OP M36

[Krieger Blitzer]

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

Well, no.
Based on my latest private conversations with the devs, 100% SP stays!
It won't be removed.. not even on a community testing beta release... Which is actually fine if you ask me after all.

One thing that will happen for sure though, is that the M36 will have less HP as well as also weaker armor.. will be cheaper too.
The B1 won't be touched at all, excepting a slight reduction on its moving speed.
Both variants won't have sandbags.. just like MarKr has previously mentioned above.


However, that i believe we can still buff the Pershing. Yes, even when SP stays!
I wouldn't mind slightly better 90mm guns. Tigers and Panthers could also have less chances to penetrate the Pershing.. as i wouldn't mind this either...
BUT then, Pershing and Jacksons should be delayed by 1 CP.. like I proposed before!

Maybe both Jackson variants should be limited to only 2 at a time then, and Pershings same as well.

[Armacalic]

This is monumental, it's about the first time I believe I agree with something Tiger proposed (congrats there, T). :A

Though I'm not exactly sure if it needs slightly "more armor" against Tigers and Panthers, as opposed to having a coaxial or hull machine gun that actually works. Nor I'm sure about the unit limit, but I'm not against that one.

[MarKr]

OK, guys we made the decision about the changes for the next patch, however this change is a big one and thus it is impossible to predict how it might affect the game balance so this one will need a lot of testing from you when the beta comes out and then further changes might follow for the final release, according to the feedback from you. Anyway the changes will be:
*the first two points affect both M36 variants, Pershing and Pershing Ace because they all have the same 90mm cannon
- 90mm guns will have better penetration chance against Tigers and Panthers (at max range about 78% vs Tigers and 60% against Panthers)
- 90mm guns will have unified damage of 130-160(some had 135-165)
- M36 armor changed to the same of M4 Sherman
- M36 HP lowered by 100
- M36 price dropped to 650MP 90F (from 700MP 110F)
- M36B1 speed decreased to 4.3 (from 4.8)
- Both variants of M36 have "HE Shot" ability removed
- Both M36 variants are exluded from the effect of Sandbags upgrade

So 90mm guns will be exactely as effective against everything else as they are now, only against Panthers and Tigers the penetration will be more reliable. That means that Panthers/Tigers will have lower basic penetration against Pershings than Pershings against them, however with Wolfram shells active Tigers and Panthers will have about 80% chance against Pershings while also a damage boost which means higher chance for critical shots. On the other hand Pershing with APCR will more or less have guaranteed penetration against Tigers/Panthers but APCR lowers damage so less chance for critical shots/one-shot kills. In short - as Axis, use Wolfram shells. They are there for a reason .
Also both M36 will have removed the HE shot ability. This is because the targetting of this ability has been changed and it finally works so it can take out infantry squads without bigger problems therefore as these are Tank Destroyers (so their job is to destroy tanks) and their main gun got a buff we decided to remove the ability. If you want the safe from infantry, support it with something that can kill infantry easily.
Wolf said that the unit cap of M36 should stay at 3 for now. SP stays. No buff of coaxial/hull MGs for Pershings.
I expect that now people will write how this and that sucks because (reason XYZ)... Please, let's wait for beta and see how it will work and then we can adjust things.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i am keenly waiting the beta for sure...
But, just buffing the 90mm guns carelessly like that;

- 90mm guns will have better penetration chance against Tigers and Panthers (at max range about 78% vs Tigers and 60% against Panthers)
- 90mm guns will have unified damage of 130-160(some had 135-165)

is apparently not the best thing to do... Since that Axis tanks already have huge troubles against Armor doc.
As i believe that a better thing to do.. would be the following:-

-Maybe Pershing/Jackson vs Panther can be modified to become like the following at most:-
At max range without APCR; from currently about 31% >>> to about 50% on the other hand.
With APCR; from currently about 54% AND damage lowered by 15% >>> to about 70% AND damage lowered by 20% on the other hand.

-While Pershing/Jackson vs Tiger at max range can be modified to be;
No APCR; from currently about 46% >>> to about 65% on the other hand.
With APCR; Same. No change.

-Perhaps you can also tune Tiger (and flak 88s) vs Pershing at max range accordingly in order to make it equally fair...
No APCR; from currently about 60% >>> to about 45% on the other hand.
With APCR; Same. No change.

But the values for the Panther against the Pershing at max range should not be touched at all... They are absolutely realistic currently i think! So, I would say no changes here.

in return however, after all this buff.. Jackson and Pershing should be really delayed by 1 CP like i suggested before...

instead of:-
Sherman 1 CP > Hellcat 1 CP > Pershing 3 CP > SP/PAce 4 CP.
It will be:-
Sherman 1 CP > Hellcat 2 CP > Pershing 3 CP > SP/PAce 3 CP.

Then both variants of Jacksons, as well as the Pershing to be limited to only 2 at a time. Pershing will be still able to have Vet 1 after unlock... But should be no longer possible to replace with War Machine. Therefore this ability should be cheaper by just 50 ammo (from 250 to 200) And SP definitely stays!

[MarKr]

Exactely why I didn't want to discuss this with you in the PMs - I knew you would be feeding me with messages exactely like this one...

As i believe that a better thing to do.. would be the following:

And we believe that what we came up with might work too...Anyway as I said:

I expect that now people will write how this and that sucks because (reason XYZ)... Please, let's wait for beta and see how it will work and then we can adjust things.

[Devilfish]

is apparently not the best thing to do... Since that Axis tanks already have huge troubles against Armor doc.

I don't agree. Only huge problem for axis (heavy armor oriented tactic) is SP. One just needs to think outside the (axis) box and do not rely on tigers/panthers as untouchable ultimate killers, but use them just as a part of a complex tactic.

I mean really, that's the point of armor doc, right? Whole point of US 90mm tanks are to effectively counter axis heavies (including panther, although it's officially medium), so what's so wrong about it? I mean come on, current 31% chance against Panther? That's pathetic, not an effective counter.

But the values for the Panther against the Pershing at max range should not be touched at all... They are absolutely realistic currently i think!

Please mate, stop using realistic reasoning where it fits you. If we were to be realistic, 90mm would...,76mm would,...ok.

in return however, after all this buff.. Jackson and Pershing should be really delayed by 1 CP like i suggested before...

Personally, I don't really get all the hassle about CP, I mean jacks/pershings are pure AT tools, nothing more (applies even more after removing HE). Axis have million ways of getting rid of it and infantry can just bypass it to attack any other targets behind it, cause it's so ineffective against inf. So why this huge fear of "omg jack is coming too early".

Question for Mark:
Why is the US (it's only 90mm or all?) the only one getting damage reduction while firing APCR rounds? I know there's been a discussion some time ago, that APCR should do less damage due to realism reasons, but all paid rounds in BK are APCR in all factions (except few HEATs, but that's different). So why did only US get this "realism" feature?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Exactely why I didn't want to discuss this with you in the PMs - I knew you would be feeding me with messages exactely like this one...

You said that discussing such a matter in PMs isn't relevant, since that it should be public for all the community.. so that they could read and see for themselves... Which is true and valid.

That's why I just posted these same suggestions right here once again.. it's my own perspective of how it should be done, or am i not allowed to introduce my thoughts regarding it?
You know.. i have like 600 games played as US, 80% are with Armor doc.

I don't agree. Only huge problem for axis (heavy armor oriented tactic) is SP. One just needs to think outside the (axis) box and do not rely on tigers/panthers as untouchable ultimate killers, but use them just as a part of a complex tactic.

Panthers and Tigers are "untouchable ultimate killers"? Really? Okay o.O
I wonder who is biased now!

I mean really, that's the point of armor doc, right? Whole point of US 90mm tanks are to effectively counter axis heavies (including panther, although it's officially medium), so what's so wrong about it? I mean come on, current 31% chance against Panther? That's pathetic, not an effective counter.

Pershing is also a medium tank btw.
And what are u trying to say here? Did u not read my suggestions? I already suggested the same basically.. as i said that 90mm guns should be buffed too. But in a slightly different way.. that's all...
However, that I even suggested to weaken the Tiger's 1 88mm gun and flak 88s against the Pershing!

Please mate, stop using realistic reasoning where it fits you. If we were to be realistic, 90mm would...,76mm would,...ok.

If we would also speak realistically, then Pershings shouldn't be as early available.. and SP should be entirely removed.
So again; what is ur point here?

[MarKr]

Question for Mark:
Why is the US (it's only 90mm or all?) the only one getting damage reduction while firing APCR rounds? I know there's been a discussion some time ago, that APCR should do less damage due to realism reasons, but all paid rounds in BK are APCR in all factions (except few HEATs, but that's different). So why did only US get this "realism" feature?

I don't know, this was in the mod before I joined the team, probably still from Xali's time. I think however that it has something to do with the way US tanks were made in BK...the way Xali made it, US tanks had quite good penetration at closer distances but quite poor at long distance (at least compared to Axis tanks) that is why even the 90mm guns perform so poorly at max range. So I think in order to make the 90mm guns stand out at least with the APCR the ability acts differently. In order to make up for the poor basic penetration at distance, the APCR boost penetration by 74% (while other AP ammo "only" by 33%) and maybe Xali wanted to at least somehow keep to the "allies should not attack from great distance" so as a penalty for breaking this rule, he gave the damage nerf to APCR?
I don't know, this is just my theory but who knows...that is one of the problems with BK development - Xali never made any notes on "why this unit/ability has this buffs/nerfs" so sometimes it is hard to tell if something is an oversight, bug or intended thing.

EDIT:

You said that discussing such a matter in PMs isn't relevant, since that it should be public for all the community.. so that they could read and see for themselves... Which is true and valid.
That's why I just posted these same suggestions right here once again.. it's my own perspective of how it should be done, or am i not allowed to introduce my thoughts regarding it?

I expressed myself wrong...this sounds as if it were the main reason. What I meant was more of what I wrote to you in PM too - that we rarely agree on anything.
Anyway ofcourse, you can express your thoughts freely, nobody is stopping you.

[Leonida [525]]

Ok lets try with this changes and see , only 1 thing i'm thinking.. players with armor doc have always (for real) almost full ammo since they dont need to use them for many other things like terror/blitz (i say these for panthers/tigers) players, so for sure it will be not a problem for them to use always apcr... This is my opinion, but lets see

[MarKr]

Just as I said - it's impossible to predict...your experience is that Armor doc always has plenty of ammo, somebody said that before (I don't know which topic but it's been said before) and someone else reacted to it that his experience is usually quite the opposite. So yeah...we'll have to wait for the results of beta and then, when there is some actual in-game experience with the changes, we can talk further .

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hmm, well.. i agree that we need to test it first before we speak any further... But it's not impossible to predict.
Armor doc was buffed so much upon the recent patches, it's also my most played US doc... And I can safely say i have no problems at all destroying Panthers and Tigers. I can do it even with a Hellcat!

Even though, (like I already stated above) but i guess i still need to clarify what i mean... As i am definitely not against buffing the 90mm guns. However, i just think this is not the best way of doing it.
It shouldn't be done like this.. it's not simply like "Hey, this gun is too weak.. game balance and even realism... it should be much stronger. So, let's just buff it guys!" as this is apparently the wrong way to do it.

First, balancing aspects are arguable.. since i have no real problems using my 90mm guns against Panthers and Tigers currently. The Axis tanks might have an edge with their better penetration chances.
BUT, this is exactly why we reduced the price of the Pershing in the first place.. this is why the Panther G currently requires 7 CPs while Pershing requires only 5 ones! SO, based on these facts.. if we massively buff the 90mm guns, then it MUST be coming at a cost; I mean, some nerf MUST be made on the other hand... Specifically with the presence of the SP! I have almost no doubt with what i am saying here.

Secondly, realism part is true of course. But in Bk... There are lots of things which are not realistic anyway.. such as the SP for example in that case!

My point is, it's honestly quite foolish to just buff the 90mm guns like that (From 46% to 78% against Tigers!!! Just WTF?) keeping in mind Tigers are more expensive, not to mention that the Terror Tiger is VERY bad actually.

A better thing to do would be to tune down the penetration chances of the Tiger against the Pershing the other way around, while "slightly, carefully or gently" buffing the 90mm gun against the Tiger in return.. exactly like i suggested.
Wish if everybody now can clearly get my point here...

[Devilfish]

Panthers and Tigers are "untouchable ultimate killers"? Really? Okay o.O
I wonder who is biased now!

Dude, I'm not. Let's not play this silly "I have no idea what are you talking about" game. Of course there are many ways how to kill a Panther like airstrikes and arty, and hitting it into the rear if such a chance appears. But engaging it frontally, except 17p or 90mm,......Panther proves to be extremely resistant.

And what are u trying to say here? Did u not read my suggestions? ....

What I'm saying is that 90mm was specifically developed because of obvious need of us tanks' armament upgrade against heavier targets.
And it indeed was. So only 31% chance to pen panther seems really poor to me. That's all.

If we would also speak realistically, then Pershings shouldn't be as early available.. and SP should be entirely removed.
So again; what is ur point here?

Again, build order/availability in game doesn't reflect years of war. I don't put realism before balance. My point is you don't aswell, but from time to time when it fits you, you suddenly use realism in your reasoning. So yea, that's my point.

it's also my most played US doc... And I can safely say i have no problems at all destroying Panthers and Tigers. I can do it even with a Hellcat!

You like playing with big tanks. You mostly go for early SP and micro it perfectly. Surround it with tons of protection units (like quad .50 spam). So yea, you don't have a problem destroying panthers (no offense meant, everybody plays after his taste.). Yes ambushed hellcat with APCR rounds can pen/kill a panther, so what, 90mm can't be buffed?

this is why the Panther G currently requires 7 CPs while Pershing requires only 5 ones! SO, based on these facts..

Again, what's up with the CP? Panther is multi-purpose vehicle, extremely sturdy, very effective against both inf and vehicles, agile. Persh/Jacks can kill tanks and nothing else. Again, whats the problem here? I don't see any, except you want to steamroll the opponent with a panther before he can get the 90mm? Dunno really.

... Specifically with the presence of the SP!

SP is like KT or JgT. It's super heavy expensive tank, with best armor and best gun. On both sides it's destroying any tanks with ease, except the direct counterparts (e.g SP vs KT). What does it have to do with short 90mm? Really? Same as SP can totally fuck up your game, KT can too.

My point is, it's honestly quite foolish to just buff the 90mm guns like that (From 46% to 78% against Tigers!!! Just WTF?) keeping in mind Tigers are more expensive, not to mention that the Terror Tiger is VERY bad actually.

It's not like you put on a line tiger vs pershing 1v1 and ok, tiger is more expensive, it must win. That's not BK. If you fear to engage pershing with tiger (which you should), you should develop some other tactic (schrecks, rockets, flanking, distraction, million choices, just pick some). If you or we think terror tiger is not worth the price (I don't use it), we need to discuss changing that particular Tiger, not decide 90mm development ....

Ok lets try with this changes and see , only 1 thing i'm thinking.. players with armor doc have always (for real) almost full ammo since they dont need to use them for many other things like terror/blitz (i say these for panthers/tigers) players, so for sure it will be not a problem for them to use always apcr... This is my opinion, but lets see

In my opinion this is very wrong approach. We can't restrict APCR usage because "this doc can't do anything to spend ammo". It's only an disadvantage that you don't have more options to spend ammo. It's not like others can't use APCR. They only have a tactical choice to spend it otherwise. I mean it is unfair that my enemy fires APCR at me and i can't because i spent it all on bombing him with stuka all the time?
And let's be honest. 90% of the time there is enough ammo to spare when dealing with high valued targets like axis big cats or allied 90mm/SP/17ps (even if you just want the increased damage for higher kill chances).

US tanks had quite good penetration at closer distances but quite poor at long distance

So maybe it's time to get over this stupid assumption? Though don't know if you willing and authorized to do such a revamp. Does it apply for all US tanks?

[Paso95]

Hi all, I just want to post this replay because i've seen in this game that 1 or 2-vet tanks with 76 (E8 and hellcats) didn't have any difficulties against panthers g and JP too.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Dude, I'm not. Let's not play this silly "I have no idea what are you talking about" game. Of course there are many ways how to kill a Panther like airstrikes and arty, and hitting it into the rear if such a chance appears. But engaging it frontally, except 17p or 90mm,......Panther proves to be extremely resistant.

in fact, Panther isn't resistant against Fireflys AT ALL, same against Comets and Achilles too. Not completely resistant against 76mm guns either... One penetration and you are pretty much dead.

What I'm saying is that 90mm was specifically developed because of obvious need of us tanks' armament upgrade against heavier targets.
And it indeed was. So only 31% chance to pen panther seems really poor to me. That's all.

Again, HAVE YOU READ MY SUGGESTIONS? I already said 31% is too low as well.. as I suggested to buff it!

Again, build order/availability in game doesn't reflect years of war. I don't put realism before balance. My point is you don't aswell, but from time to time when it fits you, you suddenly use realism in your reasoning. So yea, that's my point.

I mentioned nothing about years or date. But the only reason Pershings and 90mm guns are made earlier available and also weaker, is obviously because of the SP existence...

You like playing with big tanks. You mostly go for early SP and micro it perfectly. Surround it with tons of protection units (like quad .50 spam). So yea, you don't have a problem destroying panthers (no offense meant, everybody plays after his taste.). Yes ambushed hellcat with APCR rounds can pen/kill a panther, so what, 90mm can't be buffed?

I have so many different ways of playing Armor doc depending on the map, for example; i can play just with Easy Eights spam in Autry and win! While SP + Quad Half-trucks is also possible.. but Jumbo + Scotts, Hellcats and Jacksons or Pershing also works perfectly in some occasions.

And where the FK did i say that 90mm guns can't be buffed?? I already suggested to buff the 90mm guns!!

Again, what's up with the CP? Panther is multi-purpose vehicle, extremely sturdy, very effective against both inf and vehicles, agile. Persh/Jacks can kill tanks and nothing else. Again, whats the problem here? I don't see any, except you want to steamroll the opponent with a panther before he can get the 90mm? Dunno really.

Why do you keep saying that I don't want the 90mm guns buffed???!!!

If we delay the Pershing with 1 CP, this won't make it available later than the Panther G. Don't you know how to calculate??
Pershing currently requires 5 CPs... Panther G requires 7 ones. If we delay them by 1 CP like i proposed above.. then the Pershing would come after 6 CPs in total, while the Jackson will be available after 5 CPs instead of just 4.

So, could you explain me how this is going to allow me having Panther Gs earlier and also steamroll my opponents with them before they are able to get any 90mm guns??!!
Due to the buff.. i am just reducing the gab, not even closing the gab. If i would want to totally close it, then I would have straightly suggested to delay the Pershing with 7 CPs...

SP is like KT or JgT. It's super heavy expensive tank, with best armor and best gun. On both sides it's destroying any tanks with ease, except the direct counterparts (e.g SP vs KT). What does it have to do with short 90mm? Really? Same as SP can totally fuck up your game, KT can too.

Blindly buffing Pershings and also having the SP, is clearly considered OP.
SP is MUCH earlier available than the KT, and WAY cheaper.. therefore easier to obtain. And it has a turret unlike the useless JagdTiger and also higher rate of fire... As it's also extremely easy to immobilize and kill the JT.
I wouldn't compare the SP with any heavy Axis tanks, the SP is clearly superior.. and the best of all...
Only bad thing about it, is that it's available once. But this is not totally a problem.. since it's very difficult to destroy! Yet, Jacksons could still continue doing the job after the SP is dead btw.

It's not like you put on a line tiger vs pershing 1v1 and ok, tiger is more expensive, it must win. That's not BK. If you fear to engage pershing with tiger (which you should), you should develop some other tactic (schrecks, rockets, flanking, distraction, million choices, just pick some). If you or we think terror tiger is not worth the price (I don't use it), we need to discuss changing that particular Tiger, not decide 90mm development ....

Pershing is currently a threat to the Tiger already, and I never said it should always win as long as it's more expensive.. nonetheless; the Pershing shouldn't be cheaper then.

Hi all, I just want to post this replay because i've seen in this game that 1 or 2-vet tanks with 76 (E8 and hellcats) didn't have any difficulties against panthers g and JP too.

Ya, very good that you posted this game here.. so called heavy Axis tanks... Just falling apart to 76mm guns!

[MarKr]

Ya, very good that you posted this game here.. so called heavy Axis tanks... Just falling apart to 76mm guns!

Where is the emoticon for "bitterly and deeply crying over the stupidy of this"?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Wait, is this is an insult? Don't get what you mean

[MarKr]

Not an insult just whining...from my side for a once...
At max range the penetration chance of 76mm from FRONT is about 15% (cca 23% with HVAP) so they are definately not reliable against Panther G/heavies. Of course if they hit the rear then the penetration is 100% (keep in mind that the game understands "rear hit" as "shell hits rear HALF of the tank" so even from front, "rear hit" is possible unless the targeted tank is facing straight towards the attacking tank- but that applies to Allied tanks too). Then of course when the 76mm gun is closer than maximum range the penetration is also better (which in combination with Hellcat's camo ability is great thing).
Not to mention that Panther G is by no means best armored Axis tank...JT, Elephant, KT - all have better armor, so Panther G is about 4th on the list and an "average" US gun (76mm) has 15% chance against it. Now - Pershing is second best armored US tank (after SP) and 75mm/L48 (an average Axis cannon - counterpart to US 76mm) has at the same conditions 20% chance....but one video where Hellcat/E8 took out Panther G and suddenly

so called heavy Axis tanks... Just falling apart to 76mm guns!

...just...ah, never mind...

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, how about you watch the playback file yourself? Maybe there is something wrong with your calculations here.. or perhaps there is a bug?!
Watch the replay.
2 76mm Easy Eights killing JagdPanther frontally...

And btw, Firefly almost has guaranteed penetration against Panthers from what i have experienced.. which is bullshit.

[MarKr]

Well, how about you watch the playback file yourself? Maybe there is something wrong with your calculations here.. or perhaps there is a bug?!
Watch the replay.
2 76mm Easy Eights killing JagdPanther frontally...

Don't have time for that...also what will I see? I said that they have some chance of penetration so I guess they were just lucky. Show me the same scenario within 10 different games - count the shots before JP gets destroyed if more than 20% of the shots without AP at max range penetrate, I am willing to believe that the calculations are wrong OR that there is some problem with the gun, otherwise this is just luck. As said over and over and over and over and OVER AGAIN - if something happens once in ten/twent/more games it is not a proof of anything being wrong, it is the random values system.
IF 76mm were so OP against Panthers/JPanthers don't you think people would have already reported it? I haven't heard a single person say that 76mm guns are OP against anything.
EDIT:

And btw, Firefly almost has guaranteed penetration against Panthers from what i have experienced.. which is bullshit.

Ehm...basic penetration at max range 0.59; TT modifier against skirted Panther (that's the G version) is 0.8; special modifier of Panther G 0.9....that is 0.59*0.8*0.9=0.4248...so 42.48% at max range without AP...yeah, guaranteed...

[Devilfish]

I try to keep it short, since it's (again) getting ridiculous...

except 17p or 90mm

Firefly, Achilles, Comet have 17p (i know, Comet blabla). Not completely resistant against 76mm....yea.....

But the only reason Pershings and 90mm guns are made earlier available and also weaker, is obviously because of the SP existence...

I obviously fail to see the "obvious" reason....

I have so many different ways of playing Armor doc depending on the map, for example; i can play just with Easy Eights spam in Autry and win! While SP + Quad Half-trucks is also possible.. but Jumbo + Scotts, Hellcats and Jacksons or Pershing also works perfectly in some occasions.

ok.....

........Why do you keep saying that I don't want the 90mm guns buffed???!!!........

Not sure if you just act stupid or.....we obviously discuss here Mark's suggested changes vs your "slight" changes, I mean, right?

.......Don't you know how to calculate??.....

Again, not sure if you act stupid or intentionally ignore what i say....you always keep saying that "if this or that, blabla, but then persh/jack must be CP delayed.." and always comparing it to panther CP. I'm saying why? Panther is filling different role as persh. Why exactly do you think persh must be delayed by all means?

Blindly buffing Pershings and also having the SP, is clearly considered OP.

So Mark's change of 60% against panther is blindly made while yours 50% is accurate buff? Again what does SP have to do with this? And it's clearly considered OP by who? US government?

SP is MUCH earlier available than the KT, and WAY cheaper.. therefore easier to obtain. And it has a turret unlike the useless JagdTiger and also higher rate of fire... As it's also extremely easy to immobilize and kill the JT.
I wouldn't compare the SP with any heavy Axis tanks, the SP is clearly superior.. and the best of all...

Well, depends on map and situation, if fuel is not that much of an issue.....SP costs 58,3% more MP (newer turret KT). Might come earlier, though it might be only called once, and axis' schreck is like 50/50, faust 100%, 50mm rocket ability. While KT is basically invulnerable to zooks and any cannon except APCR AND lucky (and mostly ambushed) 90mm/17p. In 1v1, SP might has an slight edge, because it can be overrepaired. On the other hand KT can fire smoke, tank shock against flanking inf and long shot (i know, SP can get command car). So I wouldn't say SP is clearly superior....

Ya, very good that you posted this game here.. so called heavy Axis tanks... Just falling apart to 76mm guns!

[Krieger Blitzer]

@MarKr;
I don't want to waste your time.. but you need to watch the replay, this didn't happen just for a once... But repeatedly!

I think no one could deny the fact that the JagdPanther is often easily penetrated FRONTALLY with Fireflys, 76mm guns and Hellcats.
Panthers seem to be resistant against 76mm AT guns, but not against the 76 of Easy Eight or Fireflys...
Same way, Fireflys, Comets and Achilles seem to have MUCH better guns than the actual 17p somehow.

Specifically the Firefly against the JagdPanther... I could almost assure you that the Firefly is simply over-performing in terms of firepower.. this just can't be a regular 17p gun! This is more like a fast reloading SP cannon. in fact, i have NEVER seen a JagdPanther able to bounce off the Firefly! Almost always penetrate.

Also, Comets often penetrate the King Tiger VERY easily.. I am not talking about a single incident... Believe me, it's not also about just some feelings.

This is so game breaking for Axis players btw, since that as Axis.. your tanks are much more expensive to replace! Allied tanks are way easier to replace on the other hand. It's absolutely frustrating when u lose a JagdPanther to a Firefly...

And i think you need to trust what i am telling you more.. I kind of want to just give you a quick example here... Not long ago, i was chatting with Panzerblitz about Afrika.. as i couldn't reach Justforfun1 at that time, so i decided to tell Panzerblitz instead, since he is interested in Afrika.
in a similar discussion to what we are having here... I kept telling Panzerblitz that the Pz3 Ausf.L is absolutely under-performing against the Matilda.. he didn't believe me at first, until he later checked the game files and found out i was totally right All due to a tiny mistake.

Well, this doesn't mean i am always right or whatever.. i am honestly unsure how the 76 of the E8 could reliably penetrate the JagdPanther or the Panther, however; what i am quite sure of.. is the fact that the Firefly gun is actually OP.
Probably due to some reasons.. first, the rate of fire is so unreal compared to a normal 17p... Secondly, tank commanders give penetration boost, which is perhaps too much in that case. Thirdly, command Cromwell give extra bonuses... This is considered too much to any Axis tank btw! No matters how much armor it has.

@Devilfish;

Firefly, Achilles, Comet have 17p (i know, Comet blabla). Not completely resistant against 76mm....yea.....

They should be having the same gun, but in the game.. apparently not. Their performance clearly varies... At least according to my own experience.

I obviously fail to see the "obvious" reason....

You called me stupid, so.. don't mind me if i say... You can't see the obvious reason maybe.. because you are blind? just maybe.

Not sure if you just act stupid or.....we obviously discuss here Mark's suggested changes vs your "slight" changes, I mean, right?

Are you saying my suggestion is only a slight buff?? Well, i have previously suggested to give ALL Pershings the same gun as well as the same armor of the SP. While removing the SP of course... But ya, i still don't think my latest suggestions are only considered a slight buff to the 90mm guns. Since I have also suggested to tune down the penetration chances of the Tiger's 1 gun and all flak 88s against the Pershing... So, together.. it is not considered slight!

So Mark's change of 60% against panther is blindly made while yours 50% is accurate buff? Again what does SP have to do with this? And it's clearly considered OP by who? US government?

See? You are eagerly trying to bring my speech out of context. As I never complained about this particular value, what i really complained about, was this:-

My point is, it's honestly quite foolish to just buff the 90mm guns like that (From 46% to 78% against Tigers!!! Just WTF?) keeping in mind Tigers are more expensive, not to mention that the Terror Tiger is VERY bad actually.

Don't even try to mislead again.

Well, depends on map and situation, if fuel is not that much of an issue.....SP costs 58,3% more MP (newer turret KT). Might come earlier, though it might be only called once, and axis' schreck is like 50/50, faust 100%, 50mm rocket ability. While KT is basically invulnerable to zooks and any cannon except APCR AND lucky (and mostly ambushed) 90mm/17p. In 1v1, SP might has an slight edge, because it can be overrepaired. On the other hand KT can fire smoke, tank shock against flanking inf and long shot (i know, SP can get command car). So I wouldn't say SP is clearly superior....

Fully combat ready "cheaper" version of the KT costs; 11 CPs, 200 fuel, 340 MP for the tank commander, 150 ammo upgrades and 1200 MP.
Fully combat ready SP costs; only 9 CPs, zero fuel, 2000 MP and zero ammo upgrades. Tank commander is by default!

SP is a true game changer, KT is just a game finisher.. only if it pays off.
And a complete waste of res... If it doesn't survive.

[Devilfish]

You called me stupid, so.. don't mind me if i say... You can't see the obvious reason maybe.. because you are blind? just maybe.

I didn't call you stupid and verb "see" in this context does not mean physically, but mentally. If it was suppose to be a joke,....very poor one.

Are you saying my suggestion is only a slight buff?? Well, i have previously suggested to give ALL Pershings the same gun as well as the same armor of the SP. While removing the SP of course... But ya, i still don't think my latest suggestions are only considered a slight buff to the 90mm guns. Since I have also suggested to tune down the penetration chances of the Tiger's 1 gun and all flak 88s against the Pershing... So, together.. it is not considered slight!

You're doing it again. I've reacted you your "Why do you keep saying I don't want to buff 90mm" by clearing out to you that we are discussing your disapproval of Mark's suggestions. And now you just ignore the point and analyze here if your suggested changes can be considered "slight" or not......

See? You are eagerly trying to bring my speech out of context. As I never complained about this particular value, what i really complained about, was this:-

Please, stop lying here, anyone can check out the previous posts if you don't edit them out.....
In the post you said "Blindly buffing", there was no other context that would extend or explain it further. So I checked your post right under Mark's chances announcement and there you labeled the pen changes as "buffing carelessly" and offered your alternative, including this 50% against Panther value....

Don't even try to mislead again.

You probably mean "ever again", and again please stop labeling me as intriguer who takes words out of context, don't ever try that again, is that understood? Fine. Or else.

Fully combat ready "cheaper" version of the KT costs; 11 CPs, 200 fuel, 340 MP for the tank commander, 150 ammo upgrades and 1200 MP.
Fully combat ready SP costs; only 9 CPs, zero fuel, 2000 MP and zero ammo upgrades. Tank commander is by default!

Yes, forgot about the commander. Though you always have a choice not get one, or at least not ASAP. But yea fully equipped SP is some cheaper, true (only one though).

SP is a true game changer, KT is just a game finisher.. only if it pays off.
And a complete waste of res... If it doesn't survive.

And why is that so? Maybe because allies do need the SP to truly face axis late game armor? And KT is just a finisher because Panthers/Tigers/Others do most of the job before? Or not? Why then?
Isn't SP waste of res if it doesn't survive? Or anything else? What if KT destroyed SP? Or 2 persh and 4 shermans and got destroyed? Was it waste of res aswell?

[Krieger Blitzer]

You're doing it again. I've reacted you your "Why do you keep saying I don't want to buff 90mm" by clearing out to you that we are discussing your disapproval of Mark's suggestions. And now you just ignore the point and analyze here if your suggested changes can be considered "slight" or not......

Looks like you are unable to understand what i mean.. as i am not disapproving MarKr's suggestions... This is yet another misleading sentence once again.
in fact, i approve MarKr's suggestions.. and I am keenly waiting to test them out. HOW COME i disapprove those decisions? This topic is called "OP M36" and actually, MarKr has tuned the M36 at last like exactly I requested! This topic has obviously achieved its goal.

So, in order to avoid further misunderstandings.. i would say it's better if i stop reacting your posts. And btw, you don't have to type a comment each time i write a post...


For the last time here, the ONLY thing i disagree with.. is how the 90mm guns are exactly going to be adjusted... And not IF the 90mm guns are going to be adjusted whether not.
Buffing the 90mm guns and also keeping the SP, are both something I am OK with.

But my whole point shortly is, if we are meant to be more realistic.. then it's not correct to massively buff the 90mm guns against the Tiger. Since the Jackson and the Pershing are available as soon as the Tiger! While it's more expensive.

A better thing to do.. would be to tune down the Tiger's gun as well as flak 88s against the Pershing... And to "slightly" buff the 90mm gun against the Tiger on the other hand. And not to buff it as much!
Tiger currently has considerably higher chances of penetrating the Pershing than the Panther would. Which is not correct according to realism... Pershing's armor was more resistant to 88s than to the Panther's 75mm gun.

While i have also clearly expressed my fears, that after buffing the 90mm guns.. it might be necessary to delay them by just a single command point! Like the way i proposed it.

But let's see how this plays out......

[Devilfish]

Ok, I give up, you are simply obviously unable to lead a dialog. Instead of reacting to what I say and moving the discussion further, you just keep saying the same thing again, over and over, ignoring my reaction. Hope you'll gain the ability of reasoning normally one day.

And btw

... This is yet another misleading sentence once again.

Again, stop lying please. I've completely proved the post above, that I'm not misleading, nor putting things out of context. You simply IGNORE it, as mostly everything and have the guts to write that "I'm misleading again". Stop putting me in bad light with your stupid lies. Thank you.....

[Yafa]

Tiger currently has considerably higher chances of penetrating the Pershing than the Panther would. Which is not correct according to realism... Pershing's armor was more resistant to 88s than to the Panther's 75mm gun.

#fact. 100% true.
tiger tank should penetrate pershing less times

i don't see a problem with swapping 1 command point from the pershing ace unlock to the hellcat unlock either #seems very legit.