The T-60 - Light Tank No More?

[gossard267]

So, I'm playing the Moscow 41 scenario. Here comes a T60. Knowing that this was a light tank , I assume it will be a pushover. Nope! Apparently the PC2 version of the T60 has ground defense of 16! To put that in context, the T34(!), a tank that regularly bounced repeated hits from anything in the 1941 German arsenal short of an 88, has a ground defense of 18. The Panzer IIIH, in reality a far more heavily protected vehicle than the T60, has a ground defense of 15. The KV-1, the most heavily armored tank in use at this time, has a ground defense of 20 - a mere 25% better than the early production T60!

Why do these tanks have such high defense in PC2?

[zakblood]

for a wild guess, it's size, which was tiny and it's speed, makes it very very hard to hit, but could just be an error also, so will wait and see what the developer has to say on the numbers part

[nexusno2000]

Wild guess: to make it interesting to purchase in MP.

It's not really a tank at all. No armor to speak of. Not that fast either.

So basically useless by the date of availability.

[MickMannock]

Wild guess: to make it interesting to purchase in MP.

It's not really a tank at all. No armor to speak of. Not that fast either.

So basically useless by the date of availability.

Has a lot of changes (stats wise) been made to acomodate the MP scene? Cause I feel the Bf 109E and F are way underpowered, stats wise, compared to how they performed in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (in Russia).

[Nalikill]

Has a lot of changes (stats wise) been made to acomodate the MP scene? Cause I feel the Bf 109E and F are way underpowered, stats wise, compared to how they performed in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (in Russia).

Until I got the damned Fockewulf fighter, I felt like I was slapping the YAK-1 and YAK-7's with wet noodles.

[MickMannock]

Has a lot of changes (stats wise) been made to acomodate the MP scene? Cause I feel the Bf 109E and F are way underpowered, stats wise, compared to how they performed in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (in Russia).

Until I got the damned Fockewulf fighter, I felt like I was slapping the YAK-1 and YAK-7's with wet noodles.

I feel you! But I'd say it's even worse looking at the earlier parts of the war. Bringing down a Bristol Blenheim during the 1940-campaign in France took me atleast three fighters. Doesn't really fit well with how slaughtered the Blenheims got in France.

[Matyna]

Has a lot of changes (stats wise) been made to acomodate the MP scene? Cause I feel the Bf 109E and F are way underpowered, stats wise, compared to how they performed in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (in Russia).

Until I got the damned Fockewulf fighter, I felt like I was slapping the YAK-1 and YAK-7's with wet noodles.

I tried to compensate this by giving my Bf's overstrength to 12. As they cost only 3 and then 4 it is worth it imo.

[Nalikill]

I tried to compensate this by giving my Bf's overstrength to 12. As they cost only 3 and then 4 it is worth it imo.

A big part of my struggle with Overstrength is it's not intuitive what the impact of giving particular levels of overstrength is - what will combat results look like with 10 vs 12 vs 15 strength fighters? So I rarely give below max Overstrength simply because I don't know what's worth it and what's not.

It might just be me, but I think the core slots of the Heavy Fighter and Fighter should be swapped: Heavy Fighters should cost 3 core slots since they can do both ground and air attacks effectively, and Fighters should cost 2 since they're dedicated air superiority fighters. That would make it far easier to support overstrengthing them to deal with enemy airplanes.

[MickMannock]

I tried to compensate this by giving my Bf's overstrength to 12. As they cost only 3 and then 4 it is worth it imo.

I even had mine at overstrength 14 during Barbarossa and onto 1942. Won't be possible as I upgrade to FW190A though.

[Sjoa18]

So with these apparent inaccuracies in unit ratings, how long do you think it will be until people start trying to do their own edits to the statistics? I'm not even sure it's possible - but again, hearkening back to my PG2 days, people (smarter and with more time on their hands) than me, made their own equipment files that were far superior in size and accuracy to the original SSI one. That said, I don't even know how and where to begin here - there is a UNITS.csv file in the Data folder that I saw one person post about. He said he changed a unit trait for artillery that made them fire to support infantry and not just armor attacks. It also lists all the stats for each unit, hard, soft attacks etc ....I tried adjusting a few things, but I don't think it's as easy as that.....

[dalfrede]

....I tried adjusting a few things, but I don't think it's as easy as that.....

It is about that easy. Although some special knowledge is required.
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 97&t=97739

[panzeh]

Has a lot of changes (stats wise) been made to acomodate the MP scene? Cause I feel the Bf 109E and F are way underpowered, stats wise, compared to how they performed in 1939, 1940 and 1941 (in Russia).

Until I got the damned Fockewulf fighter, I felt like I was slapping the YAK-1 and YAK-7's with wet noodles.

I feel you! But I'd say it's even worse looking at the earlier parts of the war. Bringing down a Bristol Blenheim during the 1940-campaign in France took me atleast three fighters. Doesn't really fit well with how slaughtered the Blenheims got in France.

If you think that's bad, i've been playing the main campaign as the Soviets and it can get way worse than the BF109E/F. The only thing the I-16 has going for it is that it's 2 slots. IT gets absolutely shredded by everything. The 109E/F is fine- make sure you're fighting closer to your airfields and its superiority will show a lot better.

[MickMannock]

If you think that's bad, i've been playing the main campaign as the Soviets and it can get way worse than the BF109E/F. The only thing the I-16 has going for it is that it's 2 slots. IT gets absolutely shredded by everything. The 109E/F is fine- make sure you're fighting closer to your airfields and its superiority will show a lot better.

I don't really understand what you mean. Does the fighters deal more damage the closer their home base that they attack?

And the I-16 is supposed to not be that great, so that is all fine in my book.

[SineMora]

I don't really understand what you mean. Does the fighters deal more damage the closer their home base that they attack?

And the I-16 is supposed to not be that great, so that is all fine in my book.

Yes. Fighters receive an accuracy bonus relative to their remaining movement allocation, so will perform better with little or no movement before attacking. On higher difficulties this can result in the AI's airforce shredding yours if you attack their fighters near their base, because the difficulty modifier stacks with it, i.e., even a no experience fighter will have near 100% accuracy (50% base + 20% for Generalissimus + 20+% for not having moved) while yours only have 50%.

Edit: There is an exploit (I assume this is a bug because it makes no sense) allowing you to rebase a fighter and then attack with maximum accuracy bonus, if the target aircraft is on an adjacent hex, because rebasing only uses up your move, but seemingly not yur actual movement points.

[MickMannock]

I don't really understand what you mean. Does the fighters deal more damage the closer their home base that they attack?

And the I-16 is supposed to not be that great, so that is all fine in my book.

Yes. Fighters receive an accuracy bonus relative to their remaining movement allocation, so will perform better with little or no movement before attacking. On higher difficulties this can result in the AI's airforce shredding yours if you attack their fighters near their base, because the difficulty modifier stacks with it, i.e., even a no experience fighter will have near 100% accuracy (50% base + 20% for Generalissimus + 20+% for not having moved) while yours only have 50%.

I learn something new every day.

Well, that might explain what has been the percieved bad performance of the 109 on my part.

[Sjoa18]

I don't really understand what you mean. Does the fighters deal more damage the closer their home base that they attack?

And the I-16 is supposed to not be that great, so that is all fine in my book.

Yes. Fighters receive an accuracy bonus relative to their remaining movement allocation, so will perform better with little or no movement before attacking. On higher difficulties this can result in the AI's airforce shredding yours if you attack their fighters near their base, because the difficulty modifier stacks with it, i.e., even a no experience fighter will have near 100% accuracy (50% base + 20% for Generalissimus + 20+% for not having moved) while yours only have 50%.

Edit: There is an exploit (I assume this is a bug because it makes no sense) allowing you to rebase a fighter and then attack with maximum accuracy bonus, if the target aircraft is on an adjacent hex, because rebasing only uses up your move, but seemingly not yur actual movement points.

i did realize the exploit and used it a few times. But i never knew about the accuracy bonus. Assume it's the same for tactical and strategic bombers as well?
This is great info- thank you. (Guess it really does pay to read the manual lol)

[dalfrede]

But i never knew about the accuracy bonus. Assume it's the same for tactical and strategic bombers as well?

Yes it is.
Try a long range attack with TB against heavily entrenched infantry.
0% accuracy.
Does cut entrenchment though.

[MickMannock]

This is great info- thank you. (Guess it really does pay to read the manual lol)

Reading the manual is so 1990's.

[econ21]

But i never knew about the accuracy bonus. Assume it's the same for tactical and strategic bombers as well?

Yes it is.
Try a long range attack with TB against heavily entrenched infantry.
0% accuracy.
Does cut entrenchment though.

What the heck. That is very counter-intuitive for a long time player of PG games. I will have to rebase more often - it makes capturing airfields even more important than normal. I can kind of see the rationale for fighters - longer range, means less time providing cover or patrolling. But it makes no sense for strategic bombers - they would fly to a target and drop their payload, no loitering.

[nexusno2000]

Strategic bombers are not affected by remaining movement. Only fighters and tac bombers.