Patch?

[fetmun]

First of all, I want to thank the developers for their excellent work. It is one of the most enjoyable wargame I ever played. Could developers be so kind to tell us the details about the upcoming patch and, most importantly, the time of its release? Maybe beta version? Thank you!

[Strela]

First of all, I want to thank the developers for their excellent work. It is one of the most enjoyable wargame I ever played. Could developers be so kind to tell us the details about the upcoming patch and, most importantly, the time of its release? Maybe beta version? Thank you!

We have a lot of things to test on the new patch and are loath to rush it out.

There are two primary areas that we are working on;

Armor vs armor actions and multi-player scenarios.

As you can imagine, testing multiplayer scenarios takes a lot longer than via the AI.

That said, we could release some preliminary versions of scenarios here at the Blitz for the wider community to try if there is enough interest.

Here is an example of the changelog for that old chestnut scenario #0704_01 Gertsovka

This is for the multi-player version.

• Additional AI hold orders included
• All Soviet units begin in fixed status.
• +2 turns to 12 turns long
• VP’s dropped by 10 for each victory level
• New supply source in NE corner
• Supply source in (5,4) removed


It may end up that we will pick a date such as end of summer and release what we have.

As far as the armor testing, we are trying quite a few variables and its interesting to gauge the losses over time vs historical rates. What we are finding is that the current in game settings are creating loss results close to reality. Boosting hard attack values and other tweaks such as range attenuation is really increasing the casualties. That said everyone is expecting a few Tigers to be superhuman like and that is proving hard to do without screwing up other values. One area we are finding that makes a big difference is visibility. Unlimited defensive fire results in many more shots from the big guns with a higher chance to knock out or disrupt a unit. Less visibility allows swarm tactics to be much more effective.

Trust me we need time to test the values we are playing with so we don't tip the game in the wrong direction.

David

[ComradeP]

What we are finding is that the current in game settings are creating loss results close to reality.

On average, from all causes?

I still have some issues with the current armor vs. armor model, as the German A quality units don't outperform the Soviet C and D quality units in a way that is significant enough to counter a numerical advantage, or at least in normal conditions without using the ahistorically large engagement ranges for the Panzer IV's (due to armor penetration values for a certain distance to the target not being a factor).

[Ricky B]

What we are finding is that the current in game settings are creating loss results close to reality.

On average, from all causes?

I still have some issues with the current armor vs. armor model, as the German A quality units don't outperform the Soviet C and D quality units in a way that is significant enough to counter a numerical advantage, or at least in normal conditions without using the ahistorically large engagement ranges for the Panzer IV's (due to armor penetration values for a certain distance to the target not being a factor).

It appears David has at least a bit of concern, or is looking to resolve your concern, in trying to find a valid change to the current model without breaking things. Obviously a delicate matter, but you have been heard, hence why it is being looked at.

[ComradeP]

I know, I was just wondering if maybe I've been seeing mostly uncommon results, which could mean the armor vs. armor might be working as intended.

Changing one thing without breaking something else can be very difficult, so I appreciate the team taking the time to get things to work the way they want after the changes.

[Strela]

I know, I was just wondering if maybe I've been seeing mostly uncommon results, which could mean the armor vs. armor might be working as intended.

Changing one thing without breaking something else can be very difficult, so I appreciate the team taking the time to get things to work the way they want after the changes.

And there is the rub - we are worried about the various consequences. John has built a modifier in for hard attack strengths that can be a variable so we can test increasing & reducing strengths without changing all the units values. We are also experimenting with various range attenuation effects. There has also been a spirited discussion about a 'reverse' density modifier for smaller units so that they are harder to hit.

As you can imagine every single one has pro's and con's and ultimately though they all sound impressive may have little impact on game play. For example in a PBEM game I am a member of an 88mm AA gun took out a T-34 HQ at 3,500 meters (14 hexes) and then on its next defensive fire shot disrupted a whole T-34 company at 3,250 meters. This was using the original code!!!

Some features to help fire values have been included in the code. For example the fire uphill negative modifier (simulating shooting at hull down vehicles) know has an inverse where a unit firing downhill get a positive modifier to represent hitting more vulnerable aspects of a vehicle. This helps to make hills even more important.

Personally, what I am seeing is that the game system is providing losses close to the historical without additional tweaks. That said, with all the additional multiplayer testing being done we are watching the statistics closely and trialling a few different changes to understand the impact....

David

[ComradeP]

Including armour penetration data isn't an option? It might be difficult to code, but it could be a results table with various values that influence the hard attack value at a certain range (basically a hard cap of sorts). A semi-hard cap for hard attacks at range that have a value lower than the defender's armour could also help. The current "attacking strength lower than defensive strength" formula doesn't really penalize the attacker as much as it could.

The long range shots can be pretty wild, but overall the main unbalancing thing in my opinion is that armor vs. armor combat can take a fairly long time, with quality advantages not always being clear.

As both sides have full control over non-Fixed units, this allows the side that historically had mediocre to poor organization and coordination during counterattacks (the Soviets) to gang up on the Germans with everything they have. In the Ozerovskii scenario, the Soviet counterattack happened in a piecemeal fashion, but that doesn't necessarily have to happen in the game.

The player could also concentrate both Tank Corps in the same area. You can place units at some distance from the next unit, but in the end crossing a certain part of the map is a matter of dividing the number of hexes covered by the average movemement speed to get to the average number of turns it will take a unit to get there. In short: time can compensate for flaws in the initial dispositions, or chaotic unit placement.

That's why in my opinion it's absolutely essential for the Germans to be able to deal with one Tank brigade before the next shows up, with attrition over time obviously. Currently, both the armor vs. armor lethality per turn (fairly low) and the German losses when facing a similar number of C or D quality units (average to high) make that very difficult. Taking Nepkhaevo as an example: if there would've been a second Tank brigade with 30 T-34's or so, the Germans would be in very serious trouble. Just like the air war in the East sometimes had freak results by Western standards in terms of Soviet aircraft shot down, tank vs. tank combat could also be very one-sided. Currently, tank combat is fairly balanced and it's difficult to make a mess out of things if you deploy your units correctly (this is probably the crucial point, but again the main limit is the time available to do so in the larger scenarios, which may or may not be enough).

[Xaver]

Some time ago i suggest use a new value to cover the AT combat... a "killer factor" to bonus good AT guns VS armor... for example a Tiger as AT plataform was more effective than PzIV and Panther better than Tiger... maybe use for tanks with bad optics/general performance 0 killer factor, tanks like PzIV 1, Tiger 2 and Panther 3 (TDs can have value 1 to show how effective they where thanks to the use of terrain) the idea is that the value bonus the result.

For example Germans have more increase fatige results with PzIV and Tigers and Panthers have better chance to destroy a tank, the good thing with this is you dont need touch hard values and you can control by tank type how letal is (and same with AT guns).

The problem now is you can see a tiger destroying a tank at 3.500m or you can see 2 Tigers unable to kill a tank from a full soviet company at 250m.

[Dog Soldier]

The problem now is you can see a tiger destroying a tank at 3.500m or you can see 2 Tigers unable to kill a tank from a full soviet company at 250m.

I do not see this as a problem, but actually a good simulation.

At long distance the Tiger only needs to adjust the turret angle a few degrees to acquire a new target and fire on it.

At very short distances the defending Tiger might have to rotated 25% - 40% to acquire a target. Or never acquire the target because the target is too close moving at a tangential angle that was too large to begin with. The Tiger turret rotation cannot close the angle or keep up with the moving target. Then there is the issue of another tank in the Soviet unit stopped and aiming at the Tiger while the Tiger is furiously rotating to get a shot at the original moving Soviet tank in the same unit, oblivious to the new danger.

What I am trying to say is tanks did not move like the counters. They do not move in blocks, stop all together in a line or even always stay in a recognizable formation during combat. The counters on the map in the game are just a representation of the approximate location of the unit, like on a Command HQ table.

To see a Tiger miss at close range then have the T-34 counter fire back and take out a Tiger is not a simple issue of the two being in in each other direct line of vision the entire turn firing at each other. Many things are going on at a micro level during those 30 minutes of a turn. The damage report after each shot is just a game mechanism. Taken together as a whole, these individual shot reports aggregated at the end of a turn are yielding historical results. The shots made by or on a single unit counter are not significant to judging the game system. What matters is how many tanks were lost compared to the number engaged at the end of the turn in the victory dialog.

Since we can assume the T-34s in a single unit counter are not all moving straight at the Tiger counter, it does make sense that the Tiger is a better killer at longer ranges than very short ranges because the number of to - hit opportunities is decreasing with range and are not constant or increasing.

Tanks of the era had to stop to fire. At least they did to have any chance of real accuracy. But once the shot was taken, in many cases they were moving again then stopping and firing again, all inside the hex where the counter on the map sits still and takes three shots in the player's turn. Now and again we see results in armor combat where a number of vehicles are destroyed at close range in a single turn.

Simulating which vehicles are moving / evading to get to a firing position on the defender and which have stopped to take a shot in a definitive manner is beyond the scope of the PzB game system. We never intended to be that specific. (Squad Battles does though.)

If one thinks about what is happening during a turn, IGO/UGO, looking holistically at the turn, many things that happen simultaneously are being presented as my turn / your turn format on screen with the end result pretty close to what could or should happen historically.

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

You can't use abstraction as an explanation for certain behaviour, whilst not using it at other times. If mechanics use a mathematical basis, they should be built on a mathematically logical structure which possibly models a certain amount of abstraction (in the shape of numerical variability). It might be a game, but it doesn't really simulate human actions or some real world physics problems (like penetration, though shot dispersion is taken into account in a way).

It's a system of numbers interacting with other numbers with a numerical result being the result of that interaction. As such, wargames are balanced with that in mind otherwise you can get very weird results. The trick is to create a numerical representation of a certain action. A unit was known for high markmanship? Better damage output or longer effective range. A unit was known for rapid movement? More movement points. That's how it usually goes. In PB (and PzC, as well as possibly Squad Battles) use a quality system that covers those things.

In terms of taking the whole picture into account: in a situation where there's a T-34 unit at 250 meters, in many cases that unit would be visible further away at first, so the defending tank unit would already have the turret turned to the target. Even if that is not the case, there are still 9-10 tanks to fire at.