I'm not finished yet, but will submit recommendations later.
Lets discuss the T-34. As time progressed they became cheaper to build. This is historical fact is not in the game.
Each model of T-34 became about 30% cheaper to build. That would be too cheap in game terms so here is my recomendation. 10% reduction for each model.
T-34/40 101
T-34/41 90
T-34/43 80
Also, as long as we discussing the T-34....
Fuel consumption is switched.
T-34/40 75
T-34/41 70
Also, recommend upping the Ammo on the T-34/41 and increasing the ground defense on the T-34/43(it had better armor).
Perhaps, even an increase in hard attack for the 43 version as it had the better ZIS gun.
Summary:
Current
Name...............Cost..Ammo...Fuel... HA..GD
T-34/40........... 101......8........75......9.....11
T-34/41............123......9........70......9.....11
T-34/43............139.....10.......88......9.....11
Proposed
Name...............Cost..Ammo...Fuel... HA..GD
T-34/40............101......8........75......9.....11
T-34/41..............90......9........70......9.....11
T-34/43..............80.....10.......88.....10....12
As game progresses T-34's are useless. They can not kill any tanks. This proposal makes them worth while to build one or two units as cannon fodder to block the advance of the Germans.
Balance issue Units
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Design, Panzer Corps Moderators
I don't have a problem with this thread and it should be here to discuss fixing of units. But I don't quite agree with some of your assumptions. I feel you are trying to make a simple solution out of a more complex issue.
The KV production for example, came down to an utter halt for quite some time. The reason was not political, or that it was a poor tank, etc. The reason was the simple fact in that the factories for its production were becoming under threat, so they had to be moved much farther away. Had the decisions or the results of the axis efforts been different, this would have changed a whole lot about this tank.
So... let's assume the Axis player gets no where near to threatening the production, would that make any realistic sense to still halt the production just because.... "Well, historically we know this happened, so we are going to do the same to make things more realistic." I always hated that.
The KV production for example, came down to an utter halt for quite some time. The reason was not political, or that it was a poor tank, etc. The reason was the simple fact in that the factories for its production were becoming under threat, so they had to be moved much farther away. Had the decisions or the results of the axis efforts been different, this would have changed a whole lot about this tank.
So... let's assume the Axis player gets no where near to threatening the production, would that make any realistic sense to still halt the production just because.... "Well, historically we know this happened, so we are going to do the same to make things more realistic." I always hated that.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
Bring back the PROFILE statistic from PG-III.
I thought that was a very good improvement in the series. The T-34 should have a low profile, making it harder to spot, and harder to hit than a Tiger. This partially makes up for some of its poor initiative, etc.
I thought that was a very good improvement in the series. The T-34 should have a low profile, making it harder to spot, and harder to hit than a Tiger. This partially makes up for some of its poor initiative, etc.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
Why not just code this property of T-34 in better defense rating?Obsolete wrote:Bring back the PROFILE statistic from PG-III.
I thought that was a very good improvement in the series. The T-34 should have a low profile, making it harder to spot, and harder to hit than a Tiger. This partially makes up for some of its poor initiative, etc.
If it's anything like profile from People's General, just a defense rating tweak cannot possibly reflect this, mainly because of the changes to spotting behavior. I played PGIII, but I have a mental block against that game, so I'm using PEG as my example. If memory serves, profile changed a considerable amount, especially since there were levels of unit detection, not absolute yes or no like we see in PG and currently PzC.
I would personally be okay with profile arbitrarily adjusting a unit's defense rating. It might help boost a unit like a T-34, and rightly punish something with a ridiculous profile even if it has crazy thick armor(I'm looking at you KV-2).
Also
I would personally be okay with profile arbitrarily adjusting a unit's defense rating. It might help boost a unit like a T-34, and rightly punish something with a ridiculous profile even if it has crazy thick armor(I'm looking at you KV-2).
Also
Ditto that, because this is the sort of thing I was talking about in the bug sticky.I don't have a problem with this thread and it should be here to discuss fixing of units. But I don't quite agree with some of your assumptions.
We considered to add more complex spotting rules in the past, but concluded that this feature is unlikely to change game balance in any way (i. e. if you win the battle with current rules, you would win it with different spotting rules too), and also it would seem like an attempt to add more realism in a minor aspect, while many more important aspects of the game remain unrealistic. So, we discarded the idea.Kerensky wrote:If it's anything like profile from People's General, just a defense rating tweak cannot possibly reflect this, mainly because of the changes to spotting behavior. I played PGIII, but I have a mental block against that game, so I'm using PEG as my example. If memory serves, profile changed a considerable amount, especially since there were levels of unit detection, not absolute yes or no like we see in PG and currently PzC.
^ I agree. However, we do have target type.
Perhaps we can add more types. One that says it is hard target but Ground Defense goes up if attacked by Hard Value (another Armored unit).
I think this will be oaky, as infantry would not be penalized, correct?
Just thinking out loud.
I still think we should have a cost reduction along with other attributes as mentioned above. Even if the T-34/41 is 5 less and the T-34/43 is 5 less than the 41.
It would be nice as a player to think:
Should I buy a T-34/xx? It is okay for infantry, has a little more punch and a slight reduction in cost. I can use it to block if necessary. umm..
Save up for something else or buy an upgrade T-34.
It would be nice to actually buy 3 or 4 upgraded T-34's and harass the German player. Maybe even out think them and win using some T-34's.
Perhaps we can add more types. One that says it is hard target but Ground Defense goes up if attacked by Hard Value (another Armored unit).
I think this will be oaky, as infantry would not be penalized, correct?
Just thinking out loud.
I still think we should have a cost reduction along with other attributes as mentioned above. Even if the T-34/41 is 5 less and the T-34/43 is 5 less than the 41.
It would be nice as a player to think:
Should I buy a T-34/xx? It is okay for infantry, has a little more punch and a slight reduction in cost. I can use it to block if necessary. umm..
Save up for something else or buy an upgrade T-34.
It would be nice to actually buy 3 or 4 upgraded T-34's and harass the German player. Maybe even out think them and win using some T-34's.
Reducing the cost of T-34 may be nice, although then some people will ask why other units, which did not see a change in model name, but also became more cheap and numerous on the later stages of the war, do not benefit from the same effect.Razz1 wrote:I still think we should have a cost reduction along with other attributes as mentioned above. Even if the T-34/41 is 5 less and the T-34/43 is 5 less than the 41.
It would be nice as a player to think:
Should I buy a T-34/xx? It is okay for infantry, has a little more punch and a slight reduction in cost. I can use it to block if necessary. umm..
Save up for something else or buy an upgrade T-34.
It would be nice to actually buy 3 or 4 upgraded T-34's and harass the German player. Maybe even out think them and win using some T-34's.
Also, when we have proper allied campaigns in place, some people may be confused by the fact that they need to upgrade a more expensive unit to a more cheap one.
In any case, I think that we should finalize combat stats of the units first, so that they feel right throughout the campaign, and only then touch the costs. This should be the easiest way to do the balancing of equipment table.
Pioneers are horrible because they don't have a proper price assigned to them. Our idea for this unit is, it is trained to fight in fortifications and does this well, and so it ignores entrenchment and has a good attack rating on top. But storming a city with pioneers with no support from other units is a bad idea (they carry heavy equipment, like explosives and flamethrowers) and so are easy targets for enemy infantry (snipers etc.). Hence low initiative rating. However, if the enemy is properly suppressed and tied down with fightings (this is modelled by mass attack), Pioneers can be just the right unit to deliver an attack on enemy's entrenched position.Obsolete wrote:Maybe we should also start to figure out why certain units are so..... horrible like... Pioneers & Karls, haha.
I think that this way pioners would have their niche, without becoming uber general-purpose infantry as in PG. So their price should be close to that of normal infantry.
I don't say that current stats are a perfect implementation of the above, didn't look into this for some time.
As for Karl, it is viewed as a special unit for special tasks. I plan to assign it with a low rate of fire (yes, we have this param in eqp table for special cases like this), so it can never kill a lot of strength, simply because it was not built in big numbers. On the other hand, it should be able to penetrate even the toughest units and forts. So, deal damage where most other units fail, and do this from great distance. Once again, current implementation is probably not quite there, but it will be.
^ I think you are on the correct track.
What you are saying is to use the pioneers last in an attack. Not first like the old days.
I will test this out. Sounds great if it works as described.
Karl, I actually like it to kill allot.
You will make it weaker but give it some more range.
If your gonna change it... Make it range 4.
What you are saying is to use the pioneers last in an attack. Not first like the old days.
I will test this out. Sounds great if it works as described.
Karl, I actually like it to kill allot.
You will make it weaker but give it some more range.
If your gonna change it... Make it range 4.
Unit availability dates:
Tying in to the Russian Armor and Kursk scenario especially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant
The first thing I thought to try against the unstoppable soviet KV tanks was to buy an Elephant, but it's not available. I resorted to buying the Nashorn, but it's pitiful armor gets destroyed by KV units, and it's hard attack doesn't even really hurt them that badly, prediction typically looks like 6-2, where a Panther is 1-1 and a Tiger is 0-0.
Tying in to the Russian Armor and Kursk scenario especially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant
The first thing I thought to try against the unstoppable soviet KV tanks was to buy an Elephant, but it's not available. I resorted to buying the Nashorn, but it's pitiful armor gets destroyed by KV units, and it's hard attack doesn't even really hurt them that badly, prediction typically looks like 6-2, where a Panther is 1-1 and a Tiger is 0-0.
The Ferdinand/Elefant may have been the most successful tank destroyer employed during the war in kills per loss, reaching an average ratio of approximately 10:1. During the Battle of Kursk, the sPzJagAbt 653 claimed to have knocked out 320 enemy tanks, for the loss of 13 Ferdinands.[1] This impressive average ratio was due to its extreme firepower and protection, which gave it an enormous advantage when used in head-on combat or a static defensive role. However, poor mobility and mechanical unreliability greatly diminished its offensive capability.
Additionally:
Level bombers used to be terrible against ships, but now I think they're a little too powerful. I just had a 1 star 11 strength JU-88 completely destroy a 10 strength Heavy Cruiser in one shot.
Probably going to need a reduction in level bomber ship attack ratings to match their new strength and even possibly allowing ships to return fire and removing the 'carpet bombing' effect. (I assume level bombers with strong ship attack ratings are using torpedo attacks, which means they should be vulnerable to AA)
Level bombers used to be terrible against ships, but now I think they're a little too powerful. I just had a 1 star 11 strength JU-88 completely destroy a 10 strength Heavy Cruiser in one shot.
Probably going to need a reduction in level bomber ship attack ratings to match their new strength and even possibly allowing ships to return fire and removing the 'carpet bombing' effect. (I assume level bombers with strong ship attack ratings are using torpedo attacks, which means they should be vulnerable to AA)
On level bombers vs Naval.
That extra 1 strength point make a big difference.
The question is.....
Is it repeatable. Just because you sunk a cruiser once doesn't mean the system is broken.
Remember the PzIIc? Well funny thing is it works against the Russians in 1941 campaign, but yet in low countries against any allied unit, it misses 99.99999% of the time.
I recall sinking cruisers with one attack in the old series.
That extra 1 strength point make a big difference.
The question is.....
Is it repeatable. Just because you sunk a cruiser once doesn't mean the system is broken.
Remember the PzIIc? Well funny thing is it works against the Russians in 1941 campaign, but yet in low countries against any allied unit, it misses 99.99999% of the time.
I recall sinking cruisers with one attack in the old series.
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
The cost of units should in no way be related to their real cost to build.
The cost of units should be entirely down to their abilities in the game.
The points you are using to buy thigns are not real resources - they are influence. Influence is not connected with teh time or resources to build somethign - only the demand for that thing as ditacted by its stats.
This is crucial for mission balance & scenario design - especially in multiplayer!
If there are problmes with key units that make them unusable we should balance the stats. E.g. The T-34 should be a good tank throughout the war. It shodul only get cheaper if its stats are weaker - it should never get cheaper because it is later in the game.
The cost of units should be entirely down to their abilities in the game.
The points you are using to buy thigns are not real resources - they are influence. Influence is not connected with teh time or resources to build somethign - only the demand for that thing as ditacted by its stats.
This is crucial for mission balance & scenario design - especially in multiplayer!
If there are problmes with key units that make them unusable we should balance the stats. E.g. The T-34 should be a good tank throughout the war. It shodul only get cheaper if its stats are weaker - it should never get cheaper because it is later in the game.
KV-2 Balance
Name..........Cost..Ammo...Fuel... Soft...HA.....GD
KV-2............314......4........55......15.....18.....24
Proposed
Name..........Cost..Ammo...Fuel... Soft...HA.....GD
KV-2............314......4........65......15.....10.....22
KV-2 never used armor piercing shells.
KV-2 fuel range was slightly less than the KV-1A. It was 84 miles as compared to 94 miles.
Please note; only high-explosive shells with reduced propellant charge were used for KV-2's gun! No armor-piercing and concrete-piercing ammo used!
The appearance of KV-2 became a shock for German tankers. There wasn't any weapon, with the exception of the 88 mm AA-Gun, that could successfully defeat this beast.
Perhaps even a 12 could be used for hard attack.
The KV-2 was basically a Howitzer on tracks.
It was found that the KV-2 was much to heavy and was eventually replaced by self propelled guns.
Increasing the fuel would put it into line with other tanks.
Decreasing the hard attack value makes it a Howitzer, as it was in WWII.
Reducing the Ground Defense allows the 88mm to kill it and the Tiger I and Panther D to dent it.
KV-2............314......4........55......15.....18.....24
Proposed
Name..........Cost..Ammo...Fuel... Soft...HA.....GD
KV-2............314......4........65......15.....10.....22
KV-2 never used armor piercing shells.
KV-2 fuel range was slightly less than the KV-1A. It was 84 miles as compared to 94 miles.
Please note; only high-explosive shells with reduced propellant charge were used for KV-2's gun! No armor-piercing and concrete-piercing ammo used!
The appearance of KV-2 became a shock for German tankers. There wasn't any weapon, with the exception of the 88 mm AA-Gun, that could successfully defeat this beast.
Perhaps even a 12 could be used for hard attack.
The KV-2 was basically a Howitzer on tracks.
It was found that the KV-2 was much to heavy and was eventually replaced by self propelled guns.
Increasing the fuel would put it into line with other tanks.
Decreasing the hard attack value makes it a Howitzer, as it was in WWII.
Reducing the Ground Defense allows the 88mm to kill it and the Tiger I and Panther D to dent it.
If an 88 Kills it, I fail to understand why a Tiger or Panther should only dent it.Reducing the Ground Defense allows the 88mm to kill it and the Tiger I and Panther D to dent it.
The Tiger was the counter.
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
You are aware that currently the HA of the 88 ATG is 17, the Tiger I is 17, and the Panther D is 19, right?
So a KV-2 with 22 HD compared to the old 24 HD, not a big difference, and the 88 ATG will still flounder against a KV-2, especially because the 88 is a soft target. Additionally, the 88 only has 11 initiative to the KV-2's 9, and I believe ATG taking on a tank suffers a -3 initiative penalty when initiating the attack.
So a KV-2 with 22 HD compared to the old 24 HD, not a big difference, and the 88 ATG will still flounder against a KV-2, especially because the 88 is a soft target. Additionally, the 88 only has 11 initiative to the KV-2's 9, and I believe ATG taking on a tank suffers a -3 initiative penalty when initiating the attack.