Amoured cars OP?

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

Opunake
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:50 am

Amoured cars OP?

Post by Opunake » Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:56 am

Trying my best to muster something like a blitzkrieg across France. Wondering why my panzer 3s and 4s are getting slaughtered by Cruiser Mark4s and AMROURED CARS?! WTF. Panhards and Dingos zip in out of nowhere and destroy my tanks. I could understand losing 2 strength to their 6 or 7. But losing 4 to 2? 3 to 2? You guys do know these armoured cars didn't pack much in the way of heavy weaponry right? Even in the stats given in the game. A hard attack of 3 vs a hard defence of 7 should indicate a pretty spectacular fail for the attacking armoured car....but nope.

I very much enjoyed the SSI Panzer games. And I'm glad you guys have re-engineered them for us old-timers to enjoy....but I think maybe some of your maths/stats/rng in the guts of it is off somehow.....

Tarrak
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1183
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by Tarrak » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:36 am

I moved the topic from the AAR to the main forum where it fits more and is more likely to get seen and answered.

As to answer your question: The Cruiser Mk. IV tank was armed with a QF 2 Punder gun. According to Wikipedia with standard AP ammo it could penetrate 49mm of armor angled at 60° at around 100m and 27mm or armor at ca. 1000m. Keeping in mind no german tank prior to the Panther utilized sloped armor this translates to 98mm at 100m and 54mm at 1000m of penetration vs armor angled at 90°.

The Panhard 178 armored car was armed with a 25 mm SA 35 cannon. According to this site it could penetrate 47mm of armor at 100m and 30mm of armor at 1000m. This values are already against armor angled at 90°.

Now lets have a look at the Daimler Dingo. It was armed with a .55 Boys anti-tank rifle with a 23.2mm penetration at 90° 100 yards (91 m) and 18.8mm penetration at 90° 500 yards (460 m).

Now lets have a look at the armor values for the german early war tanks: The Panzer I had 7 to 13 mm armor, Panzer II had between 14 and 30mm front armor depending on the "ausführung" and 10mm at the sides and back. The Panzer III had 30mm armor all around (the early models even less) and finally the Panzer IV in the variant D it had 30mm armor at the front and 20mm at the sides and rear.

Now as you can see with the exception of the Dingo the allied vehicles had little to no trouble penetrating the early german tanks. When you add the higher mobility of the armored car to the equation you can see they can be pretty tough opponents. Under normal circumstances the german tanks should end victorious which usually happens in PC too but sometimes the luck can swing in both real life and in the game against you and then even the puny armored cars can score a victory. Keep in mind if you you don't want the randomness you can always reduce it or turn it off totally in the advanced options.

ThorHa
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:55 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by ThorHa » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:33 am

While I agree with Tarrak on the firepower versus armour equation - armoured cars came in varieties armed up to a 47mm gun - except the Dingo, which was nothing than a tin can, I still broadly disagree with the design values of a lot of non German tanks and ACs.

What made German armour lethal despite its gun and armour flaws way into 42? Doctrine, training AND the 3 man turrets, while the oppoenents fielded solely 1 or 2 man turrets for its early armour. The way to model this huge advantage on the battlefield (imagine a tank commander having to work as a gunner at the same time) woud be initiative. 1 or 2 man turrets should give huge disadvantages in initiative in effect giving the opponent German armour the first shot.

All initiative values for non German armour up to 42/43 are simply too high, leading to sometimes outright unbeleivable results.

Regards,
Thorsten

nikivdd
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Posts: 4152
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by nikivdd » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:13 am

You can always tweak the e-file as you see fit and that is very easy. You can open the equipment.pzdat file with any text editor.
There is also Deducter's unit revision mod which you can check here: viewtopic.php?f=147&t=50184
https://www.facebook.com/NikivddPanzerCorps/
https://www.youtube.com/user/Nikivdd1/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd

rezaf
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1487
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:27 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by rezaf » Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:56 am

[Off-Topic]I see you got rid of the Tiger tank Nico. Congratulations.[/Off-Topic]

On-topic, when browsing the eFile in depth during work for the Grand Armory, I noticed more oddities than you can shake a stick at.
Resolving them would mean having to rewrite the entire range of stats for everything, sometimes coming up with a concept grounded in reality for the first time ever (artillery attack values, I'm looking at you).
Also, deciding on a scope and sticking to it. (If a gun can fire 3 hexes, the range of these three hexes must always be the same amount of kilometers, for example).
So, for now, I think the best course of action is to just sortof ignore these "issues".
_____
rezaf

ThorHa
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:55 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by ThorHa » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:46 pm

Not to mention that for ipad players there is no e file to tweak :-).

regards,
Thorsten

BiteNibbleChomp
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3227
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:35 am

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by BiteNibbleChomp » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:53 pm

rezaf wrote:[Off-Topic]I see you got rid of the Tiger tank Nico. Congratulations.[/Off-Topic]
No! NOT THE TIGER TANK!!! WHY?! :cry:

Wait a sec, can I have a Fokker Dr. I avatar then? Pics can be found on my mod page for the WWI mod. (On second thoughts, would a Mongol Horse Archer be more appropriate, considering that is the main mod I'll be doing for the rest of 2014)

- BNC
Creator of American Civil War mod for Strategic Command WWI!
Discuss here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4504986
Download: http://www.mediafire.com/file/tj4t11z3ttl142w/SCACW.zip/file

MartyWard
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:46 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by MartyWard » Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:57 pm

ThorHa wrote:While I agree with Tarrak on the firepower versus armour equation - armoured cars came in varieties armed up to a 47mm gun - except the Dingo, which was nothing than a tin can, I still broadly disagree with the design values of a lot of non German tanks and ACs.

What made German armour lethal despite its gun and armour flaws way into 42? Doctrine, training AND the 3 man turrets, while the oppoenents fielded solely 1 or 2 man turrets for its early armour. The way to model this huge advantage on the battlefield (imagine a tank commander having to work as a gunner at the same time) woud be initiative. 1 or 2 man turrets should give huge disadvantages in initiative in effect giving the opponent German armour the first shot.

All initiative values for non German armour up to 42/43 are simply too high, leading to sometimes outright unbeleivable results.

Regards,
Thorsten
Wouldn't adjusting the ROF for 1 and 2 man turrets result in a weakening of their attacks?

aster
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:05 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by aster » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:53 pm

I'm a relatively new player, but this surprised (and annoyed) me too. We can cite individual vehicle armament and armor, penetration capabilities, etc, as a one-on-one exercise to try excusing why in PC armored cars can sometimes go toe-to-toe with tanks, but the fact is - these light armored vehicles were rarely if ever deployed in formations and with tactics to actually hold their own against tank formations. They just weren't utilized in that manner, numerically or tactically.

I realize that PC's formations are pretty abstracted and that's part of the charm, but in this instance it's sort of an immersion-breaking quirk. Armored cars are seriously OPed in this game.

As for advising us to mod this out if we choose, or to at least turn down the randomness in the game options, neither are an option for us iPad players. We're very much limited to the game exactly as-is out of the box.

bebro
The Artistocrats
The Artistocrats
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:50 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by bebro » Sat Jul 12, 2014 4:03 pm

rezaf wrote:[Off-Topic]I see you got rid of the Tiger tank Nico. Congratulations.[/Off-Topic]

Ditto here. 'Grats to the new title, Nico :)

captainjack
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 am

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by captainjack » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:11 am

MartyWard wrote:Wouldn't adjusting the ROF for 1 and 2 man turrets result in a weakening of their attacks?
An RoF penalty on 1 or 2 man turrets could reflect the reduced efficiency of having crew doing multiple jobs, or you could adjust initiative down.
Some of the early German tank initiative ranks quite poorly against their peers when you consider that the Panzer 3 and 4 had three man turrets as standard (and I'm pretty sure the Panzer 35(t) and 38(t) also had 3 man crew in German service) plus good availability of radios at a time when this was not common. However, increased initiative for tanks with three man turret and radios might make the early game way too easy.

edahl1980
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 6:26 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by edahl1980 » Mon Jul 14, 2014 5:54 am

AC is a good vehicle to use early in the war. I wouldnt say overpowered as the diff between AC and tank was not that big early on.

MartyWard
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:46 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by MartyWard » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:28 pm

captainjack wrote:
MartyWard wrote:Wouldn't adjusting the ROF for 1 and 2 man turrets result in a weakening of their attacks?
An RoF penalty on 1 or 2 man turrets could reflect the reduced efficiency of having crew doing multiple jobs, or you could adjust initiative down.
Some of the early German tank initiative ranks quite poorly against their peers when you consider that the Panzer 3 and 4 had three man turrets as standard (and I'm pretty sure the Panzer 35(t) and 38(t) also had 3 man crew in German service) plus good availability of radios at a time when this was not common. However, increased initiative for tanks with three man turret and radios might make the early game way too easy.
I would go with ROF since that should reduce losses caused by AC's.

ThorHa
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:55 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by ThorHa » Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:54 pm

In the end the AC problem is just one of the many compromises the game has to make to unify units of vastly different sizes/deployment in real life to units of roughly the same face value strength. Impossible to correct that in the end - it´s the same for ACs as for e.g. artillery or AT. If - and this is the most sound assumption - armour and infantry represent bataillon level, than a lot of other units should be company or even platoon size. They are not, case closed. Btw - if armour or infantry would represent regimental levels that would simply amplify the basic problem.

Regards,
Thorsten

captainjack
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 am

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by captainjack » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:36 pm

The Daimler Dingo might well have been little more than a tin can but they appear to have been heavily used in North Africa. Maybe they performed better than expected - or perhaps they were all that was available. Rommel's description of Italian tanks as sardine cans suggests that the Dingo's AT rifle could have been reasonably effective in early stages of the war. If you have good long range visibility in the desert, being small and fast could make you hard to spot and hard to hit which could compensate for poor armour.

KeldorKatarn
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by KeldorKatarn » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:01 am

I think there is also always a case where people overestimate what German tanks should be able to do. German tanks were crap until 1941 and only superior to anything allied after mid-1943 by which time the war was already lost. Sometimes I get the feeling that this sentiment is so popular because WW2 stuff has mainly been made popular by Americans and they encounterd Panthers and Tigers. Amazingly they overhyped these things despite them never actually being much of a problem for them since most of them were deployed in the east. Nations that faced earlier tank models were probably less impressed by the tanks but rather by the tactics involved. Germany was not superior in equipment in any way in France. They simply had better tactics and also the French had zero experience with their newly arrived equipment, despite it being a lot better. German tanks are not supposed to crush everything in France, quite the opposite. They're supposed to outmaneuver stuff and destroy it with the help of air and artillery and infantry support and dedicated anti tank guns. The only time German tanks went toe to toe with allied tanks in France was in one major counter attack, I think against Rommel's formation, and they got their ass kicked. Hitler nearly panicked when the happened.
Panzer Corps - Dossier Tool - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=39151
Epic Chronological Let's Play - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb_qLVfViPTbD7C7gN8cVOxG_mEgDYO91

ThorHa
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:55 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by ThorHa » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:22 am

KeldorKatarn wrote:German tanks were crap until 1941
Wrong. They were not that much superior to their enemies, but the 3 men turrets of the Pz III/IV combined with radio equipment made more than up for a LOT of technical deficiencies (like lower armour or less powerful canons) which only military amateurs regard as THE only important factors.

Just one example - the Char 1B. Powerful armour, powerful canons (2, one anti armour, one anti infantry), what´s not to like? Simple - the anti tank turret e.g. was one man. Yep, the poor commander had to work as a gunner and loader at the same time. Works fine in a preset position on the defense guarding a chokepoint. Does not work at all in fluid encounters, where the Char 1B had the additional disadvantage of low speed and poor operational range.

Regards,
Thorsten

KeldorKatarn
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by KeldorKatarn » Thu Jul 31, 2014 10:36 am

until 1941 Pz IIIs and IVs were not even fully used yet. In france there were still tons of Panzer IIs and czech tanks. Yes the radios, the ease of refuiling, the great optics and the better crew layout was better but armament and armor still caused major problems in france and already heavy losses in some stages of the Poland campaign. Without the support of the rest of the Panzer Divisions the Panzers were pretty weak 1:1.
But whatever the case (comparing tanks 1:1 usually doesn't make much sense for military realities anyway), fact is the Panzers were not as godly superior as most people nowadays think.
Panzer Corps - Dossier Tool - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=39151
Epic Chronological Let's Play - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb_qLVfViPTbD7C7gN8cVOxG_mEgDYO91

aster
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:05 pm

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by aster » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:13 pm

I think one of the issues we run into in an abstracted game like PzC is comparing vehicles on a 1:1 basis vs comparing them as formations. It's unclear in this game what size of units we're dealing with sometimes, and while that flexibility is part of its beauty, I think it also leads to some inconsistencies in how they stack up in battle. And certainly some of the intangibles of German armor (turrets, optics, radios, and yes, doctrine) that gave them advantages should be represented in attack/defense points, the strategy is simply not granular enough to represent that stuff in gameplay the player can incorporate.

Ultimately, could some of the armored cars penetrate early German tanks and maybe cause trouble in single vehicle encounters? Sure. But were they ever deployed in large enough formations, with support and tactics that'd allow them to hold the field against tanks? That's the question here. In some scenarios the scale for an armored unit seems to be division size at least (larger really) and this is something an armored car unit probably couldn't do any appreciable damage to. I'd almost rather ACs have excellent defense to represent elusiveness and avoidance of contact, great spotting, but virtually no attack points - that would seem to reflect reality way more than what we've got.

captainjack
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:42 am

Re: Amoured cars OP?

Post by captainjack » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:46 am

aster wrote:I'd almost rather ACs have excellent defense to represent elusiveness and avoidance of contact, great spotting, but virtually no attack points
If I'm not mistaken, I think the BA64 is the one for you. Remarkably tough for its time (GD is something like 9 or 10) but with 3SA and 1HA it can't do a lot of damage.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”