Battle Test Report

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Battle Test Report

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Battle Test Report

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Battle Test Report - 7/1/2000 1:49:00 AM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

I just completed five battle tests where I had the computer play against itself. The conditions were the same for each battle. Initial Conditions for Each Battle June 44 Meeting Engagement Player1 = German Player2 = Soviet 2440 Battle Points for the Germans (100 points for the HQ and 2340 points for 20 Tiger Is in two companies of 10 Tigers each). 2500 Battle Points for the Soviets (100 points for the HQ and 2400 points for 20 T-34/85s in two companies of 10 T-34s each). AI set to 0. All Realism Settings turned ON except Country Training turned OFF. Troop Quality set to 70 for both sides. All other settings on default/100% Computer Control for both sides. Human Buy for both sides. Computer Deploy for both sides. Noon, No Major Water Battle #1 Results Soviet surrender after 11 turns Visibility 18 hazy 6 Tigers destroyed 1 Tiger abandoned 2 Tigers immobilized 18 T-34/85s destroyed 2 T-34/85s abandoned Battle #2 Results Soviet surrender after 11 turns Visibility 14 rain 5 Tigers destroyed 19 T-34/85s destroyed 1 T-34/85s abandoned Battle #3 Results Soviet surrender after 12 turns Visibility 21 clear 5 Tigers destroyed 18 T-34/85s destroyed 2 T-34/85s abandoned Battle #4 Results Soviet surrender after 10 turns Visibility 22 clear 1 Tiger destroyed 1 Tigers immobilized 18 T-34/85s destroyed 2 T-34/85s abandoned Battle #5 Results Soviet surrender after 21 turns Visibility 22 clear 8 Tigers destroyed 1 Tiger abandoned 1 Tiger immobilized 17 T-34/85s destroyed 3 T-34/85s abandoned Average Results of the Five Battles Soviet surrender after 13.0 turns Visibility 19.4 per game 5.0 Tigers destroyed per game 1.0 Tiger abandoned per game 0.8 Tigers immobilized per game 18.0 T-34/85s destroyed per game 2.0 T-34/85s abandoned per game 0.0 T-34/85s immobilized per game Preliminary Tentative Conclusion Tiger Is are approximately 2.94 times as effective as T-34/85s in "tank-to-tank" combat {20.0 (sum of Soviet average losses[destroyed plus abandoned] per game) divided by 6.8 (sum of German average losses [destroyed plus abandoned plus immobilized] per game) = 2.94}.

_____________________________

VAH

Post #: 1

- 7/1/2000 2:08:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Fascinating. Care to try out some other units that are roughly point-equivalent, but one seems to have a definite edge? The Tigers did even better than I expected. Maybe Panthers?

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 2

- 7/1/2000 2:10:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

That dont prove anything. The computer dont have a clue how to use the equipment. You give two T-34/85s to a human player and but him against a humen player with one Tiger and the Kiger is going to be died in no time.

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 3

- 7/1/2000 2:18:00 AM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

Well then, Drake, why don't I give you 20 T-34/85s and I'll take 20 Tiger Is and we can test human vs. human, okay?

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 4

- 7/1/2000 2:27:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: That dont prove anything. The computer dont have a clue how to use the equipment. ...

While its true the AI doesn't know how to maneuver, etc. since it plays both sides equally badly, this issue cancels out. With these two tanks, there is no special tactical consideration that the AI could fail to employ. E.G. for max arty effectiveness, deploy it rearward and use its indirect fire capability instead of as a direct fire weapon, etc. What it proves is that over time, all other things being equal, Tigers are nearly three times as effective as T-34's against each other. What it does not prove is any other speculation as to equipment effectiveness. For example, this doesn't take combined arms into consideration. E.G. While the WWII US Army had tanks that were less capable than the Germans, doctrinally the US Army intended not to use them as antitank vehicles, this role was supposed to be carried out by tank destroyers. (I know, I know that this was doctrine and it failed in the field lots of times the US had to rely upon tanks in this role - I just can't think of a better example off the top of my head) So, a battle between US tanks and German tanks would show that the German tanks were x times more effective but would not be doctrinally accurate as it did not test under doctrinal conditions. (however it might be historically accurate given the US' departure from doctrine). None-the-less my argument shows that a test is only valid for the conditions tested. To become generally valid, you must include all factors in varing degrees in a stastically valid proportion to that which is found in real life. As the number of varibles increases, the number of test cases goes up geometrically. Given Victor's one varible, the type of tank, five test runs seems valid. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 5

- 7/1/2000 2:30:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by victorhauser: ... Preliminary Tentative Conclusion Tiger Is are approximately 2.94 times as effective as T-34/85s in "tank-to-tank" combat ...

Then I would expect that over several tests, 60 T-34's and 20 Tigers would fight to nearly equal results (draws or roughly equal numbers of wins). If I can install the patches I'll try it this weekend. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 6

- 7/1/2000 2:31:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

I did not say they were even. I think you should get three T-34/85s for every 2 tigers would be around right. As for the game send it over. Random map meeting engagement, with each side with their 20 tanks and no other equipment, sounds like a test.

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 7

- 7/1/2000 2:58:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Actually, point for point, the Tiger is 3.016591251885 times more effective

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 8

- 7/1/2000 3:07:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Serious question now. Doesn't averaging out the three conditions (destroyed, immobilized, abandoned) before adding them up queer the formula? If I add them all before averaging, then I get 6.2 KO'ed Tigers per game, yielding a base 3.225806451613:1 effectiveness, and 3.308519437552:1 adjusted for point-to-point.

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 9

- 7/1/2000 3:43:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

I think that such demonstrations can give an insight into potential problem areas, which this seems to indicate teh T-34/85 (or Tiger relatively speaking) but don't think that it calls for making the T-34/85 3 times cheaper. The AI vs AI tends to reward the side better ina "train wreck" where two forces smash headlong, as someone pointed out, it tends to minimize factors of speed, non-frontal armor, or lomg range hitting advantages. I will make sure the OOB group takes a good hard look at point costs as I do agree that they need significant tweaking, but I think it will take some time to come up with god numbers. Thanks Victor! If nothing else its an interesting test!

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 10

- 7/1/2000 3:50:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

There's definitely a tweak required here, but the Tiger would end up costing nearly 400 points using these figures. Person v. Person, or Person v. AI tests would have different results, but people are far too variable to really give an idea of what's going on. I am inclined to say that the cost of the Tiger should go up a bit, and the T-34 should drop a bit. How much, I have no idea. Maybe I'll try some tests this looooooong weekend. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited 06-30-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 11

- 7/1/2000 3:56:00 AM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: I did not say they were even. I think you should get three T-34/85s for every 2 tigers would be around right.

By Jove, I think he's got it!

My point in all this is to create some dialog on how much a unit should cost. Drake is the first person I've read in this forum (I admit I haven't read all the posts) to state that 3 T-34/85s should cost as much as 2 Tiger Is. The current OOB has a price of 117 for the Tiger I and 120 points for the T-34/85. But Drake believes that the point cost for the T-34/85 should be around 79, and not 120. What do the rest of you think? Is the Tiger I priced correctly? If yes, then is a price of 79 a "reasonable" price for a T-34/85? I'd like to see some numbers from you guys. So far, all I've seen are generalizations. Let's see some estimated prices from you guys and then we can plug those numbers into our OOB editors and run some more tests. And while Larry correctly states that all units need to be priced according to some "combined arms" context, we have to start somewhere. And since SPWAW is primarily a tank-vs-tank game, then I see no problem with starting there. Why not make a list of what you consider to be the most effective down to the least effective tanks and then compare your list to the SPWAW price list (no peeking at the price list before you make your own list

). This is important work and our feedback is of value to the SPWAW staff. The better the price list, then the more fair our tournaments and head-to-head games will be. P.S. Due to the application of Lanchester's Laws, if something is roughly 3 times as effective as another thing in battle, then the actual numbers employed should be roughly the square root of that ratio. Thus, if a Tiger I is deemed to be 3 times as effective as a T-34/85, then the number of T-34/85s employed should be roughly the square root of 3 (which is approximately 1.7)times the number of Tiger Is. So an "even" fight should result if 34 T-34/85s (1.7 * 20) fight 20 Tiger Is using the conditions I described at the start of this topic.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 12

- 7/1/2000 5:16:00 AM

WW2'er

Posts: 177
Joined: 4/20/2000
From: East Dundee, IL, USA
Status: offline

Hey! I just want to say thanks Victor for bringing this up. I hope many will reply. It's obvious that Matrix WILL listen to the suggestions. I'm not as much of a numbers guru as others who have replied. I'm just the average gamer having a blast with this game. Yet I realize that these prices do have a large effect on campaigns and PBEM games. So from the "average" SPWAW player, here's hoping a lot of you voice your opinions and the game is made even better because of it! WW2'er

quote:

Originally posted by victorhauser: This is important work and our feedback is of value to the SPWAW staff. The better the price list, then the more fair our tournaments and head-to-head games will be.

_____________________________

WW2'er

"That [state] which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools." � Thucydides, 'The Peloponnesian Wars'

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 13

- 7/1/2000 5:36:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

Victorhauser I dont have time to rate every unit but I will rate the major powers on what country has the best chance of winning right now with the unit prices the way they are. 1939 to 44 Soviets UK Germany USA 1944 and 45 USA Soviets UK Germany As you can see the Germans rate low for all of the war. I think the German mobile AT are the worse in the late war. With the way their prices are now I never buy German ATs late in the war.

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 14

- 7/1/2000 9:00:00 AM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Victor: You, you, you, Russophile you. (Now using my Bomber Harris voice) "You have sowed the wind, and now, you shall reap the whirlwind." Hmmm, let's see here. I did a little test of my own, Using your own system the following results were achieved: Initial Conditions for The One Battle (One is enough to make my point here) July 41 Meeting Engagement Player1 = German Player2 = Soviet Premise of battle? KV-1E is too cheap. This battle features, for that time and some time afterwards, the best of the USSR vs. the best of Germany, the PZIIIH vs. the KV-1E. Again, 20 vs. 20. The PZIIIH costs 54, while the KV-1e costs 82. AI set to 0. All Realism Settings turned ON except Country Training turned OFF. Troop Quality set to 70 for both sides. All other settings on default/100% Computer Control for both sides. Human Buy for both sides. Computer Deploy for both sides. Noon, No Major Water Battle #1 Results German surrender after 15? turns Visibility (didn't catch it, but was at least 10) 13 PZIIIH's destroyed 6 PZIIIH's abandoned 3 KV-1E's with one damage point apiece So what should the KV-1E cost here, 1,000 points? The point isn't effectiveness, that's just plain cookie-cutter territory, and it slices both ways. So let's see, if the KV-1E costs 1,000, and Tiger can double it in a battle, does that make the Tiger a 2,000 point unit? And if the T34/85 can outperform the KV-1E, against the PZIIIH, does that make it a 1,000+ unit also? And if the 3-to-1 ratio on the Tiger holds, does that make it some 3,000+ points? This is ridiculous. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-30-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 15

- 7/1/2000 10:17:00 AM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Question: Maybe I missed something here? Were these scenarios done in mixed terrain? Or in open ground? Were the experience and morale values the same for both sides. Were they all equidistant? Etc, etc. A Tiger tank with 80 experience and a 75 morale factor will most likely cream 4 T-34/85 with a 50-60 experience and a 50-55 morale factor. Victor, I am not knocking or making light of your tests. Not at all. The point I am trying to make is that not test is really that accurate unless you make all things totally equal. And could that ever be in this game? No, I don't think so. There are too many variables (different probabilities) that affect the game. Sometimes we forget this. But they do play a role. A big one. Sometimes they make all the difference. And think about it. Would you want it any other way? Would you want a cut and dried slide rule game where results are almost guaranteed? Of course not! The whole purpose in battles in wargaming is NOT having any guarantees, of having some fog of war, some uncertainty. I call them tension-builders. Haven't you ever faced an impossible situation in SPWAW and come through? The skill of your unit plus a roll of the die changed what seemed to be a deadly fact. I think tests should be run. But please remember that a lot of factors should be considered when so doing. Me? Give me excitement! Give me uncertainty! Let me overcome! Let me have a unit that I can pin a medal on when the smoke clears. Give me some action that causes me to make more noise than the game does

That is my kind of wargame! Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 16

- 7/1/2000 11:46:00 AM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. Charles, are you saying that all discussions about pricing are meaningless because we can never get the prices "correct" in the first place due to variables and conditions beyond our control? Are you saying that the current SPWAW prices are just fine and we are wasting forum bandwidth with these discussions? Are you saying that prices don't matter? Are you saying something else? It occurs to me that you think I favor one particular nation over another. It is not in my best interest to crusade a cause that results in skewed prices for any one nation since I do play human-vs-human games and I'd like to participate in SPWAW tournaments. And since I can't know in advance which nation I'll be playing in those cases, then it's important to me that all prices be as fair as possible. It also occurs to me that since you do not play human-vs-human games, then the relative prices of units is not nearly as important to you since in a campaign format a player can "adjust" the situations and battles according to whatever prices are listed. P.S. Wild Bill, I established all parameters as equal and posted them in the first post of this topic when I ran my test battles.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 17

- 7/1/2000 12:52:00 PM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 18

- 7/1/2000 1:22:00 PM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

We also need balance, and some kind of indication of this balance in the game. We're losing sight of the fact that either Tiger's are underpriced or T-34/85's are overpriced. I also think that the 85's should cost 66% of a Tiger. At 120 I think tiger's are a bit underpriced considering the point value sceme of the rest of the game. 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. I don't really use their armor much at all. It's possible through careful use faster units' mobility in dense terrain to defeat heavier armored and armed units. Under some cicumstances I would rather take 20 85's over 20 Tigers, but the simple fact is that, at least in the SP system, Tigers are more powerful then T-34/85's. I think too much of this thread is focusing around Vic's attempts at a scientific method to his problem(which I applaud), and not enough on the problem itself. We all know how it feels to pit Tiger vs. lighter/faster and vice versa. When you have the luxury of heavy armor and a deadly main-gun you let them come to you and move from good vantage point to good vantage point. When on the ugly end of the stick you really gotta be careful. I dont understand why Victor has to even run a test like that. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 19

- 7/1/2000 2:25:00 PM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

Hi Victorhauser, Does it matter which country is listed first? By this I mean, does the first country always get to move first? It might help if each side moved first in 1/2 of the battles. Just a suggestion, BA Evans

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 20

- 7/1/2000 5:17:00 PM

Mac_MatrixForum

Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

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. 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

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 21

- 7/1/2000 5:43:00 PM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 22

- 7/1/2000 6:37:00 PM

kfbaker

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/26/2000
From: Sheffield,UK
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 23

- 7/1/2000 7:13:00 PM

Fabio Prado

Posts: 503
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline

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"; [B]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.[B] 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

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 24

- 7/1/2000 7:42:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

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)?

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 25

- 7/1/2000 8:45:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 26

- 7/1/2000 8:52:00 PM

Blubbs!

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Leeds, England
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 27

- 7/1/2000 10:39:00 PM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 28

- 7/1/2000 11:01:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

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!) :-)

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 29

- 7/2/2000 5:43:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to victorhauser)

Post #: 30