How do you improve PzB???

[Fonebone]

Not that big a deal, Dog. Just took me by surprise is all. I was looking for a covered approach to an objective and didn't realize I would not only be moving much slower in the forest but under constant fire as well. In most games, blocking terrain like woods have a blind hex behind them from observers at higher elevation. Just have to remember to make liberal use of the S key prior to planning an attack, that's all.

If this is something peculiar to the Kursk battlefield, as you say, a brief mention in the Designer's Notes wouldn't hurt any. The forest hexes on the map just look like any old forest hex.

Again, though, as I say, no big deal.

[ComradeP]

I think the vast majority of the issues we're seeing come from the way results are calculated. Mathematically speaking, a number of problems become clear if you run some calculations. Note that in this case, the actual calculations the game uses are unclear, so I'm only guessing.

In my Nepkhaevo game against Dog Soldier, which I might very well lose, our tanks are firing away at eachother from a certain distance and the quality and firepower advantage of the Panzer IV G's is not always clear.

The reason for that is the way the system works, which at least in this case doesn't favour high quality units as much as it does for normal direct fire between infantry units.

I'm not really sure how the fire results are calculated at all, or what the "Fire Value" is as it doesn't match any of the figures below. It's 120 for 15 tanks, or 8 per tank, but it's not clear if that's modified or not or how it's calculated. If it's unmodified attack value - defense value then it matches for the Panzer IV G firing at the T-34's but not for the T-34. 17-10=7. 8 (number of T-34's)x7=56, but the game has Fire Value at 83 for the T-34's.

The term Fire Value is also not explained in the manual. It is said that Combat Value is the adjusted Fire Value of the firing units, and that it's the modified attack value divided by the modified defense value, but the latter seems odd as if we divide 325 by 144, that's 2.25.

It is stated in the Combat Results section that "the given modifiers are applied" to get to the next step but they were already applied. If we take just the vehicle for 1 vehicle we get: 26x1,5=39. Times the range modifier is 26 again, which when modified for the armor penetration formula gives ~21.6. If we divide that by 18 we get 1.2 The combat values always end up being low. For the T-34's, it's 0,85.

Using the data that is explained in the manual gives the following results for 15 Panzer IV G's firing at a unit of T-34's from 2 hexes away (so range modifier is applied once):

Note: I'm not rounding decimals in most of the example.

(26x1.5) =hard attack value times quality modifier of 50% for A quality units, as it's 20 for A quality units times a base of 2.5)

times

15=number of vehicles
=585

we then divide that by 1.5 (range modifier)
=390

We then divide that by the rule for hard attack versus lower defence. Now, this is one of the areas where the first problems manifest itself, as there's no accounting for a drop in armour penetration for range. This modifier is always the same. You can also see that in the Results pop-up: the HA/D relation is always 144%. Though there is a range modifier, that is applied to the total fire value.

This is the reason you see weak units destroy tanks that they shouldn't be able to destroy based on their hard attack divided by the range modifier for that specific range (even at range 2, with the range modifier applied once, a Panzer IV G has a modified hard attack value of 17,33 if you'd apply it directly and would thus on average have issues with penetrating the T-34 defence rating of 18, although you could modify this with a quality modifier as well to indicate the crews are aiming for known weak spots).

1/Square Root (H/D). H/D is 26/18=~1,44. The square root of that number is about ~1,2. 1/1.2=0,833.

We multiply 390 by 0,833. That's 324,87. This is our base number to eventually determine the Low Fire Value and the High Fire Value. First, we must determine how much 324,87 is of 1000 (the standard number you have to substract it from to be able to calculate low and high casualty levels) as a percentage. If you divide 1000 by 324,87, you get 3,078. If you divide 100 by 3,078 to get to the percentage you need, you get 32,488. This is no surprise, and you probably saw that yourself without any need for calculations.

We now multiply the Low Fire Value, 20, by 0,32488. That's 6,4976. This is our Low Fire Value. What this means is that, statistically speaking, it is quite possible for 15 tanks not to destroy any enemy tanks as a number below 10 isn't a guaranteed kill (the probability in this case is ~65% at the Low Fire Value).

The High Fire Value is 100, so if we multiply that by 0,32488, that's 32,488 again. If you get that result, you have a ~25% chance of inflicting 4 losses, but will usually inflict 3.

So, if we look at the results, the average is (6,4976+32,488)/2=19,4228 or 1 tank, almost 2 tanks.

However, this isn't actually what happens, as casualties or lower most of the time. In short, it doesn't seem to work like that but without knowing what Fire Value is, or where that enters into the calculation, it's difficult to calculate the correct result. The defence value is missing in this calculation aside from the armour penetration formula.

What is clear is that, due to the system ignoring penetration values for longer ranges and due to the penalty for higher hard attack than defense values, it can be difficult to establish a superiority even when you fire first, match the defenders in quantity and have superior firepower.

A hard cap to how effective a tank with a certain gun is at a certain range would already help a lot.

What Dog Soldier and I are doing currently, like what happened when he assaulted bunkers in Gertsovka, has little to do with tactics, but purely with math and the die rolls derived from them. An example: one of his Churchill units was disrupted with 8 tanks or so. It knocked out 3 of my tanks at 2 hex range. Mathematically speaking, his fire value at hex range 2 wouldn't be enough to deal with the defense rating of a Panzer IV G (19/2 due to being disrupted=9.5, divided by 1.5 range modified= 6,33 which is lower than 10) The system has a lot of variation which limits the effectiveness of good units, keeps casualties low and prevents the Germans from dealing with a numerically superior foe without it closing in.

A lot of the fun from the game is currently being frustrated by die rolls being required as tactics alone don't get you the desired results. It's like a well-researched numerical system for unit values was attached to a well-researched system for gameplay mechanics, but it breaks apart from time to time when results have to be calculated. We see that with replacements, assaults and direct fire on gun and vehicle units.

[Strela]

ComradeP,

That's a hell of a post!

I understand your (long!) point. We are discussing amongst the designers a few options that may give us the flexibility to better represent the differences between armour & infantry fighting. Once we have agreed some options we are going to approach John to see what can be implemented.

Currently my belief is that infantry vs infantry is reasonable. The issue is tank vs tank both in terms of overall losses and the influence of small but 'powerful' units such as the oft mentioned Tigers. Please note we want to walk carefully here and not unbalance the game too far either way.

I'll get back to you on any changes and if we're lucky we may even be able to release a beta patch to test any new ideas.

David

[ComradeP]

I guess at the core is the lack of element vs. element interaction for the vehicles/guns and that the system essentially treats them as men. Infantry combat works fairly well (though the relation between artillery casualties and infantry strength can still be problematic).

Within the current system, the mechanics simply don't allow a single vehicle to knock out another vehicle as part of a larger unit (as in: when you have 15 tanks, the maximum theoretical result isn't 15 enemy losses). I understand the need for low - and high fire values and they suit the mathematical system nicely, but they become problematic when dealing with vehicles or guns.

The range modifier not being related to actual penetration at a certain range reduces its value, The variety of modifiers boost combat value, but in the end the result is a percentage value that determines the low - and high fire values, so essentially they influence the die roll for a hit that knocks out one (or more) vehicle(s).

The low casualties also mean establishing overwatch positions isn't likely to work as well as they would in real life, because enemy tank units can always close in and the casualties from opportunity fire are fairly low and fairly random as well.

Even if creating a system where each vehicle or gun in a unit fires and those results are then added up to the result for the unit, instead of the unit's strength being multiplied by the unit type's hard attack value relative to the defender's defence value isn't possible, a very harsh modifier on armour penetration (=kill chance) when the modified hard attack value is below the defence value of the target would at least give the side with the longer-ranged guns the advantage they deserve and would limit tank casualties from artillery fire.

Currently, most of the formula's that limit the effectiveness of a certain unit or weapon can be countered by increasing numbers. If a certain value is halved, you will still get the original value if you use twice as many vehicles. The low hard attack value against a target with a stronger defence formula is currently quite forgiving.

Dog Soldier might be a bit fed up with my commentary by now, as he might think I'm saying that all his results come from luck, but what I'm trying to say is that there's a fairly narrow number of results that the system allows which in this case doesn't give a truly significant advantage to the side with better crews, vehicles and guns. It's similar to the way attacking bunkers works.

Dog Soldier implied that tactics can beat math, but as math decides the result, that isn't how it works. When you gather X amount of men or vehicles and fire or assault, the actual result of that is beyond your control. Variability is a good thing, but it shouldn't by itself be allowed to decide a game in situations where a lot of variable outcomes are possible. An example would be breaking through several rows of bunkers. If the defenders disrupt early, your chance of winning is much greater than if everyone fights to the death, yet there's no significant way you can influence events aside from selecting the best units for the assault.

As with Moscow '42, I might sound overly critical, but my only intention is to see if there are some good ways to deal with some of the issues with the system that hopefully won't require significant code work, as both PzC and PB are good systems, making every smaller or larger thing that unbalances it unfortunate.

[Dog Soldier]

Dog Soldier might be a bit fed up with my commentary by now, as he might think I'm saying that all his results come from luck, but what I'm trying to say is that there's a fairly narrow number of results that the system allows which in this case doesn't give a truly significant advantage to the side with better crews, vehicles and guns. It's similar to the way attacking bunkers works.

I think you have missed my points ComradeP. The results of combat are not random or as narrow as you are saying. You are correct that your math posted in this thread is guess work. John Tiller has never supplied the exact math for PzC or SqB, so I doubt that is forth coming for PzB.

I can say that the results of the Germans attacking the bunkers in Gertsovka were correct as far as I can tell from playing this game for well over a year in development. When there was only one Russian platoon (50 men) holding a bunker, close to 250 German infantry and engineers pushed the defending Russian platoon out out in an assault in our game. In my experience this make sense. 5:1 numbers coupled with the strong assault factors for engineers assisting the infantry should carry the day. However, nothing in warfare is guaranteed like the result of a mathematical equation. Correct math always yields a consistent result. In the game the correct tactics and use of force will produce a desired result, most of the time, but not always.

When the remaining bunkers in Gertsovka were packed with Russian troops, rooting them out was no easy task for the German infantry. Without heavy weapons support, it was very costly to assault over several turns while taking fire from both the target bunker defenders and the rest of the Russian garrison which concentrated their fire on the German infantry stuck in the open next to the bunker on the main road. This again worked as it should. I would not expect those Russians with near equal numbers in a hard bunker position to just 'roll over' and surrender. At Kusrk many times it is documented that Russians fought for a position until overwhelmed causing greater casualties on the German attackers than in previous battles until Stalingrad. This is what wore down the German offensive at Kursk. The same happens in the game.

Dog Soldier implied that tactics can beat math, but as math decides the result, that isn't how it works. When you gather X amount of men or vehicles and fire or assault, the actual result of that is beyond your control. Variability is a good thing, but it shouldn't by itself be allowed to decide a game in situations where a lot of variable outcomes are possible. An example would be breaking through several rows of bunkers. If the defenders disrupt early, your chance of winning is much greater than if everyone fights to the death, yet there's no significant way you can influence events aside from selecting the best units for the assault.

Correct use of combined arms will make bunker lines easier to break. This can be seen in other scenarios. Gertsovka and the other 10 turns scenarios are a limited case, where attacking infantry without much support have a tough time dealing with bunkers. Back those same infantry up with some assault guns, PzIVs, and or Tigers and the results are far different.

What Dog Soldier and I are doing currently, like what happened when he assaulted bunkers in Gertsovka, has little to do with tactics, but purely with math and the die rolls derived from them. An example: one of his Churchill units was disrupted with 8 tanks or so. It knocked out 3 of my tanks at 2 hex range. Mathematically speaking, his fire value at hex range 2 wouldn't be enough to deal with the defense rating of a Panzer IV G (19/2 due to being disrupted=9.5, divided by 1.5 range modified= 6,33 which is lower than 10) The system has a lot of variation which limits the effectiveness of good units, keeps casualties low and prevents the Germans from dealing with a numerically superior foe without it closing in.

This description is not entirely accurate, which is understandable in the FOW situation. for one thing, the Churchill tank unit had rallied and was not disrupted. And they had friends fire with them. That is how they eliminated the last two PzIVg's in a platoon at two hex range.

FWIW, your own posts confirm armor combat is working well. Against Pijus Magnificus in your post #23 in this thread, you show the Victory Dialog from that game. 64 Russian tanks + one A/C lost to only 12 German vehicles. You told me this was due to the Germans engaging the Russians at long range. At longer ranges, I would expect the German PzIVgs to get good results. The quality difference in the forces is most relevant at the longer ranges.
In our game of Nepkhaevo, my Russians have given you very no opportunity to pick off tanks at long ranges. The fire fight between the tank forces has been at close ranges through out the time we are engaged. As at Stalingrad with the street fighting the German quality edge is not so significant when the fighting is in close. A target is a target and more easy to hit at two and three hexes for both side, with neither having a real advantage. This is proved out by our near equal losses. The problem, which was historically a problem, is the the Germans can ill afford to trade losses like this for long.

The Russians at Kursk sought to fight at close ranges. As a player for the Russian side I have done the same and achieved desired results. The equal number of tanks lost reflects the greater loss of overall firepower for the German force as for every PzIVg tank lost the advantage the German force had at start is diminished more than the loss of a T-34 or Churchill to the Soviets. Each round of combat (game turn) has allowed the Russian force to to continue to dish out as much punishment as the Germans do. This is not a good thing for any East Front German commander.

The low casualties also mean establishing overwatch positions isn't likely to work as well as they would in real life, because enemy tank units can always close in and the casualties from opportunity fire are fairly low and fairly random as well.

FWIW, you never set up proper over watch positions in our game of Nepkhaevo with your panzers. In play testing Strela and I did use over watch positions as we advanced the German force with very good results against the Russian tank force. So, I am a bit unimpressed with this statement you are making which is an extrapolation of an an incorrect theory, IMHO. Actual game results in many months of play have demonstrated to my satisfaction that going nose to nose with an equal Russian force in the open at close range can be a bad tactic for a German force.
I think most gamers will agree.

ComradeP waited patiently for four turns for my Russian tanks to run into his trap, but I did not comply. I sent my armored car recon unit ahead and scouted for two turns until I was satisfied I had found enough of the German force to know how to deploy my armor effectively to counter the ambush. You are correct I did not find every last German tank position, but such certainty is not required for a player of my humble skills.

We have both used smoke to our advantage in this game. I even used your smoke rounds to advance close to your tank lines without much defensive fire. Smoke is a two edge sword in this case.

When the smoke cleared in your turn, you got off the first shots. Defensive fire from the Russians was adequate enough to keep them on the fight at such close ranges. The fire from my Russians in my turn tended to even up the losses each turn. And I used my smoke once to cover my advance to the western victory hex you had seized and stay close even as the German tanks tried to back off and extend the range.

The difference in this game (now at turn seven) and your game with Pijus Magnificus is the difference in Russian tactics, not math. 18 Russian vehicles to 14 German ones is a exactly what I was trying to achieve.
I would say in summary, I have done a lot in our game to not let you have your way and use the German force as you would like. But that is the job of an opponent, is it not?

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

I can say that the results of the Germans attacking the bunkers in Gertsovka were correct as far as I can tell from playing this game for well over a year in development.

Whether the results were correct or not isn't my point. Before Gertsovka, we had a discussion if defenders in bunkers could on average be removed in an amount of time that would allow the Germans to win a bunker-heavy scenario, in this case Gertsovka.

Your position was that proper tactics would allow you to do so on average.
My position was that the defenders using the same maximum stacking rules, and the requirement for all units to be disrupted, made it very random and improbable to impossible for well-defended bunkers.

The result of the game was precisely what I had predicted, not what you said would be possible. It didn't have much to do with your tactics or mine, but everything with how the system requires a lot of time+heavy weapons to clear well-defended bunkers, which unbalances short scenarios with a lot of bunkers.

That was the only thing I was trying to prove: that small scenarios with a lot of bunkers can be unbalanced if the defender concentrates his forces in bunkers.

This description is not entirely accurate, which is understandable in the FOW situation. for one thing, the Churchill tank unit had rallied and was not disrupted.

What I meant was that they destroyed 3 tanks in the same turn that they were disrupted in earlier. That's the result that, to me, didn't make much sense. What they did in your next turn was fine.

At longer ranges, I would expect the German PzIVgs to get good results. The quality difference in the forces is most relevant at the longer ranges.

I guess a lot of our disagreement boils down to what a longer range is. In my opinion, and from what the WWII literature implies, WWII Soviet optics and the layout of the T-34 made it unlikely it would hit a target at 750 meters or so, 500 meters would already be somewhat difficult.

Take Panzer Command, just to name a tactical wargame example. A T-34 has just a 20% (unmodified) hit chance of hitting anything at around 750 meters. A Panzer IV G still has a roughly 50% hit chance (unmodified). In Panzer Battles, both weapon systems still function fairly normally. Sure, the range effect decreases effectiveness, but that just influences the die roll instead of it directly preventing hits.

It would also fire much slower than a Panzer IV G, particularly one with an experienced and well trained crew. At 750 meters, it also wouldn't be able to penetrate the armour of a Panzer IV G with APHE ammo. The Panzer IV G would still be able to penetrate the armour of a T-34, albeit barely.

The game doesn't include accuracy, declining armor penetration or rate of fire.

In an evenly matched fight above 500 meters or so, Soviet casualties would start to mount rapidly. In the game, they don't. Like we're both saying: my Kill to Death ratio is poor at the time.

In my opinion, that just isn't a historical depiction of Eastern Front armoured combat. You don't consider 750 meters to be long range, but the maximum range of the weapon systems in the game is highly deceptive when it comes to actual historical performance. Any tank without a long-barreled gun and very good optics reliably hitting anything at over 1000 meters not to mention 2000 meters was a rare event.

FWIW, you never set up proper over watch positions in our game of Nepkhaevo with your panzers. In play testing Strela and I did use over watch positions as we advanced the German force with very good results against the Russian tank force. So, I am a bit unimpressed with this statement you are making which is an extrapolation of an an incorrect theory, IMHO. Actual game results in many months of play have demonstrated to my satisfaction that going nose to nose with an equal Russian force in the open at close range can be a bad tactic for a German force.

What would you consider proper overwatch positions?

My forces were and are positioned some 3 to 4 hexes away, and initially did require your tanks to move in closer. The problem is that opportunity fire casualties are so (ahistorically) low that you can't reliably set up overwatch positions at realistic combat ranges.

Sure, I could've placed my Panzer IV G's further to the rear, but that wouldn't have been realistic. Most of the casualties I caused to Pijus Magnificus were at very ahistorical ranges.

Again, this is what's at the core of our argument: what a historical engagement range is. The game doesn't really force you to fight at historical ranges, and it currently has insufficient mechanics to prevent enemy tank forces from closing in.

Take that scenario with the 2 Tigers. In the game, the Soviets can close in whilst taking 2-3 losses or so, maybe 4. Historically, a single Tiger knocked out over 20 tanks. Such a result is just not likely to happen in the game.

ComradeP waited patiently for four turns for my Russian tanks to run into his trap, but I did not comply.

Actually, I just wanted to see if you committed your tanks elsewhere.

I already knew from my own testing that the tank vs. tank mechanics wouldn't allow me to establish a clear superiority at ranges below 4 hexes or so.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how historically accurate the current tank/gun vs. tank/gun model is, whether the Panzer IV G should be a comparable weapon system to a T-34 at 750 meters and whether the current lack of armor penetration, accuracy or rate of fire modelling causes problems with the current engine.

A longer maximum engagement range isn't a good representation of superior accuracy in my opinion, as superior accuracy applies at any range and the superior hard attack value is already reduced by the hard attack vs. defence rule and only influences the final die roll.

If there's anything that shows the variability of die rolls, and that die rolls impact the game more than tactics in many cases is the way casualties are caused. You fire at an enemy unit and you might get No Effect, Fatigue or 1 or 2 enemy vehicles being lost. But what did I actually do to influence that? What did Dog Soldier actually do to influence his Disrupted tank unit destroying 3 tanks? Nothing, they were all just determined by the system.

If the mathematical basis of the system is ignored as the primary cause of the results we see, some things might never be improved. We need to be able to look at results with an open mind and think: what happens here, how does it happen, is it supposed to happen according to what we're told about how the system should work and is this what should happen historically? The tank/gun vs. tank/gun system is one of the mechanics that could benefit from changes.

[Dog Soldier]

That was the only thing I was trying to prove: that small scenarios with a lot of bunkers can be unbalanced if the defender concentrates his forces in bunkers.

I agree the 10 turn scenarios are not much good at PBEM play. Against the AI they work fine. They are essentially training battles.

What I meant was that they destroyed 3 tanks in the same turn that they were disrupted in earlier. That's the result that, to me, didn't make much sense. What they did in your next turn was fine.

I think what you observed was the T-34 unit one hex south of the disrupted Churchill tanks. As I saw it the T-34s defensively fired at PzIVgs at two hexes range (500 meters) as the panzers paraded into the crossfire hex from behind the smoke. The panzers were close and in the open. Three Soviet tank units had clear LOS and one and two hex ranges to this hex.
The other good order Churchill unit fired at two and three hexes at the panzers. This crossfire on the panzers advancing next to the disrupted Churchill tanks (and point blank range) caused most of the German panzer losses in the German move. The disrupted Churchill tank killed one of those panzers at a one hex range. Disrupted units are not helpless. There were also many fatigue shots on the panzers as they moved to the hex adjacent to the disrupted Churchill tanks. 17 and 19 H/A factors at such close ranges on panzers with a 10 defense factor should result in panzer wrecks. Why not?

What would you consider proper overwatch positions?

About two or three hexes behind a line with the PzIIIm units in front. The PzIIIm tanks have a 12/6 H/A which means they also have to be close due to the short range of their guns. The PzIIIM tanks have a higher defense value to do this than the PzIVg tanks. (11 versus 10 defense values) Not much, but every bit helps.
The PzIVgs have 26/10 HA values. They can shoot well beyond where the PzIIIms are placed 500 - 750 meters in front of them depending on terrain. The extra two or three hexes makes the Russian tanks less effective against the PzIVgs if the Soviets do not move closer than two or three hexes from the PzIIIm picket line. If the soviets try to close with the PzIVg tanks this causes a problem if the Soviets ignore the closer PzIIIm tanks.
The closest the Soviet armor can get is three hexes away form the PzIvg units at the risk of being point blank adjacent to the PzIIIm tanks. With ranges of 6 & 8, the T-34s and Churchill tanks would be at only half range. Half range is a good place to be if you are a Squad Battles player, you know this. Still not a comfortable position at all for the Soviets!

T-34 H/A 17/6
T-34 defense 18
Churchill H/A 19/8
Churchill defense 19

PzIIIm H/A 12/6
PzIIIm defense 11
PzIVg H/A 26/10
PzIvg defense 10

The Russian defense values are nearly twice as good as the German tanks. To use the Soviet tanks H/A factors effectively, the Soviet tankers need to close to two and three hexes as I did using your smoke and my own smoke rounds to cover that advance from most of your defensive fire. Thus the ineffective defensive fire you claim. When the smoke cleared we were in a kill zone range where the Russians could give as good as good as they got because your PzIIIms and PzIVgs were mixed up together in a single line. This is my point about tactics.

Ideally the Germans at #0706_07 Nepkhaevo - The Meeting Engagement should advance or fight their way to the ridge line west of the town. The units would not be full strength as in the image below. The Russians would be driven back to the town or the outskirts of the town. The deployment of the PzIIIms is just a sample. It would be different based on the Soviet deployments. This is an ideal over watch with the strong PzIvg units on the crest of the ridge.

ComradeP waited patiently for four turns for my Russian tanks to run into his trap, but I did not comply.

Actually, I just wanted to see if you committed your tanks elsewhere.

I already knew from my own testing that the tank vs. tank mechanics wouldn't allow me to establish a clear superiority at ranges below 4 hexes or so.

I guess we agree then that a range below four hexes (from you own tests) is a good place for the Soviets to be if they can get there in one piece. Smoke helps no matter who deploys it.

Dog Soldier

[Bayes]

Thanks for the very interesting discussion Dog Soldier and ComradeP!

Panzer Campaigns, and now Panzer Battles, are definitively my favorite games, and I must say that I am truly impressed by the mathematical elegance of the engine design, as well as the richness and details of the scenarios.

In order to cast some light on the discussion, I have made a small simulation using the in my opinion very well-documented game rules. The simulation is simplified and focuses on range effect (disruption and reaction fire was not implemented). In brief, I have conducted 10 000 battles between 10 PzKw IVg and 10 T34 76d, and calculated the average number of wins for various ranges and various first shooters (a win is here defined as total destruction of the enemy).

First shooter 10 T34 76d:

Range 1: PzKw IVg wins 56% of the time.
Range 2: PzKw IVg wins 66% of the time.
Range 3: PzKw IVg wins 68% of the time.
Range 4: PzKw IVg wins 69% of the time.
Range 5: PzKw IVg wins 70% of the time.
Range 6: PzKw IVg wins 71% of the time.

First shooter 10 PzKw IVg:

Range 1: PzKw IVg wins 96% of the time.
Range 2: PzKw IVg wins 92% of the time.
Range 3: PzKw IVg wins 87% of the time.
Range 4: PzKw IVg wins 84% of the time.
Range 5: PzKw IVg wins 82% of the time.
Range 6: PzKw IVg wins 81% of the time.

What I find astounding with the above results is that with a simple and elegant model of ranged fire, the game engine models that:

* In order to maximize success probability, the T34 should get as close as possible, and being the one that fires first (achieve surprise).
* The PzKw IVgs will get most stable result at long range, however, shooting first at short range is definitively best.

I think maybe these results also confirm the experiences Dog Soldier report.

Note that in the real game, the above stats would favor the PzKw IVg even more because the T34s would also disrupt, reducing effectiveness of their fire.

Back to gaming :-).

Bayes

[Liquid_Sky]

I have noticed that the Panzer Campaign ( and now Battles) games uses a statistical approach to casualties. Over the course of several turns, a tank unit can rack up a considerable number of kills.

While a Tiger may have gotten 20 kills in a couple of turns game time in a historical instance, could every Tiger in every scenario do the same thing? Or was this a fluke occurrence?

[ComradeP]

About two or three hexes behind a line with the PzIIIm units in front.

And that would place them at...5 hexes or so from the T-34's? We then get back to my point that with historical penetration ranges, a Panzer IV G wouldn't be getting penetrating hits unless lucky at 1000 meters or more (so anything above 3 hexes).

I considered using such a picket line like you suggest, but thought the danger of being shotgunned by Soviet armor closing in might be too great, and that the ranges wouldn't be realistic. German formations would historically be closer than 500 meters if they were mutually supporting. The only reason it's possible in the game is because there is no decline of armour penetration when range increases.

The area you suggest as an overwatch position can be both good and bad, it depends on where the Soviet tanks are. If they are waiting at the downhill slope, you might get a first shot in, but then the Soviets can fire back at 1 hex range. It's a risk. I was expecting my tanks to perform better than they're doing at 3 hexes now, but at 1 or 2 hexes the danger becomes greater.

Generally speaking, the Germans will still win an evenly matched fight, but won't be able to reproduce historical results, whereas the Soviets will tend to get better tanks destroyed vs. tanks lost ratios than their historical counterparts at ranges below 4 hexes.

Also: most of our firefights do occur at 3 or 4 hex range. That's more or less where I see the problem: the in-game Germans just don't have the clear superiority they had at such ranges.

While a Tiger may have gotten 20 kills in a couple of turns game time in a historical instance, could every Tiger in every scenario do the same thing? Or was this a fluke occurrence?

Technically, it's possible. With there being no ammo limitations, the only limits are time, the number of targets and the number of shots per turn, provided your tank unit stays alive. However, on average high quality tank units will perform more poorly than their historical counterparts at historical engagement ranges, because they inflict far fewer casualties in the timeframe of 30 minutes.

Though they can theoretically outperform their historical counterparts within the limits mentioned above, in-game tanks engage in tank fights that are slow, methodical affairs compared to the fast-paced and often chaotic tank fights in the war.