Panther v Tiger hard attack value issue

[DesertedFox]

So the only Tigers the US forces would have encountered was the Tiger II, and the Tiger II gun IS better than the Panther 75mm L70, so the game data is correct.

The game data is incorrect. The discussion is between Tiger 1 and the Panther. No one is disputing the Tiger 2's gun had

better armor penetration than the Panther.

I think also the rounds available, had great value in real combat !

Tiger I =92
Panther =79
Tiger II =86
T34/76 =77
T34/85 =56
M4-75 =109
M4-76 =71
M4-Firefly =77
M36 =47
Crommwell = 64
KV I =111
IS II =28


Well, it's your design and you have the final say. This appears to be grasping at straws though.

By this criteria, the M36 and IS II would be extremely ineffective in terms of armor penetration when in fact the exact opposite was true.

I do understand the game data is a reflection of all aspects of the tank in battle, however, ammo loadout would have minimum effect imho. For example, the Tiger 1 has a greater hard armor defense than the Panther despite being slower and having less effective frontal armor but superior side armor. That is fair enough.

However, just looking at the M36 it has superior hard armor defense than the Panther despite having all-round inferior armor and actually being slightly slower than the Panther. Also, the M36 has vastly superior soft defense by the looks of it than all the medium tanks in the game of both sides, despite the fact it is open-topped.

I'll draw the curtain on my comments as to the data as it could end up being in the middle of a minefield. I will make my own adjustments.

[Capt Cliff]

The game data is incorrect.

Well I am afraid to say sir but you are wrong. The game data for this operational level game IS CORRECT! If this was a tactical level game then I would say yes! But for this operational level game with only a handful of Tiger's, either I's or II's, in the OOB it was a good assessment of the 2 Tiger unit's capability at an operational level. Did you ever play the Armor game by Yaquinto (sp)? It's a paper chit game that was a tactical level game where your assessment would fit.

So no the game data is correct. What they did for these two tigers units was a good and practical methodology, without getting too anal about the difference between Tiger i's and II's. Remember it is an operational level game NOT a tactical game!

[Oberst_Klink]

The game data is incorrect.

Well I am afraid to say sir but you are wrong. The game data for this operational level game IS CORRECT! If this was a tactical level game then I would say yes! But for this operational level game with only a handful of Tiger's, either I's or II's, in the OOB it was a good assessment of the 2 Tiger unit's capability at an operational level. Did you ever play the Armor game by Yaquinto (sp)? It's a paper chit game that was a tactical level game where your assessment would fit.

So no the game data is correct. What they did for these two tigers units was a good and practical methodology, without getting too anal about the difference between Tiger i's and II's. Remember it is an operational level game NOT a tactical game!

One has to make compromises, ja. DC4 is not WinSPWW2 or Combat Mission. I also recall the earliest discussions from TOAW about the various AT/AP etc. values for various tanks. The combat model and the artillery supply issue are more pressing and I am confident Vic is working on it. Being one (with Audie) of the Alpha testers, I know he will.

Klink, Oberst

[MTTODD]

The algorithm used to model the hard attack values does not take the initial velocity into account, so the game data is incorrect.

To argue that the data is correct because the game is an operational game not a tactical game does not make the data values valid.

In any case DC4 has been described as a hybrid game (operational and tactical), meaning that it is important that individual weapons are modelled as accurately as possible.

[nikdav]

I made some tests and I think changing the Shot Weight with the Muzzle Velocity is an easy fix that can help to better simulate the Hard Attack value without great impact on any scenario's balance:

The old and new hard attack value is : (Barrel length mm * 2)*
(Shot weigth in kg )/300----------------------------(Muzzle Velocity/100 in m/s)/300

Tiger I =(( 88*56)*2)*10)/300 ))= 329------------------ 306 (930 m/s)
Panther=(( 75*70)*2)*7)/300 ))= 245 ------------------ 327 (935 m/s)
Tiger II =(( 88*71)*2)*10)/300 ))= 417 ----------------- 458 (1100 m/s)
PZIVL48=(( 75*48)*2)*7)/300 ))= 168 -------------------190 (790 m/s)
T34/76 =(( 76*42)*2)*6)/300 ))= 128 ------------------ 140 (660 m/s)
T34/85 =(( 85*52)*2)*8)/300 ))= 236 ------------------ 233 (790 m/s)
M4-75 =(( 75*31)*2)*7)/300 ))= 109 -------------------- 93 (600 m/s)
M4-76 =(( 76*52)*2)*7)/300 ))= 184 ------------------- 208 (790 m/s)
M4-Firefly = (( 76*55)*2)*8)/300 ))= 223 -------------- 251 (900 m/s)

Now is also fixed the Tiger I - Panther gun penetration value, sorry for the poor good M4-75 !
Thanks all for the feedback !

Davide

[Oberst_Klink]

I made some tests and I think changing the Shot Weight with the Muzzle Velocity is an easy fix that can help to better simulate the Hard Attack value without great impact on any scenario's balance:

The old and new hard attack value is : (Barrel length mm * 2)*
(Shot weigth in kg )/300----------------------------(Muzzle Velocity/100 in m/s)/300

Tiger I =(( 88*56)*2)*10)/300 ))= 329------------------ 306 (930 m/s)
Panther=(( 75*70)*2)*7)/300 ))= 245 ------------------ 327 (935 m/s)
Tiger II =(( 88*71)*2)*10)/300 ))= 417 ----------------- 458 (1100 m/s)
PZIVL48=(( 75*48)*2)*7)/300 ))= 168 -------------------190 (790 m/s)
T34/76 =(( 76*42)*2)*6)/300 ))= 128 ------------------ 140 (660 m/s)
T34/85 =(( 85*52)*2)*8)/300 ))= 236 ------------------ 233 (790 m/s)
M4-75 =(( 75*31)*2)*7)/300 ))= 109 -------------------- 93 (600 m/s)
M4-76 =(( 76*52)*2)*7)/300 ))= 184 ------------------- 208 (790 m/s)
M4-Firefly = (( 76*55)*2)*8)/300 ))= 223 -------------- 251 (900 m/s)

Now is also fixed the Tiger I - Panther gun penetration value, sorry for the poor good M4-75 !
Thanks all for the feedback !

Davide

Davide

any chance to see the combat value table as Excel uploaded to Vic's scenario bank? Would like to prepare some Soviet tanks etc. in case somebody is tempted to create a Korsun '44 scenario.

Thanks!

Klink, Oberst

[MTTODD]

I made some tests and I think changing the Shot Weight with the Muzzle Velocity is an easy fix that can help to better simulate the Hard Attack value without great impact on any scenario's balance:

The old and new hard attack value is : (Barrel length mm * 2)*
(Shot weigth in kg )/300----------------------------(Muzzle Velocity/100 in m/s)/300

Tiger I =(( 88*56)*2)*10)/300 ))= 329------------------ 306 (930 m/s)
Panther=(( 75*70)*2)*7)/300 ))= 245 ------------------ 327 (935 m/s)
Tiger II =(( 88*71)*2)*10)/300 ))= 417 ----------------- 458 (1100 m/s)
PZIVL48=(( 75*48)*2)*7)/300 ))= 168 -------------------190 (790 m/s)
T34/76 =(( 76*42)*2)*6)/300 ))= 128 ------------------ 140 (660 m/s)
T34/85 =(( 85*52)*2)*8)/300 ))= 236 ------------------ 233 (790 m/s)
M4-75 =(( 75*31)*2)*7)/300 ))= 109 -------------------- 93 (600 m/s)
M4-76 =(( 76*52)*2)*7)/300 ))= 184 ------------------- 208 (790 m/s)
M4-Firefly = (( 76*55)*2)*8)/300 ))= 223 -------------- 251 (900 m/s)

Now is also fixed the Tiger I - Panther gun penetration value, sorry for the poor good M4-75 !
Thanks all for the feedback !

Davide

Well done Davide, a nice elegant idea, certainly an improvement on the current algorithm.

[Oberst_Klink]

Now we need the Excel sheet for the whole trooptypes and I will be happy.

@Davide: The new values (for all the tanks, Pak, ATG and StuG/JPz, Tank Destroyers will be incorporated with the next open beta patch?

Klink, Oberst

[Rusty1961]

Hi,

Thanks everyone for contributing to the discussion, always great when done in a friendly way!

I'm no expert, but always been interested in military stuff(especially tank), so when I saw Panther hard attack
less than Tiger 1, it instantly looked wrong to me.

It's a great game, and as I said the algorithm probably works most of the time.

But would still be interested in the designers of the game and there views on including the 'Initial velocity' in the game calculation.

Everyone have a great day!

Panther should have a higher AP rating and Tiger have a higher soft-attack rating.

[MTTODD]

Now we need the Excel sheet for the whole trooptypes and I will be happy.

@Davide: The new values (for all the tanks, Pak, ATG and StuG/JPz, Tank Destroyers will be incorporated with the next open beta patch?

Klink, Oberst

Is there a chance that the new values will be in the next beta patch?

[nikdav]

Working on this !

[MTTODD]

Thank you!

[Oberst_Klink]

Working on this !

Danke!

Klink. Oberst

[MTTODD]

Working on this !

Hi,

Any updates on when you will implement the update?

Many thanks.

[vege1]

Should already be implemented in the latest beta (have not yet tested it myself):

Changelist for v1.05
- All scenarios revised and updated to scenario version 1.41
- Revised trooptypes and models and also updated pdf files
- Revised tanks Attack Values (with muzzle velocity.)
...

[MTTODD]

Should already be implemented in the latest beta (have not yet tested it myself):

Changelist for v1.05
- All scenarios revised and updated to scenario version 1.41
- Revised trooptypes and models and also updated pdf files
- Revised tanks Attack Values (with muzzle velocity.)
...

That's great, thanks for your help