JagdpanzerIV wrote:the thing is, as a commander, you would not use a hetzer to face a maus in an open field, you would either conceal it properly or keep it for a more useful moment. if you are caught retreating, don't worry, a maus would never catch up on you lol. So if you got a hetzer at your disposition, since it is tiny, you would put branches and leaves on it or a camo net, and use it to ambush enemy vehicles without ever being spotted. if you do get spotted, you would pull back, and ambush again.
I think in the extremely simplified battle system of the game the small silhouette of certain units should be better reflected by a bonus in their defense value. Yes, you can put tree branches and stuff like that on a Hetzer, but you can do the same with other vehicles as well. And even better if you dig in so that only the turret is visible. But it all takes time and it is more or less well simulated by the entrenchment system in the game.
Also do not forget that initiative not only counts when it comes to defense, but also when attacking. If you increase the initiative of a Hetzer too much it will also shoot first most of the time when it attacks. And in that case concealment and small size matters less as a moving bush would make my battle-hardened Maus commander more than suspicious.
Another optiion might be to give the Hetzer and possibly some other small units the "camo" trait which would make them harder to spot and it would also make them more likely to ambush some unlucky attackers when being stationary. However, it should be tested in the game thoroughly as it woudl affect the gameplay balance quite reasonably.
as for tiger vs panther armor, JS tanks could not penetrate panther tanks at regular engagement distances, i.e. 800-1000 meters. but definitely could penetrate the tiger tank (not the tiger 2) so in essence, a panther was tougher to beat, from the front anyways. you know, in tank warfare you are facing enemy tank fronts, unless things got ugly and either side starts getting flanked at close range, then the tiger survivability would be a little bit better, but really, when a tank gets flanked, it's basically a wreck. so 82mm vs 50mm doesn't really matter. it does in a way, but not in 1 vs 1 tank combat.
Again, here we have to make compromises mainly due to the simplified battle system. Obviously units in PzC has no such thing as facing, even though I can imagine that they could have. In that case it would make sense to make the Tigers survive more hits coming from the sides and making the Panther more vulnerable if an enemy unit can flank it. But, back to reality. Since we have this simplified system in which there are no flanking or head on attacks we have to see all engagements as an "average" one. True, that in
most cases in tank warfare the participants are facing each other's fronts, but not
always. So when it comes to calculate the unit stats I think we should also include that certain percentage of engaments in which tanks get close to each other and can and will attack each other sides and backs. In the well known case of the Kursk battle Soviet tanks, using their superior mobility tried to get close to the enemy tanks so that they can attack their weaker sides. Also, thanks to the simplified system the ground defense value of units in PzC does not only defend against enemy tanks but also against artillery fire. And the Tigers were much more resistant to that one due to their thicker side, back and top armour.
as for:
JS tanks could not penetrate panther tanks at regular engagement distances, i.e. 800-1000 meters. but definitely could penetrate the tiger tank
there is a reference at wiki to which says:
According to German tactical instructions a Panther had to close to 600 m (660 yd) to guarantee penetration of the IS-2 frontal armour while the IS-2 could penetrate the Panther at ranges of 1,000 m (1,100 yd).
so I am a bit uncertain. However, it is true that they could penetrate the Tiger I at somewhat longer distancies:
The IS was subsequently rearmed with the 122 mm D-25T, which with BR–471 AP rounds was capable of going through the Tiger's armour from 1,200 m
as for the weight and punishment, a tiger was 54 tons and a panther 45 tons, it is totally irrelevant tho, as when you get penetrated, you get the fuck out of your tank, even if you are inside a tiger.
And finally, again, in the simplified sístem of the game it is not only penetration that counts, but also indirect damage caused by artillery fire or hand held AT weapons such as the PTDR rifle, which could penetrate the Panther's side armour, but not that of the Tiger. These hits, while making some kind of damage are not always fatal, and a Tiger would have much more resistance to them.
and for the regular sherman M4 tank and regular t34 tanks, each guns also performed on par with each other. so they both should have the same HA values. in game t34s get 11 and 12 and the sherman 9, which is total BS !
I absolutely agree with this one, though, and that's why I accepted deducter's value of 11 for the early, 75 mm gun equipped Shermans.
it really looks to me that all russian units values have been cranked up in this game. Soon, new game developers are gonna say that tigers and panthers were nothing but crap and t34s were ultimate machines...(oh yes, despite the fact Russia lost 45,000 of them)
I think the T-34 was indeed a great tank, it is enought to read the German accounts of 1941, and to see how it affected German tank production in the following year(s). As a result of the German answere, though, it soon became somewhat obsolete so the upgunning to the 85 mm gun came at the best possible time. Which made it again a formidable tank, more or less equal to the late Panzer IV or the Shermans in overall performance. The reason for its high losses was more due to the poor training of the crew and doctrine used by the Red Army than to its supposed defects, in my view. I do not think that anyone would serously think that the T-34 was better than the Tigers or Panthers, though. But it was produced in much greater numbers, and it was enough to make the difference.
As a sidenote, the german KwK 75 L48 and KwK 75 L43 performed similarly, the differences were minimal. we are talking like 2mm of penetration differences. so essentially, for gaming purpose, if L48 get 14 HA L43 should get 13, not 9 or 10 or 11...
Well, I found a source which says the 7.5 cm L.43 StuH 40 & KwK 40 using the Pz.Gr. 39 could penetrate 129 mm armour, while using the A.P.C.R. (Pz.Gr. 40) 154 mm. As opposed to the 7.5 cm L.48 KwK 39 & PaK 39, which could penetrate 144 and 172 mm armour using the same ammunition, respectively. So it is more than just 2 mm.
http://aufklarung0.tripod.com/id105.htm
I guess the weaker side armour explains while the Tiger deserves a better overall defense value. And the Panther only had the benefit of a 140 mm effective armour if was hit at the right angle (~90°). Other than that it had an 80 mm frontal armour which was indeed well sloped, though. This well sloped 80 mm frontal armour became in effect a 140 mm armour if hit from the front at an angle of 90 degrees. But the Tiger had a 100 mm frontal armour regardless of the angle of the incoming projectile. Also the Tiger was much heavier so it could probably take more punishment than a Panther so I think it is right to give it higher GD. But the difference should not be as high so in my mod the Panthers have 19-20 and the Tiger has 22 GD. 
and tinker to our hearts content! 