1.02 patch for Panzer Battles Normandy - Released

[RichG]

In the Omaha scenarios some of the American infantry and mortars are spawning in the sea on arrival (and can't move). Is this correct?
The units can be picked up by empty landing craft and transported in to shore, so I'm guessing this is to simulate troops whose craft have been sunk and are left swimming. But just want to check....

[CaptEggman]

Sorry for the problem guys, I just finished uploading a file that is correct. [...] That should get you going again.

Yes, this absolutely did the trick! 

Thanks

[GerryM]

David:

I had asked a question in another thread about disruption in terms of high losses for a unit and you replied in part:

"A lot of the conversations here are around losses vs disruptions etc, We won't be changing anything until we get some decent logging mechanisms that allow us to understand how the code handles these things.

John writes REALLY solid code, but you have to understand there are some segments that are approaching 20 years old. One example, we queried the combat report that appears when you turn the 'On Map' results off. Ricky B, Chris Haigh and I tried to reconcile the values we were calculating to what was being shown. Guess what - they didn't align. The code worked properly but the reporting didn't. We want to understand how the code works and then run a decent number of simulations to understand the range of values generated. Berto is building a logging system so we can understand how the code works, where the bugs are and then to run multiple simulations with it.

We don't want to start changing things in the depths of the code until we understand it and even then we find that tweaking values in the parameter files may give us what we're looking for. This really is a feature rich engine and we want to really understand it before making any significant changes."

So I am just wondering has the team thought about this and decided on any changes. Thanks again,

Gerry

[Strela]

David:

I had asked a question in another thread about disruption in terms of high losses for a unit and you replied in part:

"A lot of the conversations here are around losses vs disruptions etc, We won't be changing anything until we get some decent logging mechanisms that allow us to understand how the code handles these things.

John writes REALLY solid code, but you have to understand there are some segments that are approaching 20 years old. One example, we queried the combat report that appears when you turn the 'On Map' results off. Ricky B, Chris Haigh and I tried to reconcile the values we were calculating to what was being shown. Guess what - they didn't align. The code worked properly but the reporting didn't. We want to understand how the code works and then run a decent number of simulations to understand the range of values generated. Berto is building a logging system so we can understand how the code works, where the bugs are and then to run multiple simulations with it.

We don't want to start changing things in the depths of the code until we understand it and even then we find that tweaking values in the parameter files may give us what we're looking for. This really is a feature rich engine and we want to really understand it before making any significant changes."

So I am just wondering has the team thought about this and decided on any changes. Thanks again,

Gerry

Hi Gerry,

There have been a number of things done with this in the latest patch. Probably the most important of these is a new parameter field called 'Fatigue Factor'.

There was a whole conversation around how disruption was rarely happening due to losses. The main reason for that was that the calculation had inadvertently been changed from PzB to PzC. Essentially units were only taking two thirds of the fatigue per loss as compared to Panzer Campaigns. That's why units were more resilient than expected. The Fatigue factor allows us to match the value back to Panzer Campaigns or any other value we think appropriate.

The equivalent value to match the equation in PzC is 3.0. The first two PzB games have a 2.0 value. We have not changed them to 3.0 as none of the scenarios were tested or balanced with a 3.0 value in mind. For PzB 3 and the Demo we are planning to use 3.0. We are seeing a definite change, units are much more susceptible to disruption and breaking due to losses vs the old defense till death seen previously. You are more than welcome to change the parameter value in Normandy and Kursk and see the difference in impact.

The other thing we have been testing is adjusting the range attenuation factor. We have been using 1.1 (vs 1.5) in the desert and the impact is stark. Do NOT let an 88mm Flak see you. This is again a real possibility for a title like Kursk where there were pretty clear lines of fire. This needs deeper testing as it impacts all fire but may fix many of the issues people have complained about regarding lethality at range. One important caveat is that this impacts all fire - soft or hard (but not indirect) so it may require some revision of the actual ranges.

Finally as far as combat reporting etc, I have lots of ideas that would add real value to the system, but we have higher priority deliverable's currently. You will see more on this though in the future.

David

[Ricky B]

In the Omaha scenarios some of the American infantry and mortars are spawning in the sea on arrival (and can't move).  Is this correct?  
The units can be picked up by empty landing craft and transported in to shore, so I'm guessing this is to simulate troops whose craft have been sunk and are left swimming.  But just want to check....

Hi Rich

You are 100% correct. I wanted the initial landings on Omaha to be a confused mess, and used scatter to do so. This results in some units landing on the beach instead of the shallows (landed a few minutes early) and others scattering out to sea. As you suggest, my thought was they were in damaged craft and had to await pickup, and hence the empty landing craft scattered about.

I didn't do that on the other beaches as they weren't quite as mixed up, but I thought it really played well on Omaha that way.

Rick

[Ricky B]

Not only the German 88s, but the Italians had a number of high velocity guns that were deadly at range in the desert battles, and they too take a toll on the British armor.

Rick

[Strela]

Not only the German 88s, but the Italians had a number of high velocity guns that were deadly at range in the desert battles, and they too take a toll on the British armor.

Rick

Of interest a number of those Italian high velocity guns are actually 88's that were given to them and using their Italian designation.

They are deadly at range...!

Rick should know as he has used them in a number of the scenarios he has designed...!

David

[Ricky B]

Not only the German 88s, but the Italians had a number of high velocity guns that were deadly at range in the desert battles, and they too take a toll on the British armor.

Rick

Of interest a number of those Italian high velocity guns are actually 88's that were given to them and using their Italian designation.

They are deadly at range...!

Rick should know as he has used them in a number of the scenarios he has designed...!

David

True David. They also have some naval guns mounted on trucks:

The Italians also had made an ingenious ‘secret’ weapon, by taking several 102mm naval guns from a damaged war ship

These are in action in one scenario so far. I don't remember the Italian ship they are on, but have a source on it somewhere. Mike and the OOB has it all covered.

[Xaver]

Thanks for the info, i like read about a posible solution to the long range AT combat problem... well, in 1941 is not like the tanks used in north Africa be long range AT snipers but a good representation of 88s role is good and could help in Kursk and similar titles where AT combat at range was possible.

PzB3 looks like "the game" for north africa combat, since "Steel Panthers" i dont play a "perfect" title about it, even when the CC5 mods were well done the engine fails a little and PzC Tobruk and El-Alamein ... i never find myself confortable with them even when are good.

Talking about ships... as curiosity, if in a "title" appear a ship like San Giorgio... you think is better has it as the naval guns in Normandy or like a normal ship??? in the end you cant sink it.

PD: curious about if this week we are going to see a new post entrance... last one started the hype train 

[GerryM]

Hi Gerry,

There have been a number of things done with this in the latest patch. Probably the most important of these is a new parameter field called 'Fatigue Factor'.

There was a whole conversation around how disruption was rarely happening due to losses. The main reason for that was that the calculation had inadvertently been changed from PzB to PzC. Essentially units were only taking two thirds of the fatigue per loss as compared to Panzer Campaigns. That's why units were more resilient than expected. The Fatigue factor allows us to match the value back to Panzer Campaigns or any other value we think appropriate.

The equivalent value to match the equation in PzC is 3.0. The first two PzB games have a 2.0 value. We have not changed them to 3.0 as none of the scenarios were tested or balanced with a 3.0 value in mind. For PzB 3 and the Demo we are planning to use 3.0. We are seeing a definite change, units are much more susceptible to disruption and breaking due to losses vs the old defense till death seen previously. You are more than welcome to change the parameter value in Normandy and Kursk and see the difference in impact.

The other thing we have been testing is adjusting the range attenuation factor. We have been using 1.1 (vs 1.5) in the desert and the impact is stark. Do NOT let an 88mm Flak see you. This is again a real possibility for a title like Kursk where there were pretty clear lines of fire. This needs deeper testing as it impacts all fire but may fix many of the issues people have complained about regarding lethality at range. One important caveat is that this impacts all fire - soft or hard (but not indirect) so it may require some revision of the actual ranges.

Finally as far as combat reporting etc, I have lots of ideas that would add real value to the system, but we have higher priority deliverable's currently. You will see more on this though in the future.

David

Thanks David for the nice and interesting explanation as always.