Patch?

[Bayes]

Hi Strela,

Enjoying the game a lot so far, and fully understand the importance of keeping formula complexity and the number of parameters low (to help parameter calibration and avoid the so-called curse of dimensionality, etc.). The new design is in this respect much more concise compared to the older John Tiller Campaign Series (JTCS), with JTCS for instance having range effects specified uniquely for every weapon type for every range.

However, I am a bit puzzled about the fact that Direct Fire Range Effect in Panzer Battles affects all weapon types "equally". Should not weapons supporting long range combat lose their effect more gradually as range increases, relative to weapons with more limited range? Or maybe weapon type is more or less insignificant when compared to other factors such as limited visibility, etc., when modeling range effects?

I would for instance expect that a "8.8cm Flak 18" was more effective than a "7.5cm PAK 40" at range 10 since this is the maximum range of "7.5cm PAK 40", while a "8.8cm Flak 18" can fire up to range 16. Yet, right now, both weapons have the same effect at range 10. In the same manner, I would also expect that the kill ratio for Tiger I vs T-34 increased in favor of Tiger I as range increases from 1 to 6, and not be constant, like it is now.

I am thus currently in favor of tying Range Effect directly to weapon range (M in the formula below). For instance, what about reducing the effect of a weapon gradually to say 20% at maximum range. That is, instead of using the following formula to calculate Range Effect (with R = 1.5 and N referring to fire range):

1 + (N-1) * (R - 1)

why not use:

1 + 4 * (N - 1) / (M - 1)

which introduces the range M of a weapon.

Then "8.8cm Flak 18" would gain an increasing advantage over "7.5cm PAK 40" as range increases. Both starting with Fire Value 32, at Range 10 they would end up at:

9.4 (29% of 32) and 6.4 (20% of 32), respectively.

Still a somewhat simple formula, but with more emphasis on the deadliness of long range weapons at long range. "8.8cm Flak 18" would for instance have 20% effect at range 16 instead of just 12% as it has now.

Kill ratio for Tiger I (Quality A) vs T-34 (Quality C) would become:

Range 1 - 4.0:1
Range 2 - 5.7:1
Range 3 - 6.8:1
Range 4 - 7.5:1
Range 5 - 8.1:1
Range 6 - 8.5:1

In other words, a T-34 should try to close in to Range 1 as quickly as possible and not stay at range 6...

What do you think? Good idea or not? :-)

Bayes

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