Battle Test Report

[Voriax]

Originally posted by U-235:
A 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.

If this happened, you have something seriously screwed in your oob's? Perhaps you still have version 1 ones? Currently Hurricanes have only 1 bomb and they'll drop only that one, at least they do so in my games.

Voriax

[Desert Fox]

Well if you ask me, Charles and Victor are arguing for the same end result. By Victor's logic, Tigers are better tanks than the T-34/85, and should cost more. By Charles's logic, Tigers cost a hell of a lot more to manufacture than T-34/85s, and should cost more.
!!!
So the whole point is that the Tiger should cost more than the T-34/85. Beyond that, why the Tiger should be more expensive is irrelevant. Let Matrix figure it out. So far, their point system has been pretty good. They will decide how to balance it further. To completely base point costs on one thing or another would require a new game.
Now my personal opinion is that point costs are more condusive to comparing tactical effectiveness. I think that to model economic factors, you need limits on numbers available. This is what SPWAW does not portray, and it is the same thing everyone would like to see, at least as an option. The Close Combat games have both features, and are better for it. During a campaign, you are limited to the numbers of unit X you can buy, no matter how many points you have. In a head to head battle, requisition limits are waived.
I believe that future SP games should have requisition limits introduced. This would completely solve any of the complaints that the AI has too many Maus tanks. Of course it should be an option that one could turn off if they wanted to.

[Charles22]

Victor: Earlier I was stating that I thought you has left your senses. I now know why. You basically stated that this sytem is "performance" based, however, you somewhat spoke in error as I view it. Your very complaint, that was designed to show how it's NOT performance-based enough for you, proved my point; it isn't performanc-based. I think what you were really trying to say, was that the SP series has always been performance-based, without saying that, and that you thought this one was the smae way. I, however, didn't know the method they were using, but I was only trying to say that it obviously wasn't based on this testing idea you have, though whether that is their intention or nor still remains debateable.

Sorry, bud, but if I want to talk about what I think might make a better system, refused or not by the powers that be, I will continue to do so, but I suspect not. Instead, however, I will show to some extent the silliness of basing it on mere AI meeting engagements.

Do you realize, that if we follow your test, to the letter, just how disasterous that is to this game? Others have spoken on how they would never buy a Tiger that expensive, but as well, what about the KV-1E? I would like to think you're not anti-German in your focus, but every idea you've had focuses on downing German arms. Considering some of the things you've said, there seems to be something of a mission to trash German OOB's. I hope not. I hope it's just the result of your always playing "against" the Germans, that has made you realize just how strong they are, and that you want adjustments. For example, I don't hear you complaining on how expensive the Italian tanks are in comparison to the T34's. The Italians don't stand a chance, and yet they're basically have no pricing advantages.

Given that your focus has been on Soviet forces, it's at least the direction you're coming from at the moment, but just because you might have a disdain for the Germanphile out there doesn't make the Soviets immune to the same butchery of the pricing. I've already pointed out the HUGE, much HUGER, discrepancy between the KV-1E and the PZIIIH.

I'll tell you how they basically came up with the pricing. It was done basically by class of armor. Notice how the heavies are always the most expensive, though they may not have had the best "performance" necessarily. The failure in the T34/85 vs. Tiger comparison, is that we have two different classes and we're expecting, if we apply the difference in performance to the loser of the battle, to knock down the T34/85 to the cost of the light tank class. I admit, in error, that I regarded the T34/85 as something of the Tiger equivalent. Already the similarity in gun is apparent, but I had imagined, like with most tanks, particularly the German ones, that they had uparmored it as well; apparently not.

So let's say the Tiger becomes 3X more expensive to accomodate winning by that margin to the T34/85 (which of course an actual 3-to-1 test was done, in which the Tiger didn't measure up). What do you do, when I assasinate the T34/85, by going "out-of-class and comparing that medium tank to sya a PZIIL? The contest has slaughter written all over it. And yet that's the same test we're giving to the Tiger (though certainly not as gross). Surely, if someone out there is going to sabotage German arms, believe me the Soviets are wide-open as well, as the KV-1E test shows. I see you haven't made a comment about that, why? If you're for "really" achieving what you hope this system will envision, why not put a knife to the KV as well? I'm no friend of the SS, but your insistence to rid the label "elite" from them, which they've been known world-wide (for fighting elan), would lead me to question your objectiveness. Me? I'd love all the nations to have what may be right pricing, but if we apply such draconian measures, as your tests suggests, then perhaps you don't know what a can of worms you're opening. I'm sure the best vs. the best in my KV-1E test must have been a bit shocking, but that just shows you how this could end up. I've already made an attempt to explain how, when something beats something, what do you do to the unit who has the cost adjusted, either then gets slaughtered or slaughters against still another opponent?

If there's any sense of fairness with this performance system that some want to operate, even out-of-class, then realize that not only must the Tiger need be adjusted (or cheaper T34/85), but so will the KV-1E, and even more so.

You see what the problem here is? You can't center unit cost on it's performance against one unit, because if you lower T34/85 price to 1/3, what do you do when that same tank slaughters say an SGIIIG by a 2-to-1 margin? Do you then raise the T34/85 to double it's price, which largely negates the adjustment from the Tiger battles? You can't possibly be fair about this and use such a system.

Personally, I hate having to pay so much, that early in the war for a KV-1E, for I can and do campaign with practically all nationalities, though Gerry is my favorite. I like the USSR probably 2nd best, not only because it has some really good stuff, and not only because it was another country which could've conquered possibly a great deal more than it did, but because they're the main Gerry antagonist. Only short of Gerry campainging is my desire to campaign Soviet and face a combination of Gerry/Italy/Rumania (or take the choice of minor Axis allies in additon to Gerry). So you see, it's difficult for me to see Rusky treated unfairly, if that is the deal, but on the other hand, I sure don't want Gerry treated that way, particularly, when Gerry was in their fullest bloom, when their equipment was often second to none (unlike in the KV1 days). You see? I feel cheated as a Gerry campaigner, to have suffered through the tough periods, where the strategic situation doesn't help me because we play tactical, and then when my forces get really good, for someone to put a clamp on them. I would feel equally as frustrated playing Rusky, to have poor early troops and then not be able to halfway depend on the KVs and T34s because they had been priced out of practical existence by comparisons to Gerry, or worse yet to some weak nation that doesn't even have adequate medium tanks.

Sorry, I have to shatter what may seem to be a good system, but the performance tests just can't work across the board, unless, that is, if we can get a consensus of people out there to trample over German pricing (or any one nation). I'm sure I could run the Tiger against American tanks, and the pricing would might be somewhere along the lines of the KV-1E battle. You can't price a unit to reflect fair pricing against all comers, no way.

BTW, I wish I had a scanner, for I could show y'all a picture of a Tiger that had it's top removed, and you would see just how thick that turret armor is in the front.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-02-2000).]

[victorhauser]

Full Circle...

And so we come right back to where we started from. Sigh. At the very beginning of the "Unit Prices" topic, I wrote a lengthy description of the criteria I would use to go about pricing tanks in SPWAW. Every single criterion I used was performance based. Every single one.

The ONLY reason I conducted the computer vs. computer games was because NOBODY suggested any better ideas for providing the Matrix staff with structured, organized, "scientific" feedback regarding unit prices.

The ONLY reason I chose the Tiger I vs. the T-34/85 was because they were both "high-profile" tanks, guaranteed to stir up dialog. I had no hidden agenda or axes to grind. And I was most certainly not trying to favor one nation over another.

Alas, while I see that I certainly succeeded in stirring up heated dialog, I have not seen anything productive result from that heated dialog. So, ultimately I see my first attempt as a failure to provide the Matrix staff with helpful feedback regarding their unit prices. If not a waste of time, then certainly a diversion of time and effort.

I will try to come up with a better approach to this issue in the future.

[victorhauser]

A Final Thought...

Originally posted by Charles22:

. . . . You can't price a unit to reflect fair pricing against all comers, no way. . . .

And yet, gentlemen, this is EXACTLY the problem facing us and the Matrix staff--to come up with fair unit prices averaged "across the board" and "against all comers".

If Charles is correct, then we have no chance of succeeding.

But even if we have no chance of succeeding, can't we at least come as close as we can get?

And shouldn't we at least make the attempt?

From the movie "Gladiator"
Quintus: A people should know when they are conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?



[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited 07-03-2000).]

[Charles22]

I think the problem, and it's becoming all so more apparent to me, that we pretty much need to keep comparison pricing within "classes". For example, this whole T34/85 vs. Tiger thing got started, IMO, because I considered the T34/85 as a basic equivalent, but I now know better, it's actually a completely different class of tank than the Tiger (medium vs. heavy). Same goes with the PZIIIH vs. the KV-1E (unfortunately the Germans don't have a heavy at that time to compare).

So the fault lies with me, I mistook the T34/85 to be heavy largely based on it's gun. I also thought the T34/85 came out "before" the KV85 (which I had forgotten about). It turns out the KV85 came out first and yes, it is a heavy. So, bottom line to all of this, we should be comparing heavies to heavies (we little Gerrys who have no mobile counter to the KV series in '41 will have to fight on bravely and deal with reality). I did some testing (and that testing stuff is so lopsided a lot of times (like one side gaining the hill, and then the other exposing it's sides constantly) on the proper way to test, if there is one, and that is the KV85 vs. Tiger. It would seem as though the Tiger wins around 1.5-to-1 or so.

You cannot make this game fair and start comparing different "classes" in battle. If the user is lame enough to try to fight the threat of heavies with mediums, that's his problem, not the game's. Also, before we start slicing and dicing the Panther, I would suggest that the Panther is actually a heavy (check the tonnage, though lighter than the Tiger, still), though with it's speed and the fact that the Tiger series is larger(BTW the Soviets in '41 have more than one tank that fits in the heavy class, and later as well. According to "Tank vs. Tank" the Tiger stop being produced when the King Tiger started), perhaps that would make it medium, but I know even with the same cost, I have preferred the Panther to the Tiger, though with the Tiger turret armor more realistic, that would certainly deserve some more thought on my part.

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by Charles22:
Ah, did the very thing. Put 20 Gerry Tigers, player one against 60 T34/85s...
18 Tigers destroyed
2 Tigers abandoned
20 T34/85s destroyed
3 T34/85s immobilised
5 T34/85s abandoned

Thanks for running this modified test (I still haven't got the patches). What was the result? Did the remaining 32 T-34's overrun the Germans position & win or did they take so long to kill the Germans that the game ended in a draw, etc.?

I've read historical accounts that the Russians recognized the inferiority of their T-34's to Tiger Is in long range encounters and tried to counter act this by rushing the Tigers. The Tigers would kill many T-34s but if the Russians had enough they would overwhelm the Tigers. The break point where there are consistently just enough T-34's to rush the Tigers and both sides all are out of action (kills or disabled) should roughly show the relative combat value and provide the relative costs.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Charles22]

Well Victor's tests didn't mention objective hexes or not, that I remember, and I made sure and took them out of mine. I didn't bother to notice to outcome either, since it was based solely on the losses you see there. I believe the Germans surrendered for lack of units.

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by Charles22:
...Sorry, I have to shatter what may seem to be a good system, but the performance tests just can't work across the board, unless, that is, if we can get a consensus of people out there to trample over German pricing (or any one nation)... You can't price a unit to reflect fair pricing against all comers, no way.
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-02-2000).]

Yet this "performance pricing" system is exactly what the US Army has been doing for over a decade in developing real-world, really getting shot at planning. The USSR also had a point based system for automated orders production but I'm not sure where they got their point values from.

It does work. We don't have the programming and mainframe resouces of the Army but we can try.


------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Spunkgibbon]

Originally posted by Charles22:
You cannot make this game fair and start comparing different "classes" in battle. If the user is lame enough to try to fight the threat of heavies with mediums, that's his problem, not the game's.

On this specific point I disagree for two reasons. Firstly not all nations have heavy tanks and so have no choice but to fight heavies with mediums. Secondly you buy your units based on your own criteria (one of which should be the choice of quantity over quality) without knowing what's being fielded against you and can end up having to throw weaker tanks against heavy tanks. It's not lame, it's just the way it goes sometimes.

On the issue of points costs I think that points should make a game balanced. That means that all units should be priced on the same scale by performance (or to be slightly more pedantic, by attributes). However, SPWAW being a historical game I think that some historical factors should be included in the unit cost to add a certain authentic context to it. The main elements in the points costs should be performance related though. As much as I'd like to see historical factors on unit costs, I can just as well live without it.

I reckon Victor's tests are a good idea but I think that pitting Tigers against T34/85s will skew the results in favour of the Russians. I know the Russians are losing as as the experiment stands but in real game situations the T34/85s are more vulnerable not only to Tigers but to many other units on the field on account of their weak armour. In a real game the T34/85 doesn't compare to the tactical value of the Tiger and can't be used in as many situations.

The same applies to some British/Commonwealth tanks particularly those armed with the 17 pounder gun. The VC Firefly (VC must stand for Very Costly ) and Sherman IIC (Sherman II Costly?) are the best examples as both of them are 20+ points more expensive than the Tiger and both have around half the armour. I accept that the 17 pounder is a good gun but it's only arguably as good as the Tiger's 88mm (17lber has higher penetration, lower accuracy and warhead). Despite being 20 points cheaper the Tiger still has a huge edge. Again, the Tiger is generally much more valuable in a wider variety of tactical situations.

It's circumstances like this that a points system is meant to balance whichever way it's calculated. I think we all know of many cases where unit costs are flawed but I also think we all know just how complex a task it is to put points to the thousands of units and components in SPWAW. No doubt in time Paul V and the OOBsters will get these inconsistencies sorted out.

It was a mammoth task getting all SPWAWs units costed out and the final tweakage is pretty much the home straight.

(I think this was the point I was going to make but between phone calls and cups of tea I kinda lost my thread.)

[Charles22]

Larry: Are you telling me that the US gets 20 Soviet tanks, runs them up against 20 American ones, and then if the American ones do too well, they allow the Soviets to purchase 3-to-1 from what each one buys at the XYZ Tank Store? Because that seems to be what you're saying. Sure tests are done (contrary to popular belief often without actually using the enemy's equipment[reality check]), but surely not to limit how many tanks we want to produce, as though we're uninterested in not dominating in a war, but only want to be "fair". (I can't believe I'm having this discussion)

Remember, for those who want to kill the use of heavies, for those countries that have them, your own selfishness will be subjected to the same rigors by saying that a Sherman (medium class) has a 15-to-1 rate against a PZIIL (medium vs. light) so therefore it's cost must also be multiplied that much. It's obvious you haven't really thought this out.

I reckon Victor's tests are a good idea but I think that pitting Tigers against T34/85s will skew the results in favour of the Russians. I know the Russians are losing as as the experiment stands but in real game situations the T34/85s are more vulnerable not only to Tigers but to many other units on the field on account of their weak armour. In a real game the T34/85 doesn't compare to the tactical value of the Tiger and can't be used in as many situations.

Oh really? Did you know that PZIVHs suffer a still worse fate than the T34/85? You know why it doesn't cope as well? Why? Simple, it's a MEDIUM class tank, it isn't meant to be as strong as the Tiger. This is a very bad example of your point, however, it shows the thought process behind it. Why is it a bad example? Because BOTH the nations described have medium and heavy tanks during the period of the T34/85, PZIVH, Tiger, and KV85. So here's what you're looking at. So we say T34/85 is 3-to-1 disadvantage to another CLASS of tank, that being Tiger. On the other hand would you say that PZIVH would lose to KV85 by a 4-to-1 margin? Perhaps. SO here are the adjustments within those lines.

T34/85 - same value
Tiger - 3X expense
PZIVH - same value
KV85 - 4X expense

So you see what you've done? If we apply the principle across the board EVERY nation's heavies beating the snot out of mediums and lights, end up making the heavies unuseable for ridiculous expense (including those Jumbos and Pershings. Nope the knife can cut across ALL the nationalities). And this is to say nothing of pitting heavies against lights. So a heavy is likely to have a 30-to-1 margin (the lights better hope for track hits [though the lights get destroyed anyway]) against lights. Do we then make Tiger 30X expense? What a bunch of garbage. Remember now, though your nation may not have heavies, but ah, it does have mediums and mediums can win handily against lights, therefore driving their expense ridiculously too. The lights will be so cheap after that, that you could buy one for a point (by comparison). Nevermind that they cannot destroy, that, by now, 1,000 point (or more) Tiger (which noone will buy anyway). In essense, we're preparing our medium and light tanks, in tests, for something they'll never meet. Ah, but then once the heavies are eliminated, then there will be medium/light cost wars, and then the mediums will be priced out of existence. Hmmm, how nice. Anyone want to battle a really mean set of PZIILs? It can beat the snot out of a halftrack!

Really now, Matrix, is your idea to make this into WWII AOE3? If so, then you can certainly count me out. I'm just glad I've a version 2.3, before it's brought under the heel of a AOE mindset.

[jsaurman]

I agree with Charles22, in that there not only needs to be point balance regarding *Technical Proficiency* within a class, but not across classes. 1000 points of German Heavy Tanks need to be pretty equal to 1000 points of British Heavy Tanks or 1000 points of Soviet or American Heavy Tanks, etc.
Light tanks would never go into battle with heavy tanks, the tactical commander would never allow that, so the point costs between classes are moot. Classes need to be balanced, for example, light tanks 25-50 points each, mediums 50-100 and heavy 100+ so that you have to spend your points wisely. One side should get the edge due to the experience of the crews, morale, etc, after all the technical factors of the equipment they use are balanced out.
Also as Desert Fox noted, to truly make scenerios balanced there needs to also be a "rarity value" factored in, so even if you have a million points to spend, if there are only 14 Tigers at the Ordinance Depot, then that is all you can buy. I think this would truly force commanders to get creative when choosing their force makeup, and would factor in the commander's fear of losing a single tank, because you might know that after this battle, you may not be able to replace it even if you are victorious. This uncertainty of replacements has hampered even great commanders by causing them to become overcautious and hamstrung as to when to commit all their reserves. It certainly would change the way that I would play a campaign.


JIM



[This message has been edited by jsaurman (edited 07-03-2000).]

[Desert Fox]

Ok, after reading Spunkgibbon's post, I have yet another, better idea on this topic. He mentioned to price things by attributes. Now, is this not how performance is determined anyways? It must be based on class, simply because pricing infantry by armor criteria is ridiculous. I am sure Matrix can make us a much better one, but here is my preliminary idea.

Armor: Start out by adding up the armor thickness on each side, including the top, and then divide by 5. This gives the average thickness for the whole tank. It should probably be weighted for each side, but I will let someone else figure that out. The next important part is the weapons. I figure you average out the penetration of each weapon individually. That means add up the maximum HE, AP, HEAT, and APCR values, then divide by 4. This, again, should probably be weighted, but I haven't got any idea as to how. Do this for each main gun type weapon. For machine guns, add up the half the kill value and half the penetration value. I figure use half of each value because machine guns are not nearly as important as main gun type weapons. Next add up the values for range finder, armored skirts, vision, etc. For the speed of the tank, add one third of the land speed and one third of the water speed. Now I think I covered everything here, so add up all these values and this should be the point value of the tank.
For trucks, add up the carry capacity of the troops, divide by 2. Add to that the gun carry capacity. Add directly to that the speed, and average armor, using the same method as with the tanks. This would make mule teams cheap and halftrack transports more expensive. Also calculate weapons in the same manner as for the tanks. Add all these values up and there is the cost for trucks.
For infantry, this gets a little hard, but here is my ideas. Add up the kill value of the weapons, multiplying the primary weapon by the number of men in the unit. For an anti tank weapon, divide the maximum penetration value by 25 (to keep the infantry cheap). Add all this stuff up and it should be a good model for the cost of infantry units.
For guns, add up the weapons as with tanks. This should be the cost of the guns, since they are simply guns sitting in the field.
This sort of system could be built into the program so that it automatically determines the cost for any unit modified or created by users. Of course, there should also be a cost override option where the cost can be manually set.
Anyways, this system is really rough, but I think this sort of system can be used to pretty accurately model relative costs.
If you guys at Matrix were to use this, I would advise to you to make your own system up, since you know exactly how every trait affects everything else in the game, and can weight them accordingly. My system above probably requires more revision than is possible, but like I said, its just a basic idea.
This system in combination with requisition limits for campaigns would dispell nearly every problem with the AI and unit pricing. Those are my ideas anyway.

[crazyivan]

very good posts guys if i had the time i would go into more detail but the old argument of is the t34/85 worth more than the tiger 1 hmmmmmmm i thought long and hard Victor you say that the only thing the t34/85 is speed over the tiger and that alone should not make the t34/85 more pricy but there is one thing i can think of that makes most russian armour seam dare to buy for what you get,and that is there sloped armour which under the new penatration tables makes them harder to penertrate than say the tigers almost striaght armour plating could this be the cuase for the piont differance???????????i would chose a t34/85 any day over a tiger 1 fast enough to outflank a tiger and go for the sides and sloped enough to take a shot or two.by the way in real life the t34/85 was a lot faster than the cumbersom tiger and wieghed 32 tons a feather wieght top speed 32mph i think the tiger was only half that i could be wrong though.

[Alastair Anderson]

This debate is getting a little heated and I think we are losing sight of the fact that surely all gamers would like to see a system that enables as close to "fair" gaming as possible. By "fair" I mean that player A with 5000 points stands as close a chance as possible as player "B" with the same number of points of whatever nationality if all prefs are set the same.

A sense of proportion must be maintained and I do NOT think that a mathematical solution to pricing can ever be right. It has been correctly pointed out that comparing infantry to heavy tanks is nigh impossible, or that because 10 T34s would mince 200 panzer IIS this does not mean a T34 should be 20x more expensive. That would be riciculous. However some kind of scale must be established and we must start somewhere. Surely a tiger, with its bigger gun and heavier armour, should cost more than a T34/85??! I have mentioned all sorts of factors that should be considered - radios, air power, speed etc in earlier posts, but take all that away and I cant believe that too many players really believe a T34/85 is a better tank. Similarly to take up gibbon's point I cant really believe that many players would see a firefly as 20 points better than a tiger either. Never mind what class they come into - common sense battlefield knowledge surely tell us that given a choice of these 3 tanks at their current values most players would jump at the chance of buying tigers because they are not only the cheapest but PROBABLY the best.

Should we not try to move on from here? Would Paul like to have a group set up to look at costs across the board, at all nations, and try to come to a better balance? I say "better" because a perfect balance is impossible - how can we ever compare a platoon of engineers to a king tiger? However playing the game over and over gives us all a sense of "bargain" buys - it always has in every version of SP that I have played - and preventing these bargain buys being too much of a bargain should be our priority. My old friend Peter Zima used to buy hordes of Jagdpanzer Is in SP1 because they were a massive bargain. In SP3 the T34/76 was a pretty damn good buy. Preventing the exctinction of certain units due to overpricing should also be a priority - the fate of the hugely overpriced Panthers and Tigers in SP3 weighs heavily upon my memory.

A common consensus cannot be achieved in every case. Some tanks are VERY closely matched but there are surely many more that can be easily distinguished and then a better pricing list could be obtained. I would be very happy to join any group looking at this and offer suggestions - final word I would imagine should then lie with Paul after he has considered all points made. That way version 3 can include a better pricing system that will make players THINK VERY HARD about what they buy, because the prices will be roughly comparable and the decision will come down more to tactics than bargain hunting.

Let's keep playing and keep our eye open for obvious price discrepancies and point them out to the powers that be. Let's be very sure that we are accurate before pricing any tank at twice or three times another and let's work towards a common objective. Most importantly let's consider the full range of battlefield roles that any unit can fulfil before making a decision on price. This will have to be an art, not a science.

Cheers
Al

[PR^Spanjab]

Wow, what an epic topic!

My thoughts are that we are never going to keep everyone happy. You can assign whatever points to whatever units but unless they are used correctly they will appear to be too expensive.

I agree 100% that some things need to be shuffled a bit, the Tiger is probably the prime example, but 3x? Nah, get real! Maybe 150% or 180% of its current value.

The very first match I played on WaW was against Blubbs with me as the Russians. In the early stages he toasted me with his Tigers to the cost of 3 or 4 KV1's. After that I changed my tactics a great deal and managed a fairly good win. That showed me the points weren't as bad as I first thought.

All I think we can do is to estimate how valuable a unit is when it is used perfectly. That will naturally annoy some people who use cheap units now for roles they aren't suited for but so be it. I guess that makes it sound easy but it certainly isn't! I mean I have been thinking about the Firefly vs Tiger for ages and I still can't decide even roughly what they should cost!

Mammoth task ahead but I am sure there is no shortage of opinions to draw upon judging by this thread and I'll happily help out by sticking my big nose in if asked to! (and if not usually as well )

Have fun!

Spanjab

[Scipio Africanus]

Concerning a test of 20 Tigers vs 20 T-34/85s resulting in a 3-1 advantage for the Tigers, I should like to add something. It is necessary to understand that, if one were to adjust the numbers of units on either side, say: 20 Tigers vs 12 T-34/85s or 20 Tigers vs 30 T34/85s, the odds will not correspond in a linear fashion. The test Charles22 did helps prove this: 3 times as many T34/85s as Tigers and the Soviets win every time. In fact, pit twice as many T34/85s against Tigers and the Soviets still have an advantage to the extent that they will almost always win. This non linearity of odds making is understandable when one realizes that battles tend to snowball, with the result that adding just a few tanks to one side or the other can sway the advantage a considerable degree. The real advantage for Tigers is more likely in the 3-2 or 4-3 range (try pitting 30 against 20 or 20 against 15 and note the results). But it is important to realize that this sort of odds making is also dependent on magnitude of force: 2 T34/85s against 1 Tiger will win often enough simply by the twin virtues of volume of fire and in offering multiple targets; when the Tiger is shooting at the first T34, the second has a 100% survivability rate during that moment. At 2000 meters? The Tiger can probably take out a company of T34s. It will be a good day the next time I have a 2000 meter line of sight.

From the man who has lost King Tigers, severally and from in front, to M36 Jacksons rotating in and out of a treeline at 900 yards.

------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

[Charles22]

From what I've heard here, without checking the game (it's at home), the Firelfy is a first-rate case of being unfairly priced. Consider the following: I was talking about nations with both heavies and mediums (Germany and Russia), so the Rusky player who wants to complain about a medium tank being overmatched has little to complain about, since the Russians have heavies throughout the war (Want to compete with a heavy? Buy a heavy). Germany, at least once the Tiger came along, has the same situation, for at that stage it would be silly for that player to complain that that the PZIVH doesn't measure up to the KV series. Mediums don't measure up to heavies, that's a fact.

In the case of the Firefly, however, it another stop-gap medium tank and surely shouldn't be more expensive than a Tiger. It's class is medium tank and so should probably be put into the same price range as the T34/85. The Pershing, however, certainly bears the mark of a heavy, but I don't know if it's in the heavy tank class in the game or not. Also, if I recall correctly, the US player has the Jumbo series before the Pershing, so there may be no room to complain about not having heavies when going against nations with heavies. Of course, in any case, if you want to win with something approaching "historical" forces, you'll be willing to deal with the deficits (such as Gerry having not heavies and having to go against the USSR with the KV series), and get to know the pain the commanders sufferred until the factories started churning out the heavies.

The only way you could justify a stop-gap medium tank costing more than a heavy, is if we were talking very low production numbers, but then we weren't getting into that. I suppose the reason the Firefly might have got belted with a high cost, was because it the heavy before the heavies came along (medium tank taking on something of that role). Isn't it true that the Firefly and first Jumbo were out about the same time, but since the Jumbo had a somewhat inadequate gun, they had to use the Jumbo for defense, while the Firefly was the attempt gun-wise of trying to pierce heavy armor? Of course the latter Jumbo and the Pershing solved those roles better, later.

[Tombstone]

This thread is convoluted. As far as the comparison between Tiger and T-34/85 though... The T-34 is nice and fast, when you use it you can feel it. It whoops the pants off a tiger as far as mobility. Tiger's don't just have good armor, they have good armor all around. Much more than a T-34. Slope matters, but 40mm at 60 is less than 100mm at 24. A fire fight at range favors the Tiger because of having better fire control, range finder and accuracy values. For all intents and purposes a Tiger is a flat out better cannon platform. The T-34 MUST use it's maneuverability to close range and get side shots or at least within close enough range such that it's deficiencies in accuracy can be mostly equalized. (Also Tiger's have a better radio rating and more ammo.) The oob editor is a great tool by the way. I have a bunch of them up right now comparing weapons and vehicle data for the two units right now.(Good job Matrix -like always-) Also, personally speaking... I've taken Tiger's to T-34/85's and vice versa. The fact of the matter is that when you got Tigers in good firing positions with relatively good visibility it becomes a matter of terrain and skill for the other player. He can't even battle it out with slightly superior numbers due to the qualitative differences in the units. If there's a nice big forest that you can run up and the enemy hasn't littered it with pesky pedestrians then you're loving it.. otherwise it can be a costly effort to rid yourself of the dreaded Tigers.

T-34/85's should cose 15% less and Pz-VIe's should cost like 20% more. That's my guess.

Tomo

[Charles22]

The Soviet player who doesn't like losing his T34/85s to Tiger, can purchase KV85s instead. Medium tanks are meant to come out the loser against heavies. The only reason why the Germans developed the Tiger in the first place was not only because their mediums were inadequate against the T34, but also because they had no heavy to match the KV series. The Germans were wise, whereas the player who insists on beating mediums with heavies, when they have heavies they can purchase, is beating his head against the wall when they don't purchase what they ought. If people want to gripe about any inferiority of the KV series against the Tiger, then that makes more sense. The T34/85 improvement, or match, against the Tiger, is the KV SERIES.