Panzer Battles 2 - The Official Teaser Thread

[Strela]

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.

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