How do you improve PzB???

[Xaver]

Is not clain 1 Tiger kill 20 tanks in 2-3 turns, is made in general small units in german side usefull, 2 Tigers are practically useless and 1 tank is like dont have it, if you have a 10-15 panzer unit they have a relative well performance against soviet armor BUT in the moment you have less than 5 panzers performance is a joke.

The point for me is german and soviet armor doesnt suffer the same degradation in range combat, i think game needs separate the range modificator by nation and add a value to mark certain tanks as "killers" to increase their kill rate, to be fair, i see more usefull 10 PzIII i a single unit over 2 Tigers and well, this is not specially historical.

The armored problem for me is extended to AT guns to.

Soviets try allways short range ASAP and avoid range combats but at 3 hexes or even 4 T-34/76 9 tanks units are capable to deal with Tigers and made this units lose tanks... in some test 2 Tigers at 4 hexes cant kill T-34/76s only increase their fatigue... with luck, but the 9 T-34/76 can destroy the Tigers... they were guard units but you think at 1.000m kill a Tiger with the T-34/76 is ok???

I like the game but the armored/AT combat for me needs something more, more details to control by designers sure help to adjust AT combat performance.

[Bayes]

Hi again! Here are some more statistics after implementing the Disruption rules in the simulation I put together (opportunity fire still not included). Again 10 000 battles are performed, now looking at 2 Tigers vs a varying number of non-guard T-34. The Tigers are shooting first at Range 1. A battle is won if all of the opposing tanks are eliminated.

2 Tigers vs 1 T-34: Tigers win 99% of the battles, average number of rounds 1.8
2 Tigers vs 2 T-34: Tigers win 96% of the battles, average number of rounds 3.2
2 Tigers vs 3 T-34: Tigers win 87% of the battles, average number of rounds 4.7
2 Tigers vs 4 T-34: Tigers win 73% of the battles, average number of rounds 5.8
2 Tigers vs 5 T-34: Tigers win 56% of the battles, average number of rounds 6.3
2 Tigers vs 6 T-34: Tigers win 40% of the battles, average number of rounds 6.4
2 Tigers vs 7 T-34: Tigers win 25% of the battles, average number of rounds 6.0
2 Tigers vs 8 T-34: Tigers win 15% of the battles, average number of rounds 5.4

If I instead use the Hard Attack values for Tiger and T-34 from Panzer Campaigns (39 and 14, respectively, instead of 17 and 32), I get the following results:

2 Tigers vs 1 T-34: Tigers win 99.8% of the battles, average number of rounds 1.7
2 Tigers vs 2 T-34: Tigers win 98% of the battles, average number of rounds 3.0
2 Tigers vs 3 T-34: Tigers win 94% of the battles, average number of rounds 4.3
2 Tigers vs 4 T-34: Tigers win 86% of the battles, average number of rounds 5.7
2 Tigers vs 5 T-34: Tigers win 75% of the battles, average number of rounds 6.6
2 Tigers vs 6 T-34: Tigers win 61% of the battles, average number of rounds 7.3
2 Tigers vs 7 T-34: Tigers win 48% of the battles, average number of rounds 7.5
2 Tigers vs 8 T-34: Tigers win 36% of the battles, average number of rounds 7.5

Note that the shortest battle in all of the above scenarios was over in just 1 round, i.e., things can happen fast, but on average the battles are more lengthy.

In other words, to me, it looks like the current system works quite well, also for a smaller number of high quality tanks. However, some of you may prefer returning to the PzC Hard Attack values to make the Tigers more effective?

Bayes

[Xaver]

The question is, in 30 minutes, 10 T-34 close range against 2 Tigers with clear terrain and finish in next hex with 0 casualties... this is something that needs a fix, is not a question of increase Hard attack, is a question to made certain tanks in certain situations more letal... as i say for me A and B side needs separate values to control the range combat and maybe is necesary a PDT value to add a "kill modificator" by tank class... i think Tiger has 4 and this made lets see... 4x chance to destroy a tank after shot, PzIV have 2.5 etc etc, this could be only active at range combat (2 or more hexes) and at close combat not special bonus.

For me the PzC system at this scale in AT combat is to simple and doesnt cover all situations like the value of a single tank.

[Bayes]

I agree that the Tiger has a somewhat limited ability to stop approaching T-34s during the opponent turn. My results only show that a Tiger can succeed against superior numbers, also at short range. However, the expected number of kills per shot for a single Tiger is quite low at long range.

Here are the expected number of kills per shot at different ranges (2 decimals). And in the opponent turn, these kill opportunities can only be realized in the case of opportunity fire...

Tiger vs T-34

Range 1: 0,12 vs 0,02
Range 2: 0,08 vs 0,02
Range 3: 0,06 vs 0,01
Range 4: 0,05 vs 0,01
Range 5: 0,04 vs 0,01
Range 6: 0,03 vs 0,01
Range 7: 0,03
Range 8: 0,03
Range 9: 0,02
Range 10: 0,02
Range 11: 0,02
Range 12: 0,02
Range 13: 0,02
Range 14: 0,02
Range 15: 0,02
Range 16: 0,01


Bayes

The question is, in 30 minutes, 10 T-34 close range against 2 Tigers with clear terrain and finish in next hex with 0 casualties... this is something that needs a fix, is not a question of increase Hard attack, is a question to made certain tanks in certain situations more letal... as i say for me A and B side needs separate values to control the range combat and maybe is necesary a PDT value to add a "kill modificator" by tank class... i think Tiger has 4 and this made lets see... 4x chance to destroy a tank after shot, PzIV have 2.5 etc etc, this could be only active at range combat (2 or more hexes) and at close combat not special bonus.

For me the PzC system at this scale in AT combat is to simple and doesnt cover all situations like the value of a single tank.

[Bayes]

Maybe the Hard Attack value for Tiger drops too quickly with range, being divided by 8.5 at range 16 (that means that you must have 8.5 times more tanks to fully compensate for the range effect). In JTCS, which is quite similar to Panzer Battles, Tiger also starts with a Hard Attack value of 32, but this value is only divided by 4 at range 16. Further, the Tiger there attacks T-34 at odds 1:1 at range 14 (a kill probability of 0.1 in JTCS), making it much more lethal at longer ranges.

Bayes

[ComradeP]

Bayes, in the end winning the fight in a timely manner is just as important as winning the fight when given all the turns required to do so.

Currently, tank strengths drop (very) slowly, which means the attacker either can't advance or will have to do so at a slower pace.

A scenario like Nepkhaevo can in essence be won by simply capturing the two VP's on the hill on turn 2 if the Soviets don't move up and defending them until the end of the game, but that's not a very interesting way to win it.

I didn't expect that my tanks would perform as poorly as they're doing now, though.

Like with PzC, I find myself thinking of ways to counter the problems with parts of the system, instead of a credible and fairly historical strategy. You either have to fire from long range if you have plenty of time, which is ahistorical because the tanks wouldn't be able to penetrate the frontal armour of a T-34 beyond 3 hexes (and the Panzer III M not beyond 2), or get in close and make it a massacre for both sides that you'll eventually win because your tanks are somewhat better. At 3-4 hexes, the game just doesn't give historical results or casualty figures.

In the example deployment Dog Soldier posted, the Panzer IV's are 500 meters behind the Panzer III's, which means the tanks are only mutually supporting in theory or by the grace of the long range of the Panzer IV's gun.

It has always felt odd that whilst infantry combat is fairly brutal, tank vs. tank (and combat involving guns in cover as long as there's no artillery involved) is not very lethal at all. It's one of the areas where more or less copying parts of the PzC system causes problems.

[Bayes]

I agree with some of your analysis ComradeP.

However, here is a counter example to your claim that tank battles are non-brutal in Panzer Battles. When I first played Nepkhaevo - The Meeting Engagement as the Russians, I split my tanks in two groups and got caught at close range in the open. At the end of the scenario, I had lost all of my tanks, and the Germans gained a major victory. Felt pretty brutal :-).

If I simulate a battle between 20 Guard T-34 and 20 PzKw IVg at Range 1 (opportunity fire not simulated), this can also be studied more systematically. Assume that one part breaks off the battle when 5 or less tanks are left. Then 10 000 battles ends in the following amount of rounds:

14% ends in 2 rounds
67% ends in 3 rounds
16% ends in 4 rounds
2% ends in 5 rounds
1% ends in 6 rounds

E.g., in one play the battle could be over in 2 rounds, perhaps feeling brutal, while in another play, the battle could take 6 rounds, perhaps feeling lengthy. I guess the question is whether the overall distribution of outcomes is a rough approximation of what can happen in real-life, and determining this for all aspects of the game probably takes a huge amount of play testing.

Note that in the above scenario, firing first, the PzKw IVgs wins 99.75% of the battles, with 15 remaining tanks on average.

If the battles takes place at Range 6, on the other hand, the low probability of causing kills at long range will make the battles much more lengthy. Then the distribution becomes as follows:

1% ends in 6 rounds
7% ends in 7 rounds
15% ends in 8 rounds
17% ends in 9 rounds
16% ends in 10 rounds
12% ends in 11 rounds
10% ends in 12 rounds
7% ends in 13 rounds
5% ends in 14 rounds
3% ends in 15 rounds
2% ends in 16 rounds
and so on…

with the PzKw IVgs winning 93% of the battles with an average of 13 remaining tanks.

If one would, as Xaver suggests, provide unit types with individual Range Effect Modifiers, one could for instance give the PzKw IVg a modifier of 1.25 instead of 1.5 to reflect superiority at long range. Then the battles at Range 6 end more quickly and the PzKw IVgs win 99.9% of the time:

13% ends in 4 rounds
44% ends in 5 rounds
31% ends in 6 rounds
10% ends in 7 rounds
2% ends in 8 rounds

Here 17 PzKw IVs remain on average, after winning the battle.

As a final comment, addressing ComradePs example of inability to take out T-34 at long range. I do not think rare occurrences should be impossible, but instead have a low probability of happening. As an example, I set up a battle between 5 T-34 and a Tiger at long range in Combat Mission. The game reported that it was more or less impossible for the T-34 to penetrate the armor of the Tiger. Yet, the T-34s won the battle because they managed to damage the gun of the Tiger.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what David et al comes up with regarding ranged combat. :-)

Bayes

[ComradeP]

It's quite possible to knock out all Soviet tanks at range 1, but the question is: is that realistic?

This turn, I moved my tanks forwards so that they were adjacent to Dog Soldier's units. His losses increased significantly. As his forces are presumably fairly worn out and he doesn't have all that many C or D morale tanks left aside from T-70's (assuming one of the disrupted T-34 units that was assaulted is now E morale, but it might still be D), opportunity fire and return fire only inflicted a handful of losses. It just feels wrong that I have to close the range to 1 hex to get good casualty figures.

The part of the system I have a problem with is the fairly random casualties at about 3 hexes, and possibly also at 2 although they're much better at that range.

If the Germans have to end up adjacent to Soviet units for a good kill ratio, that further nullifies the differences between both sides as at 1 hex range it matters more who can fire more often, so the attacker tends to have an advantage as he can normally fire twice after moving.

I know there a gun can be knocked out, turrets can jam, optics can be damaged and so forth, as destroyed tanks are often knocked out without being a total loss.

If we'd run a test in a game like Panzer Command, or possibly the upcoming East Front Combat Mission, and let 34 elite Panzer IV G's (late production model) and 24 elite Panzer III M's engage 30 regular/veteran T-34's and 21 regular/veteran Churchill Mk III's at 750 meters and closing or 500 meters and closing, it's not going to have a happy ending for the Soviets. Most tactical wargames have casualty ratios well above the historical losses for most engagements as far as infantry is concerned, but tank battles can feel fairly historical.

In Panzer Command: Ostfront, you'd quickly have a lot of burning Soviet tanks and with each tank that is destroyed, the others are more likely to get hit because there are fewer targets for the Germans to fire at. It might be over within 15 minutes, even.

[Dog Soldier]

Reduced combat effectiveness for the German tank force can be (in part) attributed to accumulated fatigue on the German tank units from their earlier losses.

While trying to adjust for Soviet estimated fatigue, I do not think ComradeP is fully appreciating the effect of fatigue on his German force.

I may be wrong as I can only estimate this also due to FOW in PBEM..

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

The difference between A and B quality in terms of combat effectiveness is much less than the difference between C and D quality. -25% compared to -50%.

One of my two platoon Panzer IV G units became B quality early on after a series of poor fatigue rolls, but other than that my force isn't doing too poorly considering how long the engagement has been going on.