OP M36

[Leonida [525]]

I agree with the removal of SP and with the rework of armor doc tree, but making all 90mm like that of SP i think it's too much, imagine Jacksons ambushed, they would clearly oneshot almost any Axis Tank before you see them, and they would become veeery dangerous with their speed ability, even with armor nerf. And if they're combined at late game with pershings that would have also the same armor of SP (pratically they would be SP with less range), i think it would be no chance for Axis, especially if there's not TH against it, or if 2 players choose the new armor doc (that is very good even vs infantry). And considering the fact that they would almost always use apcr since they're always full of ammo, it's a bit too much.
I personally like the idea of
- Buffing 90mm (not so much)
- Removing SP and keep the Ace (maybe buffing it with vets or some else)
- Delay Pershings and Jacksons by 1 CP
Some ideas, but there's a lot to discuss here
and yes i agree with the release of a beta version for the forum users to try the changes that will be done )

[MarKr]

OK, Tiger has his oppinion on things which includes the notion that SP needs to be removed if 90mm guns get buff, he insists this is absolutely necessary though I still don't see why, I don't wish to further argue about this, he gave his arguments to support this idea so everyone can make a picture.
Some time ago I wrote this to the dev team and we more or less agreed it could work but still I'm interested in oppinion of the community:

When thinking about these changes I tried to hold to the "US should be quantity over quality" which is the main reason for the unit limits you'll see later - simply said Shermans are meant to be the main attack force and anything with 90mm gun is only a support to the main attack force to provide some extra punch. M36 and Pershing are not meant to be "single army units" similar to KT and such.

1) M36 Jackson could get weaker armor (same as M4 Sherman) to reflect reality a bit better and lower HP by 100. Cost would be lower - around 650MP 90F

M36B1 armor and HP stays as it is. Cost remains.

M36B1's speed is now 4.8 so it could be brought more to Sherman level (somewhere between M4 (3.8) and E8 (4.6) ) while M36 could stay at 4.8 to make them somehow different. This would make B1 more suited for Sherman push support - it would be at their speed so it would not "sprint" ahead or stay too much behind the attack force. The M36 on the other hand would be faster and better suited for Hit-and-Run tactics.

Limit them at 1-2 at a time to prevent spamming them.

2) 90mm guns on Jacksons and Pershings would be adjusted to penetrate medium tanks at any range without a problem, to penetrate Tigers and Panthers reliably even at max range (reliably doesn't mean 100% penetration but around 70-80% would be good) but their chances agaist super heavies would still be lower (to keep the need to spend ammo on AP shots). Overall strenght wouldbe comparable to 17 pounders (APCR would be adjusted acordingly)

3) Jacksons could reload longer than Pershings - they would have stronger guns so if they fired they could easily knock out enemy tank but the reload time would take longer so if you attack enemy formation without any support the rest of the attack force will destroy your Jackson before it reloads. On the other hand Pershings would fire faster so they would have some edge.

4) Pershings would most probably still be underused because they would still provide no significant benefit for their high price. So we could boost their MGs - not to be too effective but to be able to protect the tank from incomming infantry which would make it quite unique. To balance out the news for the Pershings, they could get (at least for testing) unit limit of 1 at a time again to prevent spam, if a player needs another one, they can call in PAce...

Anyway the bottom line is that there would be more of a difference between M36 variants (price, speed, armor, HP and general purpose). The 90mm guns would be more effective, as they should be, while Pershings would still have some advantage and so it would make sense to build them - the MG boost would not affect SP so there would be sense in choosing PAce over SP (PAce = cheaper, but less effective against super heavies while abit more versatile due to MG adjustmenst while SP = expensive one-time pure AT unit). Because of the unit limit, the "US should be quantity over quality faction" would not suffer much either.

As for availability - with the above proposed changes delaying the Jacks and Pershings would be a good move I think...probably even the way Tiger proposed above.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Everything you have mentioned above is cool.. except that Pershing should be limited to 2, and not only 1.
And for sure; SP should be finally removed At least for the sake of testing... You can see almost no one is against SP removal actually.

[Devilfish]

"US should be quantity over quality"

simply said Shermans are meant to be the main attack force

Problem is that shermans can't stand a chance as main attack force. Too easily destroyed, not very reliable armament (both AT and AI) and don't really even have an agility advantage. Not even 4 E8s will stand a chance against one Panther, because it can reverse the same speed as shermans go forward. Unless you load all APCR, fingers crossed and doing lucky pens on the move. Not even speaking of how difficult is to micro 4 shermans pursuing a Panther and all schreck squads rushing to its aid.......
Simply, no hope for "sherman army for the win". There are games when it seems to be the case, but that's only games already won in early-mid phase....

In my opinion any major change to armor doc is risky, simply because mod development is too inactive. Such suggested changes as removing SP or giving 90mm guns stats of SP would require try-fail method, with regular changes to make it balanced. Not releasing "beta", which means Tiger with one friend will play 4 battles and decide changes which will project into next patch, while another will come out in another half year, if ever.

I'd advice keeping things as they are, maybe just really slightly buffing 90mm (like reliably pen anything below tiger/panther and having same chance to pen panther as it has against pershing) and that's it.

Btw, isn't aiming time with 90mm kinda too high? I always found it so slow, visually. Like it finishes rotation of turret and then has a pause before shooting. When you'll have time, could you check the numbers, compared to other allies/axis tanks?

Edit

Everything you have mentioned above is cool.. except that Pershing should be limited to 2, and not only 1.
And for sure; SP should be finally removed At least for the sake of testing... You can see almost no one is against SP removal actually.

In my opinion if you remove SP and 90mm efficiency stays the same against KT and such, unless your friend takes KT out with planes or arty, armor doc is pretty much fucked.

[MarKr]

Problem is that shermans can't stand a chance as main attack force. Too easily destroyed, not very reliable armament (both AT and AI) and don't really even have an agility advantage.

On one hand you say this and on the other I hear people (not just Tiger) saying that US Armor doc's Sherman spamm capabilities are extremely effective in the game. You say that Shermans are too fragile and have crappy weapons...you have to realize that thanks to upgrades and unlocks they become cheaper and can be build faster + you generate MP faster than your opponent ever could and have two upgrades that add +5 to basic fuel income and you have the option to activate an ability that instantly replaces your losses. US Armor doc is meant to be played as "attrition war" (is that the term?) - you can produce so many units in such short time that you in the end overwhelm your opponet by higher numbers.
I am not saying that it is easy to play that way but it can be pulled off.

Not even 4 E8s will stand a chance against one Panther, because it can reverse the same speed as shermans go forward. Unless you load all APCR, fingers crossed and doing lucky pens on the move. Not even speaking of how difficult is to micro 4 shermans pursuing a Panther and all schreck squads rushing to its aid.......

That is where the new design of M36B1 would come in - 4 Shermans in the front + M36B1 as support. It would have a good chance against Panther so no need to load all 4 Shermans with APCR, also it has static position which gives a range bonus which could be used to your advantage too.

In my opinion any major change to armor doc is risky, simply because mod development is too inactive. Such suggested changes as removing SP or giving 90mm guns stats of SP would require try-fail method, with regular changes to make it balanced. Not releasing "beta", which means Tiger with one friend will play 4 battles and decide changes which will project into next patch, while another will come out in another half year, if ever.

You are right in a sense but I think the beta version could work IF more people provided feedback. In most cases Tiger is the only one who does that consistently while other players don't say anything or reduce their reaction to "It's OK/fucked" without any further info.
If it were only about fine tuning the (relatively huge) changes for Armor doc, I would be willing to update beta every few days or week to tune it right but I would need enough people to test it and provide feedback and AGREE (at least in majority) on what needs to be tweaked for better balance.

Btw, isn't aiming time with 90mm kinda too high? I always found it so slow, visually. Like it finishes rotation of turret and then has a pause before shooting. When you'll have time, could you check the numbers, compared to other allies/axis tanks?

I just checked and the aiming time after the turret rotates does not differ from other tanks (I randomly checked 76 Sherman, E8, Hellcat and Panther). So is it perhaps just a feeling?

[drivebyhobo]

When thinking about these changes I tried to hold to the "US should be quantity over quality"

Why do you always oversimplify the US as a "quantity" faction? The US Army doctrine in WW2 and even today has consistently held that manpower is precious but bullets and equipment are very very cheap. That's why they adopted semi automatic rifles early and the thinking behind mass deployment of fully automatic M16s in Vietnam. It's all about leveraging the power of the American supply chain not manpower like the USSR.

Shermans are meant to be the main attack force and anything with 90mm gun is only a support to the main attack force to provide some extra punch. M36 and Pershing are not meant to be "single army units" similar to KT and such

Yeah the main attack force against mixed regular forces. Not the main attack forces against armor which only feeds CP and resource advantages to the axis.

US Armor doc is meant to be played as "attrition war" (is that the term?) - you can produce so many units in such short time that you in the end overwhelm your opponet by higher numbers.

That reflects Soviet and expert AI thinking not American thinking. Soviet tanks were sent into battle without radios and gun sights. All Shermans had radios and gun sights. Shermans were not sent in waves to destroy panthers. They were held back and used alternative tactics such as calling in a barrage or using dedicated tank destroyers which is what any sane BK CoH commander does.

That is where the new design of M36B1 would come in - 4 Shermans in the front + M36B1 as support. It would have a good chance against Panther

That's a cost of ~2000 MP and hundreds of fuel to defeat a 800 mp/~100 fuel tank. Is it any wonder that for such an investment, the SP is overwhelmingly chosen as it's a much cheaper option, doesn't require god like micromanagement of FIVE tanks and isn't prone to being one hit killed?

Also what happens when an axis player has two panthers side by side? Bring in 8 Shermans and 2 M36B1s?

[Devilfish]

On one hand you say this and on the other I hear people (not just Tiger) saying that US Armor doc's Sherman spamm capabilities are extremely effective in the game. You say that Shermans are too fragile and have crappy weapons...you have to realize that thanks to upgrades and unlocks they become cheaper and can be build faster + you generate MP faster than your opponent ever could and have two upgrades that add +5 to basic fuel income and you have the option to activate an ability that instantly replaces your losses. US Armor doc is meant to be played as "attrition war" (is that the term?) - you can produce so many units in such short time that you in the end overwhelm your opponet by higher numbers.
I am not saying that it is easy to play that way but it can be pulled off.

Don't know who is saying that, but I have personally never experienced. I don't remember a single game where someone has successfully used such a strategy. Mentioning TIger in particular, he usually goes for SP and master micro it, so yea...
People are usually just getting several (2-3) HE shermans, which indeed are easily replaceable, but there's not really much point in having more than that at the same time.
No matter how it might seem on paper, in game it's not as simple as "I have so much res income as US, I just send 4 E8s forward and replace them, np repeat the process". Trust me, it's not working.

That is where the new design of M36B1 would come in - 4 Shermans in the front + M36B1 as support. It would have a good chance against Panther so no need to load all 4 Shermans with APCR, also it has static position which gives a range bonus which could be used to your advantage too.

This actually does make sense, but it would still be better to get HE shermans + Jumbo + M36B1, really.....

You are right in a sense but I think the beta version could work IF more people provided feedback. In most cases Tiger is the only one who does that consistently while other players don't say anything or reduce their reaction to "It's OK/fucked" without any further info.
If it were only about fine tuning the (relatively huge) changes for Armor doc, I would be willing to update beta every few days or week to tune it right but I would need enough people to test it and provide feedback and AGREE (at least in majority) on what needs to be tweaked for better balance.

In my opinion there are not enough players to play enough games in short time to actually really test properly.

I just checked and the aiming time after the turret rotates does not differ from other tanks (I randomly checked 76 Sherman, E8, Hellcat and Panther). So is it perhaps just a feeling?

I would bet my left kidney it is slower lol. Well it seems, I'd have to live with just one .

[Jagdpanther]

You are right in a sense but I think the beta version could work IF more people provided feedback. In most cases Tiger is the only one who does that consistently while other players don't say anything or reduce their reaction to "It's OK/fucked" without any further info.
If it were only about fine tuning the (relatively huge) changes for Armor doc, I would be willing to update beta every few days or week to tune it right but I would need enough people to test it and provide feedback and AGREE (at least in majority) on what needs to be tweaked for better balance.

In my opinion there are not enough players to play enough games in short time to actually really test properly.

You are too pessimistic dude.

I'm sure there will be a lot of feedback once an announcement is made on this forum, on moddb, on the steam group, ingame talking etc.

[MarKr]

@drivebyhobo: Don't bark at me over the US "quantity over quality" thing. It was not me who decided the US Armor should be played this way. As I got to the dev team, I was told this is the way for US Armor doc and that we will stick to it, therefore as a team member I have to act according to that.

Guys, I know that playing US in this way requires waaay more micro than playing any Axis doctrine but you have to realize that changing this now would require total overhaul of the entire US faction...or maybe just Infantry and Armor doctrines and that is not something we can do because with that is connected balancing of Axis doctrines and in the end we would have to overhaul the entire mod.

Don't know who is saying that, but I have personally never experienced. I don't remember a single game where someone has successfully used such a strategy. Mentioning TIger in particular, he usually goes for SP and master micro it, so yea...

OK, Tiger said that above, but you say he doesn't do that, I can remember specifically kwok (and there were others, though I don't remember who it was now ) saying he was able to outspam opponents most of the time perhaps he could share his experience.

This actually does make sense, but it would still be better to get HE shermans + Jumbo + M36B1, really.....

OK, but still this attack force will be more effective against panthers than just "HE shermans + Jumbo" so the new M36 could work.

Oh, I forgot to add to the proposal that neither of the M36 versions would be affected by sandbags anymore.

[drivebyhobo]

@drivebyhobo: Don't bark at me over the US "quantity over quality" thing. It was not me who decided the US Armor should be played this way. As I got to the dev team, I was told this is the way for US Armor doc and that we will stick to it, therefore as a team member I have to act according to that.

I am not barking. I'm not a dog. I am not saying in this in a hostile tone.

You have always talked about a completely different kind of "quantity" that is foreign to BK mod. The kind of "quantity" you've always talked about is implemented in N44 mod where you can throw Soviet style headon mass charges of shermans and riflemen at Axis elite units and be reasonably effective. It's not uncommon for a single player of a fully expanded N44 armor doctrine to have 30-50 tanks at once. That's where

4 Shermans in the front + M36B1 as support

serves as a counter to one panther. I don't see that as being fun or realistic.

The kind of "quantity" that has long been embodied in BK mod works quietly in the background such as cheaper rifleman upgrades for Infantry doc. Nothing so drastic that it makes it feasible to lose 2-3 units for the possible destruction of one elite axis unit.

[MarKr]

You have always talked about a completely different kind of "quantity" that is foreign to BK mod. The kind of "quantity" you've always talked about is implemented in N44 mod where you can throw Soviet style headon mass charges of shermans and riflemen at Axis elite units and be reasonably effective.

So according to you, how do you think Xali intended the doctrine from the start? Just look at the clues that are there - Command tree unlocks - cheaper Shermans, faster XP for Shermans; Upgrades - Sandbags I - mostly for Shermans, Sandbags II only for Shermans...The doctrine basically revolves around Shermans.
So it is not that I talk about it wrong (don't worry, I'm aware that historically this style reflects Soviets), I talk about as it is intended BK-wise. That's all.

serves as a counter to one panther. I don't see that as being fun or realistic.

OK...what do you consider fun or realistic? Tanks on each side having counterparts that are more or less same in strenght? Well...Sherman 76 that would be counterpart to what? PIV H? OK, let's make them more or less same in guns and armor...but here's a problem - Axis units are more expensive so we have two tanks of similar strenght while one is more expensive while having no real advantage...also US have MP income boost from start of a game and can further improve it by upgrades and let's not forget about the upgrades that increase production speed...how do you solve it? Make them cost about the same? What about the US upgrades? Remove them? What will replace them? Talking about realism...76mm Sherman should have no problem taking out Tiger, which is way more expensive..and wait for the shitstorm Tiger (the user) would release on this forum for implementing something like that
Can you see what I mean? As historically wrong as this may be, changing it to more realistic style would mean reworking not just Armor doc but also most of the mod.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Talking about realism...76mm Sherman should have no problem taking out Tiger, which is way more expensive..and wait for the shitstorm Tiger (the user) would release on this forum for implementing something like that

I see what you did there!

But actually, even currently.. 2 over-repaired and upgraded E8s with sandbags... Are actually able to kill the Tiger.
They might suffer penetrating the Panther; however that once they succeed.. the Panther will be most likely dead already... Due to such a low HP. Which is way too less for its cost if you would ask me! At least for the price of the G Panther i mean.

Anyway, I am really looking forward to see a testing beta version of these Armor doc changes anytime soon perhaps.. you should also consider removing the SP... While not limiting the Pershing as I previously mentioned! I can see no one really likes the SP to stay after all.

[Warhawks97]

I just got till drivebyhobo post. He brings up very good points. Basically the best so far which i fully agree with. Will read others later. Just my eyes power left me after 5 days nonstop reading and writting 15 hours a day.

The discussion is quite interesting.

I do like the idea of changed 90 mm gun and jackson as described by markr. Just at the point when he got to "4 shermans + jacks" i wasnt sure he means that serious. Even in case it would be realistic, i am not sure if anyone will really manage to bring such a maneuver to a successfull end. I mean thats 5 tanks. You gonna blobb and a all day standard heavy rocket barrage hits such a target. Drive each tank individually and you barely bring the jacks into a good position for a good shot. The Panther owner just keeps concentrated on driving backwards. Maybe using quick infantry schreck rush and take some aim with panther. In case the Jacks is dead, the shermans might also die soon. At least they attack till they die or till panther is dead. Escape wont be possible. And besides that: whats the cost of 5 tanks? even assuimg cheapest sherman its almost 2000 MP altogether. And that for maybe killing a single Panther that cost a third of that?
Fighting against Panther+ slight defense will probably be kind of suicide afterall unless you make good use of a costly calli before.


Also Armor doc sits on endless ammo? From my experience armor doc has full ammo storage untill first heavier axis tanks rolls out. After the second engagment and 4 times use of APCR/HVAP (with moderate success) and its all gone.


Also yeah, sherman is supposed to be core unit. But this "winning by quality" is too simple. Its not what US is supposed to actually be. Thats what Soviet forces would be supposed to be. US would rather be a nice mix of average units and abilties instead of spamming one thing. I wonder how many shermans would be necessary to win by pure numbers. I think the ammount of shermans are impossible to achieve in BK. Even if three players would choose that doc.

Also i wonder why it is considered too strong when Pershing would get some real armor combined with decent 90 mm buff. Its afterall quite fuel intense, even with two supply yard boosts (which are long termed bonuses). There is still no real defense breaker. And with SP removal in exchange for that kind of buff (the 90 mm actually keeps as effective vs KT as it is) the KT alone can become an armor doc shredding tool.

And attrition war? Isnt WH the best faction in doing so? Those who see allied winning attrition game do actually see a game in which allied have won early-mid game in first 20 min of the game. The remaining two hours "attrition" is actually "axis last stand". From normal matches with 50:50 map controle its usually axis that wins attrition for some reason:

1. They need less inf to launch effective hit and runs
2. Less back up required. And even if a small ammount of deadly defensive units can stand large scale attacks from allied (1 pak, 1 mg.... just compare here)
3. Lot more arty. Maybe not the most accurate one but they dont have to be. They cluster the entire map anyway nonstop. That causes pure stress on allied player keeps allied unit in not combat ready conditions and prevents any preperation for an successfull allied attack.


So its the few, easy controlable and multirole unit faction with average unit cost and sufficient arty to harrass its opponent that wins the so called attrition wars.
Another effect is, in case you do attrition with armor doc, that you have to prick the axis whenever you can and as often as you can. But losses will be high and even for armor it becomes difficult build up for a finishing attack at the same time.
And in standoff situations the axis will beat armor anyway by creating a unbreakable defense and then pushing step by step with armor and defense and using defense breaking tools.

Oh, and i tried to remember when i saw two panthers side by side being killed. That both being destroyed was a rare picture. And usually only when Armor, airforce and special inf and other off map support worked together (Or when lots of 17 pdrs are already sieging axis base).

But in normal armor assaults and warfare i can barely remember it happend.


ah shit. Such a wall of text.... didnt expect that i am still able to do that in my current condition.


Edit:

serves as a counter to one panther. I don't see that as being fun or realistic.

OK...what do you consider fun or realistic? Tanks on each side having counterparts that are more or less same in strenght? Well...Sherman 76 that would be counterpart to what? PIV H? OK, let's make them more or less same in guns and armor...but here's a problem - Axis units are more expensive so we have two tanks of similar strenght while one is more expensive while having no real advantage...

The time the unit becomes available. As a sample its possible that a sherman e8 would be cheaper+ even superior to a Tank IV. In return you might need both tank depot upgrades as a sample. That means that when e8 can be fielded it must be expected that two tank IV´s are already on the field. So on the long hand will force axis to go for better tanks while the other side will largely stick on these tanks as core unit, just in some numbers+ special support units. And after e8 comes no better multipurpose tank for allied, just specialized units while axis can go for better multirole tanks.

also US have MP income boost from start of a game

ehm, what? The very basic income is the same from the start, or almost the same. Idk how "corsix ressource numbers" look like. I can imagine that US have some "higher corsix numbers" but thats just to balance out the higher upkeep for their engineers (and maybe base defense units). So at the and the yellow MP number with that "+" in front of it is for all the same usually at the very beginning of a game.

[MarKr]

Just at the point when he got to "4 shermans + jacks" i wasnt sure he means that serious.

Alright I guess I didn't express myself correctly, what I meant was that if you suplement your attack force with one unit with 90mm gun, Panthers would not be such a problem. With the changes I proposed 90mm guns would have solid chance against panthers even in one on one situations but when they bring support, you need support too. Devilfish said that even 4 E8s struggle against a single Panther so I used his numbers and added M36 as solution to the problem.

ehm, what? The very basic income is the same from the start, or almost the same.

Oh...my mistake. I would swear that few patches ago there was a buff in this matter for US...well, I guess I was wrong...

[Warhawks97]

ehm, what? The very basic income is the same from the start, or almost the same.

Oh...my mistake. I would swear that few patches ago there was a buff in this matter for US...well, I guess I was wrong...

well, i think you refer to that upkeep swap? Some percentages of the last supply yard upgrade got swapped and are in affect from right the beginning. That was in order to address the huge upkeep penalties the US suffered in the early- mid game.

But the default income (the one you would have when absolutely no unit is alive) is still the same actually.

[Jalis]

hi
I m probably bored, and have time to loose to give my opinion.
Well. First BK is specifically a pvp mod. Main Concern would be balance. Usually arguing about historically accuracy or realism is dishonnest use to try to be win the bargain. Point a minimum of realism is still necessary (immo). but we cant really say BK is historically exact.

Before to balance the 90 mm or everything else, you need first a coherente target table. Despite effort made last years it s still not. I presume reason is lack of time to restart one from scratch, and lack of source to correct the actual one. Roughly the M3 90 mm is plagued, like the 76 mm, by a biased ammo choice. 6 pdr / 57 mm is simply completly cheated/underated.

just an exemple say Sherman is about the PIV counterpart is not really exact. Reason is more gun than armour. Target table tend to be slightly at PIV advantage, but gun is greatly on axis favor. Like say before it s due to inadequate (and historically inexact ammo choice).
KWK 40 L 48 75 mm penetration at range 1.25-0.92-0.82-0.71 US M1A1 76 mm 1.00- 0.84-0.67-0.54 difference at critical range about 40 per cent. Aside that the two guns target table is rather coherent except minor détails. If all was like these two one it would be almost ok to compare seriously and discuss about balance.

I not so much a pvp at COH, but I presume change cant be drastic even problems are obvious. It s an old game. Players have habits and are prone to cry about bias, unfairness ect ... roughly when a pvp loose it is because the game is disbalanced against him.

Summary. I think there is a structural weakness at bk, and it is the target table. (Despite efforts made). You will probably have some difficulties to have a clear view, if a major game basis like TT, is incoherent.

off topic . PVE. It s not something BK care. It s fairly more easy to make change for this knid of player, simply because even factions are disbalanced, it will simply become an additional difficulty parameters. Here fun is more important than balance. AI is not very adapted to pve at bk, and game lack a bit of diversity (I dont speak here about units. Bk included a lot, even nobody need nor use it). My opinion here is, even bk wasnt biaised, pve player would prefere to play german. People feel more proud to be the lion against a horde of jackal than the inverse.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well; since i am the one who created this topic here, i would like to only keep it into the point that really matters... Which is the proposed changes to the Armor doc and the M36... Away from ANY other off-topic discussions!

So, back to this topic once again;

1) M36 Jackson could get weaker armor (same as M4 Sherman) to reflect reality a bit better and lower HP by 100. Cost would be lower - around 650MP 90F

M36B1 armor and HP stays as it is. Cost remains.

M36B1's speed is now 4.8 so it could be brought more to Sherman level (somewhere between M4 (3.8) and E8 (4.6) ) while M36 could stay at 4.8 to make them somehow different. This would make B1 more suited for Sherman push support - it would be at their speed so it would not "sprint" ahead or stay too much behind the attack force. The M36 on the other hand would be faster and better suited for Hit-and-Run tactics.

Limit them at 1-2 at a time to prevent spamming them.

That's almost exactly what I earlier suggested here on this following post btw...
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1202#p12977
As i mentioned;

-Slugger price decreased. (85 fuel/600 MP instead of 700/110)
-Slugger armor should be MUCH weaker, when I say "MUCH" then I literally mean it.
-Should no longer take any benefits of the upgrades provided to Shermans.
-Should no longer be upgraded with sandbags.

At that time, and after the test I made with Panzerblitz1.. he only agreed with me to reduce the HP... However that it's very nice to see you brought it like that way right now at the end.

But currently 3 are available at a time, never limit to only one! just 2 seems enough.

2) 90mm guns on Jacksons and Pershings would be adjusted to penetrate medium tanks at any range without a problem, to penetrate Tigers and Panthers reliably even at max range (reliably doesn't mean 100% penetration but around 70-80% would be good) but their chances agaist super heavies would still be lower (to keep the need to spend ammo on AP shots). Overall strenght wouldbe comparable to 17 pounders (APCR would be adjusted acordingly)

Buffing the 90mm guns can be good, since that it's something we request... However, that it could be also very bad.. as long as the SuperPershing is in the game!

I told you that the Panther is already suffering to penetrate the Pershing most of the time, i even gave you a video on this... Even the Tiger also suffers sometime!
So, if u will buff the 90mm guns.. then you really should remove the SP.

If you won't remove the SP, then how about you don't touch the 90mm guns at all.. but to nerf both the guns of the Tiger and the Panther against the Pershing in return??!!
This could work even when we remove the SP btw.

3) Jacksons could reload longer than Pershings - they would have stronger guns so if they fired they could easily knock out enemy tank but the reload time would take longer so if you attack enemy formation without any support the rest of the attack force will destroy your Jackson before it reloads. On the other hand Pershings would fire faster so they would have some edge.

i think they already take longer to reload, except when the B1 has stationary position activated. Also the M36 apparently has higher rate of fire when ambushed... But basic reload time is longer already, i guess!
However that I suppose you actually meant to make it longer even when in stationary position or ambush mode? If so, then i believe it would be necessary if you buff their guns... Yes.

4) Pershings would most probably still be underused because they would still provide no significant benefit for their high price. So we could boost their MGs - not to be too effective but to be able to protect the tank from incomming infantry which would make it quite unique. To balance out the news for the Pershings, they could get (at least for testing) unit limit of 1 at a time again to prevent spam, if a player needs another one, they can call in PAce...

DON'T buff the hull and coaxial MGs of the Pershing.
Better replace ALL the single-shot HE shells with the timed HE system.. just like the 76 Jumbo! It should be enough time to shoot 3 rounds at least!

Just remove the SP... Limit Pershing to just 2.. and NOT only one!!!

As for availability - with the above proposed changes delaying the Jacks and Pershings would be a good move I think...probably even the way Tiger proposed above.

indeed.

[Jalis]

even ignore problems dont solve them, remain strictly in the subject is a legitimate demand.

A bit of history. M36 at BK was at start just the pershing armour, with the pershing gun + some features for a lower price. It was a clumsy and improvised entrance imo. It was very slightly changed by Wolf, around the 4.70, because some players complained about its durability. Armour was slightly nerfed. The result is an historical distortion. It is the only one ,in USA side, I can remember at anytime, when I can give you as many bias in axis side than you can find made in China products in a supermarket.

Why in your opinion, this blatant cheat was implemented, especially when it is know former BK coders were inclined toward axis side ? The only explanation I can see is balance. USA had only pershing in front of big cats. They made a second one, available earlier, to balance earliest fielded deadly tigers and panthers. It is just my opinion. Where it is clumsy and improvised, it is M36 can be see as more valuable than the m26 that come later.

Now, Tiger1996, you ask simply to change this balance. Clearly what you are looking for, is more a nerf than a change. It is the M36 armour/durability nerf. lower a bit M36 price dont worth at all. I point usual anwser to USA faction, when underpowered unit is proved, is to lower its price. Why if you think M36 is OP, dont you propose to raise its price ?

I presume we will come to the historical statement ? Aside that I can simply ask : why M36 need to be historically exact, at expend of balance, when so many other units are not ? I saw picture coming for WT to push this way. On an other hands I saw no picture of M3 90 mm performance to push in way to give it more power.

Super Pershing. Afaik it is supposed to be an alter ego for super-heavy germans. Once more, idea was balance. SP is a bit ludicrous imo, just as Maus would be, but it was the only option I presume. Why do you want negociate its withdraws against a fair status for M3 90 ? If you prefer : why a fair kwk 36 88 mm and Kwk 42 75 mm at the same time than a KT would be legitimate, when a fair M3 90 mm at the same time than the SP would be not ?


M36 alter ego. I think it is fair and not off topic, to compare with the direct counterpart on the other side. Closest are Probably JPIV /70 A and V. Armour is comparable, Axis gun have far better chance to score a hit, but deal less damage, HP are comparable, it also need 4 CP for the A and 3 CP for the V. One can hide the other not. Both are really available earlier than the M36, because Things to build and ressource in upgrade needed are lower. At the end 580 mp and 60 fuel, is far cheaper than the m36. Point that claim the M36 as the best TD in the game is a bit theatrical. Really I think Jagdpanther is better, but it is also more expensive, where JPIV is very cheap compared to M36.

I wrote too much and will skip sandbag, xp ect... Just think about ; the same thing exist one the other side.

edit ; some mispelling edited, to avoid rotten tomatoes for bad english.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Now, Tiger1996, you ask simply to change this balance. Clearly what you are looking for is more a nerf than a change. It s the M36 armour/durability nerf. lower a bit M36 price dont worth at all. I point usual anwser to USA faction, when underpowered unit is proved, is to lower its price. Why if you think M36 is OP, dont you propose to raise its price ?

I presume we will come to the historical statement ? Aside that I can simply ask : why M36 need to be historically exact, at expend of balance, when so many other units are not ? I saw picture coming for WT to push this way, on an other hands I saw no picture of M3 90 mm performance to push in way to give it more power.

Super Pershing. Afaik it is supposed to be an alter ego for extra heavy germans. Once more, idea was balance. SP is a bit ludicrous imo, just as maus would be, but it was the only option I presume. Why do you want negociate its withdraws against a fair status for M3 90 ? If you prefer : why a fair kwk 36 88 mm and Kwk 42 75 mm at the same as a KT would be legitimate, when a fair M3 90 mm at the same time that the SP would be not ?

I think you didn't read my propositions very well.
I actually suggested to massively buff the 90mm guns, even to the extent of being as good as the SP's gun! Not just that... As I also requested to give ALL Pershings the same current armor stats of the SP.. in other words; i wanted every normal Pershing to be a Super Pershing! Same gun, same armor.
The only difference would be the range... They will not have the same range of the SP.
If you don't know where I suggested such things, then here is the link of the post when i proposed those changes.. read it carefully;
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1202&start=50#p13234

Then we implement the rest of changes as a result;
-ALL Pershings should have the same gun stats of the SP. But sound effects and splash damage on the ground untouched... ONLY penetration stats should be the same, range is also untouched.
-ALL Pershings should have same armor as SP!

So. How is this ever considered a nerf anyhow???!!!

Didn't you see how MarKr reacted to this? He even said the following;
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1202&start=50#p13238

but then you suggest to buff the Pershings and practically let Axis somehow deal with three SPs at a time, while delaying them by just one CP...anybody else can see that this could be...problematic as hell?

As u can see... He said that this way, armor doc will have 3 Super Pershing.. instead of only one.
Because ya, again; according to my suggestions.. each Pershing will have same armor and same cannon as the Super Pershing, only shorter range!

That's why I definitely asked to remove the SP in return... Not history, not realism; just balancing reasons. As I wanted to buff normal Pershing in terms of armor and gun. Where there would be no need for the Super Pershing anymore!

[Jalis]

I think you didn't read my propositions very well.

It is, my bad, I missed some important part of it.

However what you suggest, cant be made like that, because of target table incoherence we will avoid to speak about.
Roughly like it is, the SP gun is the normal M3 90 MM with super elite penetration modifier to correct it. That means the SP Gun have not it s own TT.

SP armour in itself exist only through the weapon TT who target it. Today chance for a panther to score a hit at very long range vs a SP armour is roughly equal to the chance a normal M3 90 mm Pershing gun to score a hit against a panther. Approx chance for Pershing at such range vary from 30 to 26 per cent due to skirt. Chance for a panther to score a hit against a M26 is around 26 per cent. Immobile tank normal ammo and no upgadred optique.

Markr is right to say it will be problematic, because it need to be tune for SP armour. For gun it need to about made from scratch. Probably good way would be between actual Pershing and SP.

M36 and sandbag. I see the problem from a different point of view. It is a bit paradoxal to have a boosted engine to rush the ennemy and at the same time to lower speed and agility with sand bags. Reload Afaik M36 and M26 are equal at 7 seconds. It would be logical M36 reload faster because open turrets are more confortable to work in. However balance could need the inverse.

I will add more, If you want to speak about technical TT prb, mp door is open.

[Devilfish]

People keep forgetting that in game, it's not the same as in laboratory conditions. All this comparisons like "persh comes 1 CP earlier", "it's 15 fuel cheaper than Panther G", "persh can sometimes bounce panther, look at my video" are simply put out of context.

You can't directly compare pershing and panther. Panther is a multipurpose slaughter machine, while persh is pure AT (except lucky HE shots). Also axis has so many schrecks, panzerfausts (100% pen chance against anything, high damage), rocket arty. Axis can approach pershing (an any other ally tank) with mostly anything (yes, even 50mm at gun, HEAT rocket tada!).

What I'm saying is, that it's not as easy as placing panther and persh against each other 1v1, and decide balancing changes.....

It might seem right now I'm an allies fanboy, but trust me, it's not the case. I know the frustration as axis player, when my Panther can't move nor stay because 17p is everywhere and planes are just waiting for the right moment. But all this situations depends heavily on the map and number of players, chosen docs and how we played early/mid game, so many variables.

To be honest, it's really hard to predict how any changes will change the gameplay. If you remove SP, i guarantee you, one KT and allies are fucked. Only chance is pray to plane and arty gods for good hits. If that fails, gg. On the other hand, if you remove SP and give its gun and armor to pershings, I don't know, damn. Though we must just rethink our strategy as axis, but might be still too much.

[Jagdpanther]

On the other hand, if you remove SP and give its gun and armor to pershings, I don't know, damn. Though we must just rethink our strategy as axis, but might be still too much.

Where this idea that if you remove SP the pershing has to get the stats of the SP? Why not simply for example if the SP has an armor and gun value of 100 (random value) and the pershing has 50 then just increase the pershing to 75 or whatever it takes to balance things out. One SP could be equal to 2 or 3 pershings.

[Jalis]

@devilfish I tend to heard in what you said, some interrogation I had. In a pvp game / community, change are usually made in slight touch, for what I know.

What I said a bit ealier.

I am not so a much pvp at COH, but I presume change cant be drastic even problems are obvious. It s an old game. Players have habits and are prone to cry ...

[Krieger Blitzer]

People keep forgetting that in game, it's not the same as in laboratory conditions. All this comparisons like "persh comes 1 CP earlier", "it's 15 fuel cheaper than Panther G", "persh can sometimes bounce panther, look at my video" are simply put out of context.

What I'm saying is, that it's not as easy as placing panther and persh against each other 1v1, and decide balancing changes.....

Facts are facts. What is really out of context and misleading.. is for someone to say that the Pershing would always lose against the Panther because of x and y numbers... As I have mentioned before, the Panther might have a better gun.. but this doesn't make it superior to the Pershing, because there are several other factors to be put into consideration such as cost and availability, or HP and doctrinal bonuses.. etc.

You can't directly compare pershing and panther. Panther is a multipurpose slaughter machine, while persh is pure AT (except lucky HE shots). Also axis has so many schrecks, panzerfausts (100% pen chance against anything, high damage), rocket arty. Axis can approach pershing (an any other ally tank) with mostly anything (yes, even 50mm at gun, HEAT rocket tada!).

Which Panther are you talking about? You know... There are 3 different versions of the Panther! A is average, D is crap, G is very good. But G is definitely later available and still has low HP anyway!
And again, 100 ammo Rocket ability of 50mm paks often bounce off Churchills and Pershings btw. They can also miss the target, just like PanzerFausts.

It might seem right now I'm an allies fanboy, but trust me, it's not the case. I know the frustration as axis player, when my Panther can't move nor stay because 17p is everywhere and planes are just waiting for the right moment. But all this situations depends heavily on the map and number of players, chosen docs and how we played early/mid game, so many variables.

I am not an Axis fanboy nor an Allied fanboy neither. And I can generally agree on this part... Conclusion is, i want to make the Armor doc more durable, while buffing the Pershing and finally getting rid of that one-time unit so called Super Pershing.

To be honest, it's really hard to predict how any changes will change the gameplay. If you remove SP, i guarantee you, one KT and allies are fucked. Only chance is pray to plane and arty gods for good hits. If that fails, gg. On the other hand, if you remove SP and give its gun and armor to pershings, I don't know, damn. Though we must just rethink our strategy as axis, but might be still too much.

That's why I said things need evaluation first. We don't have to assume or predict anything! As we would have to try these changes on a beta version, for the sake of testing.. in order to see how it will be.
And I can assure you that Armor doc will be MUCH better without the SP, if those changes ever got implemented...

[Yafa]

so
will the super pershing be removed ? there will be a beta for this , or ?