German tanks to cheap or allied tanks to expensive?

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

nexus
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Siegen / Germany
Contact:

German tanks to cheap or allied tanks to expensive?

Post by nexus »

hello.

i´m shure that this topic was already posted some time ago.

i just compared the prices of allied tanks as sherman´s to german ones like tiger/panther.

okay, the m4 with 76mm gun is a good tank,but no match for a panther/tiger. but these are only a little bit more expensive.

i think (as reality was..) the german´s should cost double (or so...) than the allied ones.

am i wrong with this???
Greetings

Frank
achappelle
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri May 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post by achappelle »

Your theory definitely holds true to what the designers maintain is their quality over historical quantities, as a method for calculating point values.
"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)
john g
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2000 8:00 am
Location: college station, tx usa

Post by john g »

Originally posted by nexus:
hello.

i´m shure that this topic was already posted some time ago.

i just compared the prices of allied tanks as sherman´s to german ones like tiger/panther.

okay, the m4 with 76mm gun is a good tank,but no match for a panther/tiger. but these are only a little bit more expensive.

i think (as reality was..) the german´s should cost double (or so...) than the allied ones.

am i wrong with this???

The values are figured by plugging in the various stats of the tanks and crunching out a number.

If you have issues with the current formula, you might work up another one that is more evenhanded.

Submit a formula for figuring the value of units (don't forget it has to figure infantry and arty as well), and see if anyone wants to change to it.

I forgot how many megs Paul V. said the oobs were as a spreadsheet, we could leave it up to you to recalc everytime a unit changed armor thickness or an infantry unit lost it's rifle grenades.
thanks, John.
User avatar
Paul Vebber
Posts: 5342
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Portsmouth RI
Contact:

Post by Paul Vebber »

Version 7 rehashes the point value of everything using a tweaking version of the "infernal spreadsheet" (40+MB)

IN teh new scheme of things there is greater "dynamic range" in the point cost.

A Stuart is 51, The cheapest Sherman is 82, the "top of the line" Easy 8 is 148. A Pershing 181.

German side a PZ IIIe is 53, a Pz IVg is 98, a Tiger is 168 and a King Tiger is 226

For the Soviets a T-26 is 32, a BT-7 is 40, a T-34/m41 87, a KV-1 109, a T-34/85 124, an IS-2, 143 and an IS-3 249

Infantry squads range from 15-40 or so based on weapons and capabilities (engineers and Spec ops are the most expensive)

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]</p>
User avatar
bchapman
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Oklahoma

Post by bchapman »

Hi Nexus,
If you want to do a search on this subject, you should be able to find plenty of discussion on it. It has be hashed, rehashed, cussed and discussed (mostly cussed). <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
If you are having a problem with email games, just play with the True Troop/Rarity On in the preferences. This should reduce the # of Panthers/Tigers/Elephants availble for purchase. I understand your feelings, but I don't think you are going to get it changed. <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> Personally I just use the Rarity button when playing games where my opponent might be tempted to overbuy on the heavy stuff. Same for artillery.
Cheers
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."<br />- Gerald Ford
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

Paul Vebber: Is there a way to accept V.7 changes without taking on the OOB changes? Could one place the OOBs off in a separate directory, and then copy over the old OOBs if one wanted to accept them? If I did that from the get-go, would there be a way to view the new OOBs in an alternate directory like that, or would I have to move the old OOBs to another directory instead, so that I could view the new ones? I ask this because I don't know the totality of what type of files these OOBs are, and rarely does it seem that games give you specific instructions as you're downloading for doing this sort of thing. Maybe here, but I don't know. Thanks.
Truckeye
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

Post by Truckeye »

hi paul, im just a rookie at the formula thing, but i really have a hard time equating a js2 and an easy8 as virtual equals. do the points take into account #s of that unit fielded or availability? i would vote against that with the theory, if you want more t34s than panzers, give the soviets more points to spend. is reliability taken into account? for the cost im taking js2s every time then. jp
In the Last days its said the Lion will lay down with the Lamb. Even on that day, I would want to be the Lion. Ben Gurion
nexus
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Siegen / Germany
Contact:

Post by nexus »

Originally posted by Truckeye:
hi paul, im just a rookie at the formula thing, but i really have a hard time equating a js2 and an easy8 as virtual equals. do the points take into account #s of that unit fielded or availability? i would vote against that with the theory, if you want more t34s than panzers, give the soviets more points to spend. is reliability taken into account? for the cost im taking js2s every time then. jp
i think russian tank building costs were somewhat lower than allied ones and even more low than the germans´s.

so i think it´s ok.

for me the numbers posted by mr. vebber seem quite okay,better than the actual ones.

thanx,sir´s!!!

to that guy that says change the ratings of tanks or somethink like that: i see absolutely no sense in changing the rates of tanks. i want historically acuracy and if i give a sherman m4 a 88mm anti tank gun,there is no historic flair anymore in this game. i would do that perhaps for fictional scens or so,but not for e-mail games or "real" scens and campaigns.
Greetings

Frank
Grimm
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Post by Grimm »

I have never seen the formulas but it is my understanding that they do not factor in availability or manufacturing costs. Neither factor is relavent to the unit cost. Availability has been addressed by the Rarity factor option.

JSII v Easy 8 - I could see how they might have similar unit values. The JSII has better frontal armor and a bigger gun but suffers from poor fire control and very limited ammo load. I have used the JSII in late war scenarios and I was left unimpressed. They could take a hit well but they didn't really hit much and you cannot afford to take low probabilty shots due to limited ammo load. (I always play w/ limited ammo ON). My $0.02 <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Its what you do
and not what you say
If you're not part of the future
then get out of the way
User avatar
Paul Vebber
Posts: 5342
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Portsmouth RI
Contact:

Post by Paul Vebber »

Charles, What is it about the new OObs you don;t like? Do you have the latest version (24 Sept). Technically you can use Fred's editor Dump to csv to slice and dice them anyway you like. I think these are pretty good, not perfect, but better...

The "formula" gives a weight to every data point a unit has All tanks are evaluated consistently. Lack of ammo really hurts the IS-2 (as "breakthrough" tanks they carried primarily HE - only 10 rnds of AP).

No matter what "formula" you use there will be seeming anomolies, if simply because some pplayers find combinations of units and tactics to exploit synergy that makes them powerful beyond their individual "score" would indicate.
Panzer Leo
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig/Germany

Post by Panzer Leo »

I don't know the formula, but it seems, that some synergie effects do not count and that the real "battle worthiness" is sometimes quite different from the costs. In your example, Paul, I do not understand, how a JS-3 can have higher costs then a Koenigstiger. The JS-3 is in many aspects inferior. To me it looks, like the high costs come from the way better side armor of the JS, maybe a 12,7mm is rated higher as NvW92 and his better speed...
But, the battle worthyness of the Koenigstiger his way higher:
-better gun
-better FC
-better RF
-better gun stabilizer
-better frontal armor
If you take two equally good players and no terrain or weather effects that would favour one side, the JS-3 is really not a match for the Koenigstiger. At distances around 1400m it is nearly defenseless and can only hope for success when getting close enough.
I know it is a heavy breakthrough tank and not really the same like a Koenigstiger, but it's usefullness on the battlefield is limited and therefore should cost way less then the Koenigstiger.
What I mean is, the Koenigstiger is only better in a few features, mathematically. But these are the points that count. A JS-3 is better in many things, but they are the useless ones... shouldn't it be reflected in the costs...
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Image

Mir nach, ich folge euch !
Larry Holt
Posts: 1644
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA 30068

Post by Larry Holt »

Originally posted by Truckeye:
hi paul, im just a rookie at the formula thing, but i really have a hard time equating a js2 and an easy8 as virtual equals. do the points take into account #s of that unit fielded or availability? ... jp
The costs take into account only the combat power of a unit in a SPWaW battle. They do not off battlefield factors such as # produced, cost to produce, etc.
Never take counsel of your fears.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

Paul Vebber:
Charles, What is it about the new OObs you don;t like? Do you have the latest version (24 Sept). Technically you can use Fred's editor Dump to csv to slice and dice them anyway you like.
I haven't got any OOBs since 6.1, and that's the way I want it. I have no time to bother with unofficial versions, and I'm not on the anti-Tiger <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> team either so it's not like they were needed. I'm not too sure what you mean by editor dump, but I have modified my own OOBs slightly before through that editor. If that editor would be able to go to any directory on my computer, that would certainly help, and I'm not saying it doesn't, I just don't recall that it could. In any case I don't know the OOB extensions from any of the others.

I'm not sure what's been done with the OOBs, but the fact that you mentioned the Tiger FT being reduced to 158 and the MG42 discussion (these just 'happen' to be weapons that US players would happen to face, as pre-US Gerry stuff is never complained about) that went on makes me very suspicious that post-'42 Gerry has taken a beating. I can alter Tiger FT afterwards back to the 175 or whatever it is now. I can remember to look up the MG42 ratings before I download too, but I sure don't want to have go through what might be all sorts of little nuances to bring down Gerry and then change ALL of that on many units.

I don't have a whole lot of opinion on pricing, at least what you say has been done, because given the limits and the liberal amount of replacement points doled out, the price of most things don't enter into campaigner's concerns too much. I hope that CL's replacement points is more along the lines of Panzer Strike, etc., to where it's a challenge dealing with limited points and delays in fighting the next battle if you re-equip too much.

Summing up, at least as SPWAW stands, campaign-wise, currently, I have much less issue with any pricing that could be made up, than with Gerry stuff being chiseled away so the US stuff can destroy it from the front (or of course MG42's proving too much of a nuisance, or whatever other thing in Gerry pool must be too threatening).
User avatar
Paul Vebber
Posts: 5342
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Portsmouth RI
Contact:

Post by Paul Vebber »

Neither the IS-3 or KT can "normally" penetrate each other frontally - the equivalent armor is similar - 280 for the KT and 270 for the IS-3. The respective base pentrations are 232 for the 88 and 189 for the D-25T.

The stab difference of 2 to 1 only really plays if both are moving full tilt, the higher speed of the IS-3 actually makes this at least a wash if not tipped slightly toward teh IS-3 in a mobile situation.

The KT gun is better, but unlike the D-25T that can easily penetrate the flank of the KT (189 vs 100) the KT has to get lucky to get a kill even at teh flank of the IS-3 (232 vs 210 - even a 20 degree angle in teh horizontal makes this 50/50 propasition.

So the IS-3 can use its better mobility to deny effective shots to the KT and take advantage of the vulnerable flanks of the KT. THe KT must use its superior guna and ammo suply to "beat the IS-3 to a bloody pulp" and hope it gets lucky before the IS-3 gets unsuppresed...

The relative ability of enemy guns to penetrate dries teh armor value, since the IS-3 is much better armored overall than the KT, and has better mobilty (11 typical hexes vs 8) it comes out slightly better in the scoring (KT 226 to 249 a 10% difference) that deopending on tactics I think is reasonable.
nexus
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Siegen / Germany
Contact:

Post by nexus »

Originally posted by Grimm:
I have never seen the formulas but it is my understanding that they do not factor in availability or manufacturing costs. Neither factor is relavent to the unit cost. Availability has been addressed by the Rarity factor option.

JSII v Easy 8 - I could see how they might have similar unit values. The JSII has better frontal armor and a bigger gun but suffers from poor fire control and very limited ammo load. I have used the JSII in late war scenarios and I was left unimpressed. They could take a hit well but they didn't really hit much and you cannot afford to take low probabilty shots due to limited ammo load. (I always play w/ limited ammo ON). My $0.02 <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

on not to high distance and not moved this turn the gun of the JSII isn´t that bad. and if this gun hit´s it usually destroys the target,except the very heavy german tanks as king tiger or elefant. but generally spoken the t34/85 or the su100 are compared to the price the better ones...

the "easy8" is a great tank,but can it be that it has a somewhat higher breakdown rate (main gun and immobilizing in tree terrain)??? i noticed that while playing the "the victors" campaign. i thought the us-vehicles in ´45 were very reliable.
Greetings

Frank
User avatar
Paul Vebber
Posts: 5342
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Portsmouth RI
Contact:

Post by Paul Vebber »

THere is a general lowering of nearly all "thick" armor because it simply wasn't as effective, side armor on the KT for example gets a10% bonus from 80 to 88 that is very significant vs US AP

The penetration assumes US 240BHN test plate. Some armor was better, some was worse, most "thick" armor, especially as the war went on was increasingly flawed. German armor 175mm thick did not behave as US 240BHN test plate, so it has been reduced

I tempered the reduction in MG 42 it has an HE kill of 14 in the new OOBs out of compatibility with existing balanced scenarios as anything analytic.

Everybody has an opinion on what to rate things, there is no objective way to do it given the scenario development the MCs represent, so the changes are relatively minor in most cases.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

nexus: They have a 'national' rating for all equipment breakdown rates, so that one Sherman wouldn't be more reliable than another, besides, if anything, you'd think the Easy Eight was less relaible for all the extra armor weighing it down more, although they may had put a super power-train in to compensate, but the game wouldn't reflect that breakdown difference anyway.
Panzer Leo
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig/Germany

Post by Panzer Leo »

I see, what you're saying with the JS-3 armor, Paul. I made some tests and was really surprised by the outcome. The armor values of KT and JS-3 are that high (up to 390 without ricochet), that both guns cannot penetrate the other tanks front, except with a lucky vulnerable location hit (test range 100m). This kind of invulnerability really astounded me and I tried the biggest gun, the 128mm of the Jagdtiger. Again no way to penetrate a 115mm curved turret of the JS-III at 100m.
Now my question:
Where these tanks really immune to such big calibers ?
The Russians claimed they could penetrate the KTs hull plate at 1000m with the 25DT. This always sounded like propaganda to me (I'm talking of the article on Russian War Zone), but I never had a doubt, they had been able to do so at closer ranges of 300 or 400m, e.g.
Is my impression of WWII heavy armor wrong and there were no weapons able to penetrate KT or JS-III fronts ?
Image

Mir nach, ich folge euch !
IKerensky
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am

Post by IKerensky »

As my old german border guard from SP2 1950 will tell you : there is no way <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
But as far as I know JSIII dont saw real action , or at last no armored fighting warfare so I just dont know about their behaviour versus KT.
Believe just in that : all late war super tank can easily get killed by just 1 man , a late war AT RP, and a good cover to launch a close shoot <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
User avatar
Paul Vebber
Posts: 5342
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Portsmouth RI
Contact:

Post by Paul Vebber »

Thats why post-war saw going to Sabot, conventional AP will only penetrate so much.

Whether the KT front could withstand repetedpounding at close range from 122mm depends on who you believe. Both are likely correct. With good quality armor, a KT front was probably only vulnerable to "critical hits"...teh rub being how many KTs had good quality unflawed armor...the world may never know...
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”