Battle Test Report

[Mac_MatrixForum]

Originally posted by Drake666:
Charles22, all victorhauser is trying to do is get some talk going about what unit prices need changing and they do need changing badly. I dont agree much with his tests becouse it was computer vs computer and what we really need to look at is what units people are buying the most of in each year and for what country.


Take the T-43 for example.

T-43 available in Feb 42 at a price of 72
vs the
T-34 M43 available in Oct 42 at a price of 72

Now that is just crazy becouse the T-43 has close to twice the armour of the T-34 M43 and they are the same price. Now who would buy a T-34 M43 as it is now in a Email game.

Here are some comments from a recent game in March 1944, Germans (my friend) against Soviets (me). Battleground is a mix of forests and plains with a couple of hills.

Having played a few test battles before the game in that time period, I found out that T-34s were next to worthless (T-34/85 not being avalable yet). I decided that I needed some alternative for my forces. I was not satisfied with the heavier TDs because I predicted I couldn't beat 10+ Panthers with 10 heavy TDs so I settled to buying some cheaper assault guns. I found out that best I could get with my money was the SU-57, an underrated super-destroyer of the Soviet forces. Let me explain why I say so.

There is no way I would've fared well with T-34/M43s because their penetration is not enough to hurt the Panthers in number. Single lucky shots might get through at times but in human vs. human games I've found out that the side with the best tactics has indeed the advantage and combined arms should be somewhat taken into account but the winner has always been decided by tanks. Tanks either being seriously outmatched in quality (who has the best tanks wins) or seriously outmatched in number (equal quality, number wins). So I couldn't match the German quality Panthers with my heavy TDs or heavy tanks in number and I didn't have the superior quality either, I had to take some rather drastic measures.

When buying my units for that battle, I bought some T34/M43s because I thought they fit into the theme (6 lost in the early turns without inflicting any casualties whatsoever), I bought some ISU-122s to punch through when I needed it (having 2 shots per turn as opposed to 4 with SU-57s and 3-4 with Panthers hurts like hell) but with most of my money, yes, I bought SU-57s. They have kept me in the game, so to say. Without them I would've surely lost. I bought a reasonable portion of supporting forces (AT-guns, infantry) but without having those SU-57s to penetrate the Panther armour, I would've lost already. They have a fast move, 4 shots per turn (with country training) and costs only 37 points which is nearly a half of the cost of the T-34/M43 (72). We intend to play the new games with equal experience, even with the new True Cost-option, because the experience counts so much.

So far I have only defended and the SU-57s are perfect for that, move and fire and move back to hiding again. My opponent has been attacking with 10+ Panthers, in the open, because he has the armour thickness and opportunity fire accuracy (and penetration) to survive it. I have to hide in the forests but I don't mind. Sometimes the forces were seriously unmatched and I like interesting games more than winning but nobody likes to lose for certain. I will defend to the last man and SU-57, that is obvious, and with 60 ammo in each (opposed to very little in the heavier tanks) I will last long. Is that enough for me to win? I don't think so, but I will not go down without fighting.

Ok, what can we learn from this? Some units are a little unbalanced, granted. I too think that the German tanks are a bit cheap compared to what for example the Soviets get. This depends a lot on the time period. No game is perfectly balanced from the start but what I think we all want is that the game is improved, even if it's slow and needs iteration after iteration, so that it eventually reaches a level where the winner of the battle is decided by superior tactics and not by the country. Balanced force composition should be a plus and a factor too.

The game is about picking the forces of a set points value. I think it is very important to have equal points battles produce as tight battles as possible (if players are equally good). It is preferable for tournament games as well. The game is IMHO not about modelling support, politics, country doctrines, armour numbers or simulating the exact results of WW2. It's about tactical battles in WW2 and having fun and those are best gained by offering a wide selection of interesting units without game spoiling seriously unbalanced units. Tanks are in a decisive role and they should be balanced first.

</RANT>

I want to thank Matrix Games for listening to the gamers and making this great product. I also wish that SP:W@W will never be ready but is improved, even slowly, until Matrix Games can produce us the next alternative in WW2 and get paid for doing it.

Thank you.


------------------
Markku "Mac" Rontu

"Understanding is a three-edged sword,
your side, their side and the truth."
- Sheridan in B5

[victorhauser]

Originally posted by Tombstone:
. . . Practically speaking though, when I use T-34/85's I like their speed, how much infantry they can carry, and their rate of fire. . .
Tomo

Well, in SPWAW the Tiger I has a speed of 15 and the T-34/85 a speed of 19. This is not a big edge to the T-34/85. The Tiger I and the T-34/85 both have the same rate of fire (4). The Tiger I and the T-34/85 can both carry a standard infantry squad. The Tiger I has superior armor, optics, ammunition load, crew quality (yes indeed--German heavy panzers get a +10 to their experience level for no extra cost), anti-infantry capability, smoke discharger, and hitting power. The T-34/85 has marginally superior speed.

I don't know why I had to run those battle tests either, but several posts claimed that they saw nothing unusual in pricing the T-34/85 at 120 points and the Tiger I at 117 points. But since nobody was willing to consider taking 20 T-34/85s against 20 Tiger Is in a head-to-head test game (itself a pretty strong indicator that "something" wasn't right somewhere), then I was left with the alternative of following Larry's suggestion of having the computer fight against itself.

And while tactically inept, the computer did illustrate some interesting facets to the tests. Paul's "train wreck" analogy was very appropriate--both sides smashed into each other. The battles tended to be fought at very close ranges. I would've thought this would favor the Soviets, but that was not the case. Their rounds consistently bounced off the fronts of the Tigers even at minumum ranges, but with the Tigers it was usually one hit one kill against the T-34/85s.

As an aside, I've yet to see an SPWAW game with "wide-open" visibility such as we used to see in SP1 all the time. In fact, I can't recall more than one or two of the SPWAW games I've played to have a visibility of 30 or more. In all five of the test games (all battles were June 44 in the open plains of Russia) the visibility was 22 or less. I wonder if the SP3 game engine is having a residual, and detrimental, visibility effect here. Hmmmmmmmm!

Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that the Tiger I should necessarily cost 3 times as much as the T-34/85 (although in SP3 the Tiger I cost 2.5 times as much as the T-34/85 [75 to 30]). I realize that SP3 is different than SPWAW and to some extent apples and oranges. But then again, the Tiger I in SP3 didn't have 200mm of front turret armor either.

In any event, all these tests and comments were meant to serve as a starting point, not to be an end in itself. There's a lot more to be done.

[kfbaker]

Makes intresting reading if not on the whole surpricing. I thing the real issue to some extant is that tiger's hardly ever entered the battle field with equal numbers in tanks. I thinks I would favour actualy increasing the amount of purchase points available on a reflective scale instead of tweeking actualy units down in price as you ether end up with two high german cost of two small russian, allied.

I thing this can be dome with the preferencers, trouble is finding the right ballance, but this points the way.

[Fabio Prado]

This test only shows how well thought the armor penetration model used in SPWAW is.

Any number of any Soviet tanks at any time were near the equivalent of the same number of Tigers. And i'm talking only about the Tiger I.

And I quote Tom Jentz in "Tiger I Heavy Tank 1942-1945";

The Tiger I success in combat in the East is reflected in reports from the 503 and 506 sPzAbt. From the beginning of Kursk on 5 July until 21 September 1943, the 503 sPzAbt destroyed 501 enemy tanks (mostly T-34, but also small numbers of KV-1, KV-2, Churchills, and Shermans), 388 anti-tank guns (mostly 76.2 mm anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns), 79 artillery pieces and seven aircraft. During this same period the 503 sPzAbt lost 18 Tigers (only seven burnt out) and their maintenance company reported that they had repaired 240 Tigers.
During their first period of action between 20 September 1943 and 10 January 1944, the 506 sPzAbt reported they destroyed 213 tanks and 194 anti-tank guns and lost 19 Tigers.
This kill ratio, at greater than 10 to 1 was not sustainable during conditions encounterd in 1944 and 1945.

If you are trying to estabilish the cost for the Tiger it must be pretty high. The Tiger was a very expensive model both in terms of material used as well as man-hours.
But, no matter what so and so says, it dominated the battlefield whenever it appeared.

FAP

[Charles22]

Victor has been talking about "performance" or "effectiveness" all this time, and then he accuses me of doing that (in another thread)? Let me make it quite clear, I think this "performance" based pricing is ridiculous, and my KV-1E battle proves that. I haven't the slightest intention of wanting the KV-1E's cost boosted in reparation to killing the Tiger by upping it's cost, but part of my point, in case we're a Russophile or something, is to note that most nations had their up and down periods with quality products. For the campaigner who wants something approaching reality in battles, he should want to suffer in the bad periods and be fully prepared for the good ones. Blasted, adjusting is half the fun. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FAIRNESS IN WAR. Imagine, for example that in adjustment to my illustrated battle and Victors, that we upped the KV-1E and Tiger dramatically. Where's the fear in facing a 1,000 point unit? It would cost so much, that noone would buy it (a lot of fun that would be), and if they did, they could be killed easily be mere infantry. If y'all want "fairness", then go play RTS, the hobby has suffered enough from RTS attack/counterattack units nonsense for too long. Perhaps "Sudden Strike" is the your cup of tea.

I'm into history, I want to have some feeling of what going against a real Tiger or real KV-1E is like, not making it so ridiculously "performance" based a fool would buy it. Interestingly enough, if one actually made the Tiger 3X the expense of the T34/85, even with this sorry AI ram into each other strategy, noone has proposed putting 60 T34/85s up against 20 Tigers, have they (should be a draw)? You might say, well that's unfair, surely being so outnumbered will destroy the Tigers by sheer shot volume alone, and it's true, and yet that's the very thing that's being proposed. Go ahead, put 60 vs. 20 (not that this is the point anyway) or do as Paul said and have half the points of Tigers, in engineers, coming up against Tigers, and see how lame this system is. Inevitable conclusion would lead you to making engineers more expensive than Tigers (which would be more expensive than T34/85s).

What I call for is NO battle related pricing, but IF ANYTHING DIFFERENT, material/production based pricing. At least there's some "history" with that. I realize, that in some respects, particularly when comparing Germany and Russia, that it may coincide with "performance" battle findings on occassion, but surely I've showed the foolhardiness of this "performance" nonsense.

Again, realize, that anytime you make a unit too expensive, noone will buy it. Do you really want that? Do you really want to NEVER face the most awesome unit (which BTW was probably constructed to counter the period when that nation was losing against their enemy's powerful unit)?

[Charles22]

Ah, did the very thing. Put 20 Gerry Tigers, player one against 60 T34/85s, with the same conditions as before. Gerry ended up getting about half of the tanks on a decisive hill, firing from terrain advantage, while Rusky shot about 80% from disadvanatge, 15% no advantage, and relative 5% advantage, not the "performance" results matter, but see how what putting someone "in real life" 3-to-1 disadvantage can do (it should have been worse [also the Soviet force was so large, that for half the battle the Germans were actually firing at no more than a 2-to-1 disadvantage, as Soviet forces spread out in a vast line. The hill area was more like 1-to-1.4]). Note, for a draw to occur, Gerry would need to destroy all Soviets by the time they were destroyed.

18 Tigers destroyed
2 Tigers abandoned
20 T34/85s destroyed
3 T34/85s immobilised
5 T34/85s abandoned

[Blubbs!]

Hi all.

Just a question so slam me if you want.

Tiger 1 costs 117 points
Pershing costs 119 points.

Both seem to be a better tank alround than the Firefly which costs 137 !!!! points.
Could someone enlighten me coz my m8 wont stop moaning about it.

Eh Spunk heheheheheheheheh

[victorhauser]

Charles, have you read my post at 2:01am this morning in the "Unit Prices" topic?

[Nikademus]

have to admit, i too fail to see the point of the test. Too many variables can affect the results though i dont think anyone doubts that in "most situations" 20 heavy Tigers are going to have an edge over even 85mm equiped T-34.

Wild Bill said it best, the tactical sitautions are too myrid and variable for such tests to have a proper basis. I understand though the concern over point costs. Economic factors are much more solid though and should be IMO the prevalient point cost determiner.

Tigers were very expensive and time consuming to build and how many in total were built? 1,000ish (Tiger I) Compare that to over 40,000 T-34.

Hence Tiger's on the battlefield overall were very rare (Mother Russia gives thanks for that ..)

perhaps the Tiger cost should be increased though in the limited # of battles i've fought so far, i hav'nt noticed the AI to choose a preponderance of heavy tanks for its forces. A human player could of course, but two people can easily regulate this. Kinda reminds me of an old SP-1 'edict'/suggestion by email players that for "fairness" (not to mention making the game worth playing) that the German player should limit himself on average to no more than 1 section of 88mm Flak.

A player who's fighting with company/battalion level #'s of Tiger should expect to face a preportionally larger # of enemy tanks (unless the other player wants a challenge!)

[Tombstone]

Charles, I am outright disagreeing with you on the topic of points relating to performance being 'ridiculous'. In any game the part that makes it a game is the part that challenges the players skills. This is a GAME that simulates tactical combat in WWII. It's designed to also involve players in head to head combat. That means a measurement for unit performance is required for game balance. The point value system for units was originally designed to reflect the 'effectiveness' of a unit relative to others. Take that away and you have no game. It would make me really sad if someone were able to successfully destroy one of the critical elements of one of the best computer wargames made to date. If we really wanted enforced realism and historical accuracy we'd be forced to play tons of battles where there weren't all that many tanks. Or we'd be forced to sit on the front lines and send a few patrols wandering around.

Tomo

[victorhauser]

I agree with you completely, Tomo.

[Charles22]

Victor: Yes, I did, and I have referred to it slightly here. Overall, I thought you had left your senses so I didn't respond. You seemed to say that I and the games's unit costs were geared to reflect "performance". With the outlook you've displayed about the recent posts, I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. What was that, some sort of mind-game? Sorry, I don't recall anyone, other than yourself, stating that the costs were "performance" based either. In fact I recall quite distinctly Paul asking you to try engineers against King Tigers to show you the foolishness of basing costs on these little test battles. That was a mind-game, right?

On a separate note, from the book "Tank Versus Tank" by Kenneth Macksey, which pits some of the 20th century's armor against one another, I have a couple of notes.

"Out of over 1400 KVs and T34s available in the frontier zone in June 1941, only a few got into action and most were mopped up without firing a shot. Contemporary German combat accounts hardly mention it, so derisory was it's impact."

Another thing mentioned, of interest, though I'm not sure how they come up with this, but they listed the IS2 with 160mm armor.

[Charles22]

Victor: I've been thinking about it, and I think you don't know from where I'm coming, since I'm approaching from at least two angles, and it would seem that youare doing the same. If I hadn't made it clear enough before, my goal number one, is that IF unit costs will be tampered with, I don't think they should be done on these silly tests. These tests are so bad, that surely someone with your undoubted brainpower can come with something better. I'm starting to think that you don't really want to use this method, but you haven't thought of anythign better, so it's maybe something a feeler anyway.

What I have been seeing of your tests, I've seen as a threat. I can see tweaking a cost here and there, but it's absolutely ludicrous to heap triple cost on the Tiger for performing too well, which maybe isn't your intent. But given that this is all you present, intended or not, it remains a threat (also note how miserably the Tiger accountd for itself when down 3-to-1. As I said, do you want the KV-1E to see a 18-to-1 monstrosity adjustment, because to use your system, that's what would make it cookie-cutter "fair"? As I said IF we're going to make play that imbalanced from the current costs, then I would support basing the costs on something more tangible, such as deutchmarks and rubles put into the exchange for the period and find out what each costed. Or again, production numbers or something.

One thing y'all have to remember in y'alls T34 fervor, the Tiger wasn't produced till late '42, while the T34/85, not the T34 in toto was produced still later. It's obvious to anyone, the T34/85 was a stop-gap measure, and like most stop-gaps they take on the armor of the prior models and just stick a new gun on it; that's why the thing does so poorly head-to-head (and obviously since it didn't meet expectations, they then upgunned the KV, which when the King Tiger came out, was upgunned again, to deal with that). Knowing Gerry, also, I think it quite likely that the bulk of the best armor was going eastward. I know we don't have a system so the Americans face little Tigers and the Soviets more, but the Soviets facing them wasn't exactly the rarest thing. If it were so little a problem then why did the Soviets make such a stop-gap tank? It's apparent that they intended the KV to draw fire against a Tiger, while the T34/85 fired off more in the distance unopposed (my, what a strategy for the USSR player to use). Given the en masse extent of the Soviet armor, do we think this would be so difficult? Of course once the IS1 came along from the KV series, this sort of teamwork wouldn't be needed so much, though the T34/85 might still want to be cautious (probably was used a lot more towards outflanking by then).

[victorhauser]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
The reason for point costs is to provide reasonable play balance between players (or AI). Factoring in non-tactical factors skews the result, so the point value is no longer indicative of performacce, and will result in out of balance games. . . . We will see if this can be adjusted in version 3 to reign in some of the completely outlandish situations, but point values will continue to ignore "rarity" or production fators.

Charles, this is where I got the notion that unit prices will never be production or materials based. Since Paul is in charge of this aspect of the game, I think we can take it as a fact. That's why I made the plea to put an end to a debate that can bear no fruit. Paul has spoken and I see no point in belaboring a dead issue.

I say again, please let's stop talking about production-based and materials-based unit prices. Let's focus our attentions solely on performance-based considerations. To do otherwise can only be divisive and counterproductive. Please.

[Paul Vebber]

There are many good points being made here! Lets not let this get too far into personalizing this...

The bottom line here, YES the point costs need some adjustment. Victor's example seems meant as a means of showing a specific case being out of whack, but not a means to specifically scale things. Changes will be made, but won't be drastic!

The only way to adjust the point cost is subjective evaluation of "value" in the game. Historical rarity or other aspects beyond game performance cloud the issue.

[victorhauser]

Thank you, Paul!

I'm eager and ready to continue these discussions regarding performance-based unit prices.

I realize that adjusting unit prices might very well be a "neverending" work in progress.

Perhaps an SPWAW-sponsered (and moderated) tournament could be set up so that a variety of battles could be fought. And having the participants include comments as to why they bought and fought with the units they purchased might provide additional input/insight into "unit pricing" issues.

[Drake666]

The one group of unit prices I would really like to see changed is the late war German Mobile ATs. In SP1 & 2 I use to buy a number of German ATs to use in deffrent roles with my tanks but with the price they have right now and with their drawbacks, I just do not buy them anymore. They are just not worth it.

[Fabio Prado]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
The only way to adjust the point cost is subjective evaluation of "value" in the game. Historical rarity or other aspects beyond game performance cloud the issue.

I agree 100%. We must avoid "personalizing" the discussion... I. for once, tend to be "emocional" where Tigers are concerned.

The main thing is to set up the relative costs as to provide the best possible gaming experience.



------------------
Fabio Prado fprado@fprado.com
Webmaster - The ARMOR Site!

[Alastair Anderson]

Folks,

A great argument here. I think I favour Tomo and Victor on the whole though - the tiger is too cheap in relation to the T34 and a previous poster is quite right when stating that the British Firefly is very expensive when compared with its rivals.

The key to the game when playing pbem is to try and get parity between the sides when playing with equal prefs and equal points. I would hate to see a tiger upped to 3x the value of a T34 - as I have said on this board before this would mean the extinction of the tiger and others like it from the game because nobodyt in their right mind would buy one. Too risky. However a balance must be struck and surely a tiger should cost more than a T34/85. Question is, how much??

It has always seemed to me that a factor that must be considered is the effectiveness of other arms. In other words in sp3 a couple of Sturmoviks could make mincemeat out of any German armour and likewise the HS129 could wipe out anything the Soviets had. An 81mm mortar could take out a tiger with one shot; a 150mm shell had a bloody good chance of so doing. Charging mouted infantry up to a platoon of tigers signalled the brewing up of all 4 or 5 in pretty short order.

However the combat system has been totally overhauled. I have not practiced enough yet to know how competent infantry are at assaulting heavy tanks. How often will an air strike take one out?? How effective is artillery of all calibres when the artillery related prefs are set at 100%? All these are absolutely VITAL when costing these units. Thus we must take much more into consideration than just the relative size,speed, armour and gun of the tanks we are comparing.

Personally I am glad to be in a position where the cost of a tiger has come down relatively so mucn that I am now prepared to buy them. However at a pretty long range a Soviet 85mm AAA gun makes mincemeat of them and the AAA gun is MUCH cheaper. Please do not overcompensate and make some units too much to be worth buying.

I will follow this thread with interest!

Cheers
Al

[U235]

Alastair, since you touched on it, I think aircraft now are too effective against infantry. This is my opinion from both the giving and recieving end. In my current campaign, British huricanes decimated my troops holding a hill in N. Africa, dropping multiple bombs on 4 hexes in a line. I was relived of 4-5 units on each pass. I also lost 2 AFV's (pzkw IIIH's) so far. Aircraft are again the scourge of the battle. Without supporting infantry, any tank force will suffer against a skilled opponent. I think as more people play version 2.0 this will become a large overall factor.

As for AFV point costs, if the player chooses a balanced of forces for his units, the significance of point values is reduced. Sure cheap units = more units, but there are bargains to be had no matter what nationality is played. I think 2 honest players can come to some terms before hand to create a challanging battle with out being lopsided. I can't see myself wanting 20 tigers in my core force, not when there are other units that enhance the thrill of playing (take for example the Hertzer). The AI throws enough "best of what I got" forces together for the player that enjoys that sort of thing.