(09-01-2015, 10:48 PM)ComradeP Wrote: Mixed units using the range of the best vehicle worries me, and so do the still generous engagement ranges.

The current vehicle vs. vehicle loss calculation system doesn't include penetration data/an actual representation of effectiveness at range. The range modifier is the same for all units, guns are not rated for how long their projectiles preserve penetrating power.

Vehicle losses are also decided by a die roll in many cases (statistically speaking, the result is rarely precisely 10 men abstracted into 1 vehicle).

1 vehicle loss is also the average loss result in the case of a result.

All of that combines into the current situation where weak guns can knock out vehicles at ahistorical ranges, whilst units with good guns are at a significant disadvantage due to also usually knocking out only 1 vehicle. The quality modifier doesn't tip the scales in favour of the better unit all that much.

For example: I've spent an hour or two running calculations as to how it's possible, but I can't figure out why a T-34 unit has a better unmodified Fire effect than a Panzer IV F2/G, whilst its gun is significantly worse and even though the armored effectiveness ratio is better, the square root formula means that the relative decrease in effectiveness for targeting a vehicle with a lower defense value than the hard attack value also reduces its effectiveness more.

This means that German tank units have issues with dealing with C quality and above units with decent to good guns. The vast majority of the Allied tank units are likely to fall in that category.

The quality of an HQ has no direct effect on fire results, and in a system without a quality penalty for detached units combined with short command radii like what EP '14 has, it normally shouldn't have too much effect on combat performance.

The opportunity fire isn't modified by things like quality, proximity or being fired upon and depends on two rolls with highly variable results: the roll for whether it happens or not and the casualty roll. This makes it impossible to setup a reliable overwatch position, which in turn makes it impossible for the Germans to defend against large numbers of relatively fast tanks with good to decent guns in a situation where the Germans are outnumbered.

Yes, the Germans hit hard on their turn, but it's usually not too difficult to create a situation where either the defender becomes the attacker with tanks or where German armour can be more or less forced to attack.

A significantly superior vehicle exchange ratio is difficult to achieve currently due to superior firepower usually only weighing in on the German turn, and due to the low vehicle losses per shot resulting in relatively few enemy losses.


The problems also apply to AT guns as they use the same formula's.

Aside from Fixing units, there are currently no limitations preventing ahistorical unit concentrations either in terms of unit frontage or in situations where in the real war C&C difficulties prevented close cooperation. The player has perfect information on his forces, and can move them anywhere on the map when they're not Fixed.

Taking the Ozerovskii scenario as an example: the Soviets historically counter-attacked in a piecemeal fashion without coordination between brigades. This allowed the Germans to deal with the attacks one at a time and made each attack likely to stall. Aside from being Fixed for a few turns, there are no limitations keeping the Soviets from concentrating.

With the Soviets having superior numbers, the terrain and smoke making it possible to get to range 1 or 2 with relative ease and limited opportunity fire, the Germans are likely to lose the scenario if the Soviets concentrate in the hands of a capable player. Example: Gregor's two results in the tournament.

To move the example to Normandy: the fighting west and east of Caen featured large but either poorly coordinated attacks or attacks that were impeded by the terrain forcing attacks to be made in a fashion that made it possible for the Germans to counter them.

From a purely hypothetical perspective, I am worried that through using smoke, the lack of areas of operation/strict unit frontage and superiority in numbers, the British will be able to cycle their tank units around to attack German tank units in the same manner that Soviets can do. The British also have a large number of divisional and corps artillery pieces to help them.

In this case, there will be numerous Panther units as well, but at least half the tanks will still be Panzer IV's, although the slightly better H variant in many cases.

If the game uses the most recent alt quality values, most German units will be C and B quality as well, a further handicap relative a scenario like Ozerovskii where the Panzer IV's are A quality.

I am wondering how the new game will deal with these issues, and am looking forward to see what changes to the system will be included.

Edit: the Germans also have  5 vehicle tank platoons at full strength, which means combining them into a 3 unit company puts them above the 1/2 stacking limit threshold. Using 10 vehicle merged units is an effective way to avoid taking more damage from enemy fire whilst still having an effective unit.

However, as it is a merged unit composed of 2 sub-units, it gains more fatigue from incoming fire than merged units composed of 3 unit, which puts them at a disadvantage compared to Soviet, and judging by the visual OOB screenshot, British tank units, which can create merged units composed of 3 sub-units that stay below the 1/2 stacking limit threshold.

In practice, even with the quality modifier reducing incoming fatigue, German fatigue can increase quickly due to the above. When facing T-34's, it's not unusual to gain 10-20 fatigue from a "Fatigue" result. With fatigue penalties starting at 50 fatigue, this is another factor complicating the use of the edge in quality to your advantage.

(09-03-2015, 08:59 PM)Xaver Wrote: Maybe for me the biggest problem is how AT combat is unable to represent the advantage for defender when is attacked by enemy armored forces.

I refer that is very easy rush and close range ASAP without heavy casualties VS best enemy AT elements (in hard attack value and range) something that neutralize the tactical advantage for defender to be in hide positions waiting enemy and as is game now enemy can close range and defender cant retreat to mantein a flexible defense.

In Kursk you can launch a soviet battalion of 30 T-34 over AT positions (guns and tanks) in a rush of 1.000m or more (4-6 hexes) and suffer maybe 1 or 2 casualties in the aproximation (and this could be the worst situation, i do tests with 4 A tigers + 5 C panthers rushed by 1 T-34 company with 0 casualties for attacker) but when you are near enemy destroy AT defenses very fast with numbers specially guns and non heavy armored tanks.

In general i feel AT combat is to PzC in game and it needs be more Steel Panthers in defender advantages because who is moving needs be very vulnerable in movement in open terrain and be not a lot letal when finish near enemy.

EDIT: maybe for units that are stoped (not using AP) they can have a kill bonus over armored targets with a bigger chance to score a kill and at same time armored units in movement suffer a penalty in same way... but scaled... if you move 25% less chance to score a kill as base and if you use over 50% AP penalty goes to 50% for example.
Lets see but in this moment for me here is the PzB Achilles heel and if PzB3 is going to cover North Africa problem could be very hard to solve when 88s engage low armored tanks but they can close range fast with no casualties.

PD: best way now to reduce casualties in tanks is curious rush with them to avoid range combat if you dont have very good values here, is more profitable have armored units near enemy because you are going to deal a lot of damage.

(09-03-2015, 03:00 AM)Strela Wrote: So what does this all mean? Essentially the key factors in armor combat is the hard attack value and the defense value. The variation between those two values are the biggest determinant to the fire value. The fact that the T-34 has a significantly better armor tends to neutralise the better gun of the PzKw IV in a head to head duel. The difference ultimately was the quality.

Xaver Wrote:I refer that is very easy rush and close range ASAP without heavy casualties VS best enemy AT elements (in hard attack value and range) something that neutralize the tactical advantage for defender to be in hide positions waiting enemy and as is game now enemy can close range and defender cant retreat to mantein a flexible defense.

Strela Wrote:Xaver et al,

Do me a favour and back up your PBKursk_Southern.pdt file and then edit the original with the pbparam.exe program.

Go to the very bottom of the file and change the 'Hard Fire Mod' from 1.0 to 1.5 and the 'Range Effect Modifier' from 1.5 to 1.0 and then test a scenario. I think you may see what you seem to want...

With these changes you will see a much heavier armour casualty rate and a much more difficult time rushing. A change like this will make armour a one shot wonder if using rush tactics.

Happy for your commentary (don't forget to change your parameter file back if your playing PBEM's)

David 

(09-04-2015, 07:10 AM)wiggum Wrote: Will we still be able to do this "gamey" rushes in PzB 2 ?

(09-04-2015, 05:29 PM)Xaver Wrote: The scen you say Dog Soldier is one where soviets doenst have armor advantage over germans... similar number of tanks, no guard units AND a bad tactical situation becuase germans attack them very concentrated and soviets move in the perimeter of german attack... i play it VS AI as german and was easy smash soviet attacks specially creating pockets after made soviets lose mobility by combat effects, a human player sure can do it a lot better.