(09-04-2015, 06:03 PM)ComradeP Wrote: David: I should've checked it at range 1. I was trying to calculate it for range 3 (a range I randomly picked), where rounding through the range modifier made the result not match what I thought it should, based on the formula you used as well. The T-34's Fire effect is indeed only slightly higher, but it is higher.

As noted before, results gravitate to 1 vehicle loss results, which limits the effect of the quality modifier.

Seen from a historical perspective, the system currently includes the things that made the T-34 a good tank

-Speed.
-Decent firepower compared to 1943 medium German tank armour.
-Decent to good protection against the average German tank gun.

whilst abstracting or not including the things that made it perform worse on the battlefield than it should in 1943 based on those advantages:

-Smaller crews resulting in less efficiency when operating the tank. (The game doesn't include values for things like rate of fire, nor does it track crew quality after losses, which combined with Guards being C quality to differentiate them from regular tank units means neither side suffers from drops in unit quality after combat).
-Poor quality munitions, combined with mediocre gun sights resulting in a quick drop in performance at longer ranges. (As noted in my previous post, the range modifier is not modified by a value for guns performing better at longer ranges. One possibility might be to add a value to the database where designers can set a range for when the range modifier comes into effect, for example: for Panzer IV's it comes into effect at range 3 instead of 2 or something like that).
-Poor communications between tanks and tank units. (You could say this is abstracted into quality, but there were no significant differences in T-34 layout between Guards and non-Guard units in 1943 as far as I know)
-Inflexible tank doctrine. (The player decides the doctrine, as well as having full knowledge of where his tanks are and when they're used)

Generally speaking, the PzC/FWWC/PB system has difficulties with dealing with sides with poor communications, poor leaders or strict doctrine, presumably for gameplay reasons because there are only so many penalties that can be slapped onto units before it feels artificial, so it is usually limited to Fixing units in place, delayed arrivals, poor HQ quality or EP '14s way of treating units out of command range. It's perfectly understandable, but it can lead to situations where a side is not necessarily hampered by its historical problems, like the Soviets in Ozerovskii.

Considering that the T-34 is a better tank in terms of raw stats, without including quality modifiers, and knowing that the quality modifier combined with generally infrequent and ineffective opportunity fire won't be enough to counter it, a situation where the Soviets significantly outnumber the Germans is dangerous for the Germans.

-

As I wrote when it was introduced, the hard fire mod has an effect on all hard fire, so on anything firing at vehicles (including infantry units and artillery) as well as units firing at bunkers, which means that in my opinion it can unbalance the scenario in situations where the Soviets have a lot of artillery, or rely on a bunker defense. Admittedly, this isn't much of a problem in Ozerovskii.

However, the effect has an effect on both sides, which doesn't necessarily favour the Germans. If the Germans mostly have to deal with Soviet tanks on the Soviet turn, when the Germans rely on opportunity fire, the Germans are likely to be the ones taking the higher losses first.

-

Dog Soldier: assaulting with tanks currently mostly works because opportunity fire is so infrequent. If that would be balanced, those 25 tank stacks would be butchered before being able to assault. In my opinion, assaulting with tanks currently feels to much like using a less developed part of the system (opportunity fire) in your favour, even more so than cycling tank units around.

Besides, I'm not convinced it's more efficient than simply firing at the German tanks because you sacrifice 2 firing actions and possibly being able to move away if the assault disrupts your tanks for inflicting marginal losses. Panzer IV's also have an assault value of 13.

There's also still the matter of historical results, specifically historical loss rates. I recall reading that on the whole day of July 6th, LSSAH either lost or suffered damage to about 35 AFV's, only a handful of which were write-offs, including Marders and StuGs. I don't know what Das Reichs losses were, but I'd be surprised if they were significantly higher.

As noted in the briefing, the Guards lost about 100 tanks. The regular Tank Corps might not have performed much better.

Let's say the Germans lost about 70 tanks at Ozerovskii (noting that LSSAH's StuGs and Marders were not there) to around 200 Soviet ones, for a kill to loss ratio of about 2.5:1 - 3:1.

It is my assumption that regardless of what happens, this historical loss ratio currently is unlikely to be achieved between capable players for the tank vs. tank fight, as I have yet to see a situation where it can be achieved. In my best German turns against RickyB, I knocked out ~15 T-34's for a loss of 4 or so tanks of my own to return fire (and that's with smoke making sure only single tank companies can fire back), but the Soviets then knocked out 5-10 on their turn. Admittedly, my opportunity fire was rather lacking throughout the game.

The main reason for that as I see it is the Soviet ability to concentrate in a way that their historical counterparts didn't. Similarly, my tanks were always concentrated with both Panzer battalions: Das Reich's StuGs all in the same area to avoid having to deal with the tank corps with weaker forces.

Quote:As far as esoteric values such as ammo, range finders etc, they are built into the range and hard/soft attack values. Compare a Sherman's 75mm at 18 HA and 8 range to a T34 43's 17 HA and 6 range. The range in particular reflects sights, crew and other factors. Morale is meant to represent training, experience and doctrine. Another point of comparison is the KV1 42 where the same 76mm gun  is 16 HA and 6 range. This again represents factors such as turret speed, overall manoeuvrability etc

(09-04-2015, 10:37 PM)ComradeP Wrote: Pity that you lost that post, I always enjoy reading about how the system is supposed to work/how it's coded, as it helps to understand why something might not be working or what can be done about a certain problem.

Quote:As far as esoteric values such as ammo, range finders etc, they are built into the range and hard/soft attack values. Compare a Sherman's 75mm at 18 HA and 8 range to a T34 43's 17 HA and 6 range. The range in particular reflects sights, crew and other factors. Morale is meant to represent training, experience and doctrine. Another point of comparison is the KV1 42 where the same 76mm gun  is 16 HA and 6 range. This again represents factors such as turret speed, overall manoeuvrability etc

I know that's the intention, but the mechanics could use some more clearly defined effects that always work/apply to model something like one side using a superior fighting vehicle.

Due to the range modifier, square root modifier for H>D fire and the variability of results long range fire is a bit of a lottery currently, and all formula's have the same effect on both sides, as well as reducing the effect of the quality fire modifier. Something like a setting for when the range modifier applies for a certain vehicle type and significantly reducing the maximum ranges of some units to a range where they could, on average, still knock out an enemy tank at a common angle (so a hit on the hull or turret on the front or side, biased towards the front) could at least remove some of the variability there.

The current formula's lead to 2 extremes:

1: Units that have high HA values to represent good firepower at longer ranges have excellent firepower at range 1, but their firepower drops in the same way as that of other unit at longer ranges and the formula's make it 2 vehicle or higher loss results uncommon. In the entirety of my Ozerovskii game with RickyB, I believe we got a bit over a dozen 2 vehicle loss results, and a single 3 vehicle loss result.

2: Units with low HA values might still knock out a tank at longer ranges due to the actual loss being determined by a die roll.

I've lost a Tiger to 2 D quality 45mm guns at, I believe, range 4 and another Tiger to a T-70 unit firing uphill from, I believe, 3 hexes away. I've also knocked out StuGs from 6 hexes away with 2 D quality 76.2mm guns and on the German side of the coin: I've knocked out T-34's with Panzer III's from 6 hexes away.

The randomness caused by the formula's all having some effect on eachother can lead to very strange results due to there being no clearly defined actual penetration capabilities, but everything being abstracted.

Overall, infantry units have a far more predictable and consistent fire effect than vehicle units. The casualties inflicted by infantry units are still random, but you always get something provided your unit is big enough.

For vehicle units, it's quite common for an A quality 10 vehicle Panzer IV unit to get a fatigue result on one roll and a 1 vehicle loss result with the next.

An A quality PzG unit would inflict casualties with both rolls and would in most cases have a fairly easy time dealing with a  2 platoon Soviet Guards Rifle merged unit in the open in a situation where the Germans fire first and decide at what range the engagement starts. A 10 vs. 10 engagement with tanks is also likely to end in a German victory, but the relative cost is also likely to be higher than the cost of the infantry engagement.

A workaround like adjusting the hard fire effect would also increase the problem that vehicles like the Marder, which depended on long range engagements allowing them to knock out T-34's before they could be effectively engagement in order to keep them alive, are very vulnerable currently due to having a low defense value. Artillery is also known for causing a reasonable number of tank losses even with the current values, due to the German tanks having mediocre defence values and the actual loss result depending on a die roll.

Statistically speaking, anything with a hard attack value has some chance to destroy every hard target within its range, regardless of how mismatched the hard attack value is to the defence value.

I don't want vehicle combat to give guaranteed results, but ironing out the extremes and emphasizing the strengths and weakness of certain vehicles in a way that the system can model would help.

(09-04-2015, 11:38 PM)Strela Wrote:

(09-04-2015, 10:37 PM)ComradeP Wrote: Pity that you lost that post, I always enjoy reading about how the system is supposed to work/how it's coded, as it helps to understand why something might not be working or what can be done about a certain problem.

Quote:As far as esoteric values such as ammo, range finders etc, they are built into the range and hard/soft attack values. Compare a Sherman's 75mm at 18 HA and 8 range to a T34 43's 17 HA and 6 range. The range in particular reflects sights, crew and other factors. Morale is meant to represent training, experience and doctrine. Another point of comparison is the KV1 42 where the same 76mm gun  is 16 HA and 6 range. This again represents factors such as turret speed, overall manoeuvrability etc

I know that's the intention, but the mechanics could use some more clearly defined effects that always work/apply to model something like one side using a superior fighting vehicle.

Due to the range modifier, square root modifier for H>D fire and the variability of results long range fire is a bit of a lottery currently, and all formula's have the same effect on both sides, as well as reducing the effect of the quality fire modifier. Something like a setting for when the range modifier applies for a certain vehicle type and significantly reducing the maximum ranges of some units to a range where they could, on average, still knock out an enemy tank at a common angle (so a hit on the hull or turret on the front or side, biased towards the front) could at least remove some of the variability there.

The current formula's lead to 2 extremes:

1: Units that have high HA values to represent good firepower at longer ranges have excellent firepower at range 1, but their firepower drops in the same way as that of other unit at longer ranges and the formula's make it 2 vehicle or higher loss results uncommon. In the entirety of my Ozerovskii game with RickyB, I believe we got a bit over a dozen 2 vehicle loss results, and a single 3 vehicle loss result.

2: Units with low HA values might still knock out a tank at longer ranges due to the actual loss being determined by a die roll.

I've lost a Tiger to 2 D quality 45mm guns at, I believe, range 4 and another Tiger to a T-70 unit firing uphill from, I believe, 3 hexes away. I've also knocked out StuGs from 6 hexes away with 2 D quality 76.2mm guns and on the German side of the coin: I've knocked out T-34's with Panzer III's from 6 hexes away.

The randomness caused by the formula's all having some effect on eachother can lead to very strange results due to there being no clearly defined actual penetration capabilities, but everything being abstracted.

Overall, infantry units have a far more predictable and consistent fire effect than vehicle units. The casualties inflicted by infantry units are still random, but you always get something provided your unit is big enough.

For vehicle units, it's quite common for an A quality 10 vehicle Panzer IV unit to get a fatigue result on one roll and a 1 vehicle loss result with the next.

An A quality PzG unit would inflict casualties with both rolls and would in most cases have a fairly easy time dealing with a  2 platoon Soviet Guards Rifle merged unit in the open in a situation where the Germans fire first and decide at what range the engagement starts. A 10 vs. 10 engagement with tanks is also likely to end in a German victory, but the relative cost is also likely to be higher than the cost of the infantry engagement.

A workaround like adjusting the hard fire effect would also increase the problem that vehicles like the Marder, which depended on long range engagements allowing them to knock out T-34's before they could be effectively engagement in order to keep them alive, are very vulnerable currently due to having a low defense value. Artillery is also known for causing a reasonable number of tank losses even with the current values, due to the German tanks having mediocre defence values and the actual loss result depending on a die roll.

Statistically speaking, anything with a hard attack value has some chance to destroy every hard target within its range, regardless of how mismatched the hard attack value is to the defence value.

I don't want vehicle combat to give guaranteed results, but ironing out the extremes and emphasizing the strengths and weakness of certain vehicles in a way that the system can model would help.

There are plenty of variables here at play including the actual range of combat results (the high/low values). In the very first prototype these were approximately double what they are today and they skewed casualties up quickly. The issue with them is that they impact both armour and infantry.

I look at losses in armour slightly differently. A tank that has taken an anti-tank rifle shot to the gun sight is just as useless as a tank that has had it's turret taken off. In the same vein a tank that has lost it's radio antenna due to artillery is just as hobbled when it comes to coordinating with the rest of its platoon. For all intents and purposes these vehicles have to pull out for maintenance before they can re-engage and in the time period that Panzer Battles covers that is probably them out for the fight.

Long range fire will be less of a lottery if the range attenuation is adjusted. With the variation in actual ranges between combatants there will be significant variability due to both gun size and maximum range.

The other thing to note is that the German PzKw III's and IV's were lightly armoured. I'm currently reading Robert Kershaw's 'Tank Men' and was very surprised to hear how dominant the 75mm Sherman was in their first engagement at El Alamein. This was against both III's and long F2 IV's. Considering this was November 1942, the Germans were only going to find it more difficult after that. As you point out it was superior training and equipment that helped balance these equipment challenges. Of interest the British were lulled into a false sense of security with the US 75mm to the point that they cancelled the 6 pounder AT gun. This gun was only revived when Tigers were encountered in Tunisia and that lost time was to hurt the Allies later in 1943.

My final question to all is what is reasonable? It's easy to use anecdotes to justify a point of view, but what should be the indication of 'getting it right'? No one here has told me what they believe the expected losses should be - just that they are too light. So what should they be?

David

ComradeP Wrote:In my best German turns against RickyB, I knocked out ~15 T-34's for a loss of 4 or so tanks of my own to return fire (and that's with smoke making sure only single tank companies can fire back), but the Soviets then knocked out 5-10 on their turn. Admittedly, my opportunity fire was rather lacking throughout the game.

Quote:tThe other thing to note is that the German PzKw III's and IV's were lightly armoured. I'm currently reading Robert Kershaw's 'Tank Men' and was very surprised to hear how dominant the 75mm Sherman was in their first engagement at El Alamein. This was against both III's and long F2 IV's. Considering this was November 1942, the Germans were only going to find it more difficult after that. As you point out it was superior training and equipment that helped balance these equipment challenges. Of interest the British were lulled into a false sense of security with the US 75mm to the point that they cancelled the 6 pounder AT gun. This gun was only revived when Tigers were encountered in Tunisia and that lost time was to hurt the Allies later in 1943.

My final question to all is what is reasonable? It's easy to use anecdotes to justify a point of view, but what should be the indication of 'getting it right'? No one here has told me what they believe the expected losses should be - just that they are too light. So what should they be?

Quote:However, if you split the combined tank unit into e.g 3 components, each with 3 tanks, you get three die rolls instead of one! And then you can actually kill 3 tanks in the above setting.

Quote:If the smoke was anything like what you used in our Nepkhaevo engagement, then I can assume that RickyB (a far better player than I ) used your smoke against you like I did to isolate the German panzers from each other and clobbered them piecemeal.  Smoke is  a two edged sword in PzB.  It is not "owned".  Be careful how you use it.

I am sure those 5-10 panzers knocked out in the Soviet turn cost more T-34s.  How many?  You forgot to mention that leaving us all curious.