beelzemetz wrote:
In my opinion, the targeting and optical equipment of the late PzIV are not to this extent inferior to that of the Panther.
So, half the range for the PzIV is too much, i think.
It could well be the case that stats will need to be fine tuned, in fact I'd be surprised if they didn't.
My experience of rule writing is that you should go with a paradigm, express it and then test it. In the case of the PzIV in the late war the paradigm I worked to was this: The PzIV was the equal of the T34/76, however, it was outclassed by the T34/85 and totally overmatched by the Stalin II.
By 1944 the PzIV design had reached the end of its ability to be significantly modifed and was close to being obsolete. The last version, the Ausf. J, was actually a retrograde in terms of combat capabilities and was born of the necessity to speed up production in the face of mounting losses. For example, the electrical turret traverse of the Ausf. H was removed and traversing had to be done by hand and the armoured schutzen were replaced with wire mesh. It is probably fair to say that if the Germans had had the capacity to cease PzIV production and switch over to nothing but Panthers then they would have done.
Now, nothing I have just written precludes raising the firing range of the PzIV. But if we begin testing with the range set at 75cm it will outclass the T34/85 and make the tank far more useful than perhaps it actually was. Indeed, it may be the case that we will have to lower the ranges on the more powerful tanks to better balance the game.
I would also like to advance the notion that equipment differences and theoretical maximum ranges are the fixation of rule writers and accordingly their importance is somewhat over emphasised. More often than not engagement range was determined by the density of the terrain being fought over and the performance of equipment determined by the skill of the men using it.