilities of the medium AFV's for longer. For my own custom, I've reduced the ground defense of the King Tiger, IS2 and ISU units by one but i couldn't justify doing it to the elephant as it was so tough in real life. Instead i snipped their initiative and reduced their speed to simulate their slowness and clumsiness as an offensive weapon. The Jagdtiger got one less shot. It might even be possible to mod the maximum strength of these sort of tanks to 8 as well but I'm not totally sure. It would certainly be historically accurate as many tiger battalions operated in an almost perpetual state of half strength in the east. To be honest King tiger is pretty bloody expensive as is and i have to think carefully about buying them, especially in MP games
Not so sure about the jets but I'd suspect most had similar limitations in effective range due to high fuel consumption when they made their combat debut, not that was much fuel left over to keep them in action by then.

I like the core slots idea and it would certainly make you think about your purchases but i don't think its possible at the moment or on the cards for future patches

[robman]

I like the idea of playing around with the normal full strength of different types of units. This appeared already with conscripts (15) and the prototype aircraft in Messina (12). It might well be another way to address the imbalances caused by "super units" that were plagued with far more problems in real life than in the game.

[darkiemond]

I can't help but have a bit of an issue with the reason for nerfing heavy tanks. I am fine with if it just comes from the balancing perspective. But if you are trying to make them weaker because in real life they suffered from failures then consider this:

By the time those heavy German tanks hit the ground, German war machine was already beginning to hickup.
And as war progresed, they were more and more just desperate to rush whatever they could to the battlefield.
For example, Kursk offensive was delayed several times due to waiting for new Tiger tanks. If not for the wait and if those tanks were ready on time Russians wouldn't have had time to prepare as well as they did and amass basically all of their resources for the defense.

My point is that if Germans were doing better in the war overall - the economy would be better and they would have had more time and resources to fix the kinks and design flaws in those heavy tanks. And I am sure you all do much better in your campaigns

Of course, game doesn't deal with those macro issues, but if we are talking about ajusting the game to fit the reality better we really should consider the whole picture.

And if we are talking about the reality adjustment, what is up with the Maus tank? There were only 2 protorypes, one didn't even have a turret and the other wasn't operational, but they are beautiful to behold aren't they?

Also, we should adjust for reality of Russian tanks as well then. T34 was good in battle, didn't break often, but conditions inside the tank were horrible. Crew members sometimes would faint from the heat, for example, because T34 didn't have air conditioning or good cooling system. Or how about the fact that Russian tank crews weren't nearly as well trained as German?

Anyway, I do have a suggestion to make things more historicaly accurate, and may be that could balance heavy tanks a bit more:

>>Tactical bombers should do more damage to heavy tanks.<<
In most Russian front later battles and overall on the Eastern front, more heavy German tanks were killed by Russian planes then by Russian tanks.

This way you make it more historically accurate, give heavy tanks a weakness, but don't weaken then against other tanks because I think even with mechanical falures they were still better.

This would allow for more strategic choices in MP too. You wouldn't get too many heavy tanks unless you can protect them with fighters.

[deducter]

I like the idea of playing around with the normal full strength of different types of units. This appeared already with conscripts (15) and the prototype aircraft in Messina (12). It might well be another way to address the imbalances caused by "super units" that were plagued with far more problems in real life than in the game.

For the record, I have tested out the heavy tanks starting at lower strength, and I don't think it is a good idea. Strength make too big of a in unit performance. This is why conscripts are so deadly in MP.

For the record, in Unit Revisions I don't just increase the costs of heavy tanks, or apply blanket nerfs. What I try to do is make sure that the outcome of engagements feel historically correct, and that every unit has strengths and weaknesses. So a Tiger I should dominate a T-34, but the Tiger I tends to have mechanical troubles in 1943, reflected by its low fuel and ammo. It is also very expensive, especially to overstrength. In the stock eqp file, it is the combination of experience and overstrength that makes Tigers/Panthers so good, since a 14/15 strength unit can attack and not take any damage in return. In Unit Revisions, I've increased the combat power of both Tigers and Panthers, but I've also added other drawbacks.

I do think there are improvements to the game engine that can be made, but even now, it is possible to obtain good results by careful modification of the gamerules and equipment files. Ideas like heavy tanks should take up more core slots are good, but cannot be modded atm.

[Kerensky]

Should be interesting to see how players react to upcoming DLC 1945 BETA.

In pretty much all DLC so far, we've mostly had clear skies and dry ground conditions, with a few exception like Vyazma and Korsun. With so many Battle of the Bulge scenarios, snow is everywhere and so is the snowy weather.
Internal tests have shown that those big German heavy tanks aren't all that all poweful. This seems to be a combination of snowy block supply(hurting their already bad fuel supplies and movement speeds), the need for speed(lots of offensive scenarios), and the simple fact that Allied force composition is primary soft targets (ATG and infantry) and their tanks are already quite outclassed, having more overkill doesn't really help.

Personally I found Panthers and IVJs pretty handy, because my Tiger IIs keep running out of fuel and falling behind the advance and all of their soft attack values are pretty close (8s and 9s).

[KeldorKatarn]

Even in a better going war masses of tigers would never have showed up. And the germans were not waiting for Tigers on Kursk, they were waiting for the Panthers and Ferdinants. The Tigers were already there.

Tigers were never meant as main battle tanks. They were not even used in Panzer Divisions in general. They were attached to the special heavy tank bataillons which were used wherever needed. They were incredibly expensive to build so their number would have been limited no matter what happened. A realistic ration Panther:Tiger would probably be something like 3:1 or 4:1 even. The main weapons would have been StuGs and Panthers which were really great machines and needed in much bigger numbers than we had them. Tigers were just meant as heavy breakthrough tanks and spearhead an assault to break through and the Ferdinant and later heavy Jagdpanzers were supposed to stop such Soviet Advances. The Panzerdivisions would have relied nearly completely on Panthers and StuGs (both AT and Art versions).

As for the wait on Kursk, that wait was pretty much what Manstein blamed for the loss, but even he admitted that by this point a victory in the east was completely impossible. He considered Kursk the last chance to achieve a stalemate because he thought if Germany won one more major victory they might have exhausted the Soviets manpower, disabling them of starting any more major offensives. With germany in the same boat that would have opened the negiotiation table. However there were two major flaws in his judgement I think. First of all I think he underestimated the Soviet's manpower still and second Hitler would never have negotiated, no matter what. We would have pressed for offensives even beyond a won Kursk. heck he pressed for them with a cancled Kursk even (I say canceled since considering the losses on both sides I never considered Kursk to be a victory for the Soviets, rather a very expensive battle that cost both sides huge numbers without achieving anything decisive for either side)