OP M36

[JimQwilleran]

@Devilish #Ifeelu

[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 was curious about your claims about weird statistics and peneration chances and was even more curious if it isn't the "people only remember the times when their tank gets penetrated but not the 10 times before when it deflects stuff".
This is what I did:
Since you said:

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

I chose these three for testing:
I put E8 against Jagdpanther, Hellcat against Jagdpanther and Firefly against Panther G - all at max range with no chance of scoring a rear shot, Axis tanks did not shoot back. "Round" ended when the Axis vehicle got destroyed. Results:

Code: Select all

E8 vs Jagdpanther:
1st round:
Deflections: 17
Penetrations: 2
Misses: 2

2nd round:
D: 7
P: 2
M: 0

3rd round:
D: 12
P: 3
M: 3

4th round:
D: 0
P: 2
M: 0

5th round:
D: 8
P: 2
M: 1

Total shots fired: 61
Penetrated: 11
Missed:6
Penetration chance in % = 20% (calculated pen chance from corsix: 16.15%; diversion: better by 3.85%)

Hellcat vs Jagdpanther:
1st round:
D: 9
P: 4
M: 2

2nd round:
D: 4
P: 2
M: 0

3rd round:
D: 3
P: 2
M: 0

4th round:
D: 26 (!)
P: 2
M: 9

5th round:
D: 5
P: 2
M: 0

Total shots fired: 70
Penetrated: 12
Missed: 11
Penetration chance in % = 20.333% (calculated pen chance from corsix: 16.15%; diversion: better: 4.183%)

Firefly vs Panther G:
1st round:
D: 1
P: 2
M: 1

2nd round:
D: 4
P: 2
M: 1

3rd round:
D: 7
P: 3
M: 1

4th round:
D: 6
P: 2
M: 1

5th round:
D: 7
P: 3
M: 2

Total shots fired: 43
Penetrated: 12
Missed: 6
Penetration chance in % = 32.43% (calculated pen chance from corsix: 42.48%; diversion: worse by 10.05%)

It is just as I expected - the numbers (more or less) match with the Corsix calculations I gave you. I believe that if there were more rounds (10 or 15) the results would match even more accurately.
And guess what were the most memorable moments of the testing run....yes, ofcourse - the 4th round of E8 vs JP (because it was two shots - two penetrations = JP dead) and the other was the 4th round of Hellcat vs JP (because with 26 deflections and 9 misses it seemed the JP would never die).
The testing also disproved your "Firefly has almost guaranteed penetration against Panthers" theory.
Of course, in real game tanks move closer and further (which leads to bigger penetration), have sometimes tank commanders inside (which buffs the penetration) and since the tanks move, there is chance for rear hits, but all of this just proves my point - the Corsix calculations match the actual performance in the game, but in the game are many other factors that people simply don't see. Such as - two E8s attacking a Jagdpanther, after few shots JP is dead, people see two E8s standing infront of JP, what they don't see is that at least one of the E8s probably has at least some chance to score rear hit from their position and since it then looks like frontal penetration, they call it OP.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@MarKr;
Hmm, thanks for seriously showing your interest in what i have said by composing such a test.. i really appreciate it so much.
Paso was my opponent in that game, and when he saw the JagdPanther dying like this... He told me "is this is fine, Tiger?" I told him "Well, post the replay.. so that MarKr could check if there is something wrong" Now, i think we have both got the answer, so.. thanks again! As I am also very glad to see that the M36 is finally going to change as well

Even though i don't think tank commanders in general should increase the penetration chances for any tanks btw. I mean, APCR rounds already increase the penetration! This a little bit too much tbh. it's enough that tank commanders provide wider sight range... Maybe we should slightly reduce the price of tank commanders, while in return.. they shouldn't provide better penetration.

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.

And ya, if you don't mind me saying it once again, i must say that buffing the basic 90mm guns penetration against the Tiger from 46% to 78% is actually TOO high. Should be reduced to about 66% or something...
The same way, the Tiger 1 (as well as flak 88s) shouldn't be able to penetrate the Pershing SO reliably with basic AP shells anymore... Currently the Tiger 1 is capable of penetrating the Pershing with a chance of 60% at maximum range!! Should be reduced to 45%.

After that we could later speak further whether if delaying them by 1 CP is still necessary or not...
Since that i am even confused at this point myself. As i am not quite sure what should be exactly done to be honest.. so, i will have to wait the beta and test it first for sure.
However, I kind of believe that restricting the number of Pershings and jacksons by applying a limitation might not be as necessary! Yes, there is probably no need to limit them.
But perhaps Pershing AND jacksons should be no longer replaceable with War Machine, therefore it would become 50 ammo cheaper, from 250 to 200.
I am just throwing suggestions here and there after all... But anyway, let's first see how this is going to be.

[Jalis]

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!

Well it seems forbidding to speak about target table problems and incoherence is a variable that depend of who give it s opinion about

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.

Point it s not completly exact, even there is a problem overall.

Point also the 90 mm dont need buff. What it need really, is too be uncheated/un-nerfed.

[Frost]

After that we could later speak further whether if delaying them by 1 CP is still necessary or not...
Since that i am even confused at this point myself. As i am not quite sure what should be exactly done to be honest.. so, i will have to wait the beta and test it first for sure.
However, I kind of believe that restricting the number of Pershings and jacksons by applying a limitation might not be as necessary! Yes, there is probably no need to limit them.
But perhaps Pershing AND jacksons should be no longer replaceable with War Machine, therefore it would become 50 ammo cheaper, from 250 to 200.
I am just throwing suggestions here and there after all... But anyway, let's first see how this is going to be.

if you guys talking about realism you see that USA have countless tanks so it shouldn't be limited if you do that then tbh USA armor company would be bullshit at long games because there tanks aren't that powerful to survive very much so you would have only SP and also don't forgite that you need a whole company to have such tanks while Germans and other hand can bring tigers pretty much most of tactics and panthers as well

also war machine is another thing that give advantage and yet you want to remove it sersly in my point of view it is totally fine because in the end USA had mass production and countless tanks


Also why you still want to nerf

USA tanks it is enough that they have very weak inf that you can outplay them with it and also your tanks is powerful enough

don't forgite most of there tanks is good against tanks only

[Krieger Blitzer]

if you guys talking about realism you see that USA have countless tanks so it shouldn't be limited

Hmm, yes.. i already said that i believe there might be no need to limit Pershings or Jacksons any further. I even underlined it in my previous post!

if you do that then tbh USA armor company would be bullshit at long games because there tanks aren't that powerful to survive very much so you would have only SP and also don't forgite that you need a whole company to have such tanks while Germans and other hand can bring tigers pretty much most of tactics and panthers as well

But currently, Armor doc is probably the most crucial Allied doctrine in team fights by the way... And it doesn't rely that much on quantity even.. since that it's surprisingly able to fight off against heavy Axis tanks using a single tank or so. Such as the Jumbo or the Super Pershing... And in late game, the Armor doc - alone - can field as much tanks as all Axis doctrines together.

also war machine is another thing that give advantage and yet you want to remove it sersly in my point of view it is totally fine because in the end USA had mass production and countless tanks

I didn't say i want to remove the War Machine ability, i only said that Pershings and Jacksons should be excluded from it.. Because Pershings and Jacksons were never mass produced. Only Shermans, Hellcats and Wolverines were produced in mass numbers on the other hand...
But in fact, even if this gets to be ever implemented.. it would be considered a buff to the War Machine ability, not a nerf.

Also why you still want to nerf

And I don't want to nerf Armor doc, i can't see how i want to nerf it! I just want to adjust it. While actually buffing it perhaps even more...
Since I am an Armor doc player myself. I also have over 600 games as US, out of which about 400 games are as Armor doc ONLY.. all are pvp games, so.. I definitely don't want to nerf it.
As I am extremely interested in any changes that will happen to the Armor doc...

don't forgite most of there tanks is good against tanks only

The US tanks ARE NOT WEAK against infantry When the Sherman is loaded with HE rounds, together with suppression and good mobility... It's probably the BEST infantry killer in the game. Often I have seen the Sherman with over 60 inf kills in pvp games.. specifically when supported with Quad half-trucks... Not to mention that both units are VERY cheap to replace.


At last, I just want to say... If you don't mind me guys!
طول بالك
بالتأكيد أنا لا أريد أن أقلص من قدرات الدبابات الأمريكيه في اللعبه، بل بالعكس.. إحنا هنا بالناقش كيفية تحسين البيرشنج لتكون أفضل مما هي عليه
Just a single sentence in my own native language, as I have recently discovered this guy is actually Arabic ^^

But we will continue discussing in English as long as we are doing it in public of course.
And no worries, no suicide bombers here

[MarKr]

Hmm, yes.. i already said that i believe there might be no need to limit Pershings or Jacksons any further. I even underlined it in my previous post!

For now the limits stay as they are now - 3 for Jacksons and whatever it is for Perhing.

بالتأكيد أنا لا أريد أن أقلص من قدرات الدبابات الأمريكيه في اللعبه، بل بالعكس.. إحنا هنا بالناقش كيفية تحسين البيرشنج لتكون أفضل مما هي عليه

I can appriciate the sentiment in this but if you simply wrote him in English that your intention is not to nerf the US tanks but quite the opposite, I think he would understand it too...

So keep the talk in English, please, it is part of the forum guidelines too - of course this applies to anybody..I don't write in Czech to czech people here either

[Krieger Blitzer]

For now the limits stay as they are now - 3 for Jacksons and whatever it is for Perhing.

Yup, that's good.

I can appriciate the sentiment in this but if you simply wrote him in English that your intention is not to nerf the US tanks but quite the opposite, I think he would understand it too...

wow, i didn't know Google Translate works that good even with Arabic! Yes, this is pretty much what I exactly told him!

So keep the talk in English, please, it is part of the forum guidelines too - of course this applies to anybody..I don't write in Czech to czech people here either

I see, I already said we will continue in English for sure

[Warhawks97]

@Tiger: How do you know that 65% pen vs Tiger is exactly reflecting the reality? (you often refered to that realism so i thought....)

and 800 games..... Let me guess? Autry (easily getting fuel + less chaos). How many 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4? how many on other maps?

And the weak 90 mm performence is not because of the SP. They were shit even before SP came with 4.7.... The SP was simply a random shit given to allis as "compensation" as they were to lazzy at that time to get deeper into the "US shit" to find better solution.

Also Axis heavies struggle with US armor? ehm.... In many games, once SP died, they have "realeased" their beasts they held back coz they were to afraid that one of them could get a scratch and winning the game.
And even if, shall i argue now that Armor doc struggles with TH doc and all other kinds of defensives and to add priests or something?

Oh, and 17 pdr has less than 50% pen vs Panther at max range. Only with APDS it goes to 74 (Less vs G). But i wouldnt say that Panther has no kind of resistant to 17 pdr. 75 ammo is necessary at least to reliable fight a Panther.

And 20% damage reduction for APCR? Srsly? Thats more than 100 damage less. In fact from 650 to 520 when i take 130 damage as reference.

And armor spams more than all axis docs? Nope, just axis players think that bigger is always better. They could just as well spam hetzers stugs and tank IV´s.... just they dont want. Thats the difference.

@Markr: Allied guns good at mid range? You should have mentioned that in corsix the mid range ends at 20 range.... thats below the range axis throw grenaded. Above that "golden mid range mark" US guns couldnt penetrate anything reliable. Even golf balls would have had a higher chance to penetrate. I mean even from that "mid range" the "xali US guns" bounced more often from 50 mm armor tanks than not.

And close range? The barrel has to touch the opponent tank already. I dont think there was any intention from behind that. Just ensuring that not too many nicely looking axis cats would blow up when standing alone against hundreds of sherman driven by bots.
And that explains why the 90 mm AP got that damage reduction. Taking 130 as lowest possible damage the 25% boost would have boosted the 90 mm to 812 damage. Thats 12 more than Panther has as HP. So a 90 mm with AP would have penetrated a panther once and destruction would have been ensured. The 90 mm has 130-160 (x5).

The 17 pdr has 90-130 damage. So with luck and triggering the max damage the bonus from APDS boosts to this 812 damage. But when triggering 125 damage the total output is 781,25. Just enough for panther to just take a bloody nose and escape. And so, who guessed, the jacks 90 mm max damage is 800 without APCR. So the 90 mm had to trigger max damage with basic ammo to oneshot the Panther. The 17 pdr. with APDS. That way he gave allied little chance to occassionally oneshot panther. Dont come with "5%" chance crap. Its not that 5% of all shots do a oneshot, just 5% of all "red crit" triggering shots trigger oneshot.

I gave up to see any intention from xali why he did something on allied side in a certain way except that units like Panther wont die too fast. That would also explain why the 90 mm gun has been the only gun that didnt have ambush bonus.

[Krieger Blitzer]

How do you know that 65% pen vs Tiger is exactly reflecting the reality? (you often refered to that realism so i thought....)

I would say this is an interesting question.
Even though, i actually never said that this particular value refelcts the absolute reality. However, when i referred to the reality thing.. i was only talking about the considerably too high penetration chances for the 88mm gun of the Tiger 1 against the Pershing... Which is not right, or do u think otherwise? The changes are meant to be as realistic as possible after all.
Yet, i don't think 65% is the absolute reality.. as i just believe it's more fair. Specifically when the Tiger's gun is also tuned down vs the Pershing on the other hand.

When a Pershing fights the Tiger, each of them should have some equally fair chances of bouncing off at each other.. with only a "slight" edge to the Pershing... But not "who hits first, kills first" or it will be simply ridiculous, and not interesting.. the fight shouldn't end that fast.

and 800 games..... Let me guess? Autry (easily getting fuel + less chaos). How many 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4? how many on other maps?

I never said 800 games, i only said 600 games. Out of which 400 are with Armor doc... The rest 200 games are probably with AB doc.
Anyway, you must be mad if you think i have actually played all my 600 games only on Autry It's not even my favourite map btw; basically, excluding bridge maps.. i can play all other maps... such as Road To Montherme, Duclair, Ecleptic fields (or whatever the name is), Linden.. etc. As well as any other map that comes to your mind...
But speaking of Autry, if it's a high fuel map.. then shouldn't it be in Axis favor? While in actuality, double Armor docs is usually a tactic that almost always dominates on this map.

How many 3vs3? o.O just TOO many. Not much 4vs4, but i am still playing 4vs4 quite often... And i can safely say, Allied are best in 4vs4 games now. Just completely superior.

And the weak 90 mm performence is not because of the SP. They were shit even before SP came with 4.7.... The SP was simply a random shit given to allis as "compensation" as they were to lazzy at that time to get deeper into the "US shit" to find better solution.

Did you get into Xalis' mind to figure out all this stuff?? What makes you so sure that they weren't planning to take a deeper look into the US faction later? Lots of people opposed adding the SP. Others believe it's actually OP, which is something I would partly have to agree with... But I don't think Xalibur would have ever managed to give the US such an OP tank like this if he was really that much biased toward Axis like you keep saying.

It's honestly downgrading how you keep speaking of the old devs...

Also Axis heavies struggle with US armor? ehm.... In many games, once SP died, they have "realeased" their beasts they held back coz they were to afraid that one of them could get a scratch and winning the game.
And even if, shall i argue now that Armor doc struggles with TH doc and all other kinds of defensives and to add priests or something?

I have seen several times how the Armor doc was still able to achieve victory even after the death of the SP. As it's not entirely impossible...
But what's your point here? Why would you argue such a matter with the TH doc vs Armor doc? Did i argue from my side that Armor doc should be nerfed because Axis tanks are struggling against it?? No, i didn't.

And armor spams more than all axis docs? Nope, just axis players think that bigger is always better. They could just as well spam hetzers stugs and tank IV´s.... just they dont want. Thats the difference.

Armor doc can indeed field more tanks much easier in late game compared to Axis, thanks to supply yard upgrades.
And what do u mean by "Axis players just don't want to" ? Are you trying to imply that those who play Axis are actually stupid or what? Well, you need to know that there are also some Allied only players who only play some certain maps, and always same docs.
Want few examples? TonyVE, Antho and his mate.. Shadow (although he finally started playing Axis recently) and many others...
Everyone is free with what he wants to play though, but as you can see.. there are those who wants to play only Axis... And also those who wants to play only Allies.

At the end, i am quite curious.. as i am also wondering... What are your initiatives here? I mean, you haven't played any games obviously since some long time.. apparently, it seems like you don't even care anymore either. So, did you ask yourself what are the goals of joining such a discussion? Do you have any specific suggestions that you would like to make them pass through??!! Or are you - once again - coming up here in order to just let us know about your stories and illusions at how the US faction has always been persecuted, treated so badly and so on? Feels a pity to be honest.

Don't get me wrong, as I am glad to see you still contributing.. no one has the right to tell you to stop... But as i said, there must be a goal or some sort of a point for the discussion... Or there would be no need to argue any further then!

[Warhawks97]

I held xali in high regards back then. But when you once got deeper in the subject it became just frustrating. There had been so many "errors" in units, stats, unit cost for us..... Idk, the new devs had to spend a lot of time to get the US so far back to the game. At the end of 4.7 i barely saw US in larger games (ninja commandos and priest won the games). And thats what changed my minds about xali. And after he added SP as "simple solution for all issues" he got back, spending a lot of time with his new beloved TH doc.... and those could spam enough Jagdpanther to overcome any SP.

And dude.... if axis would (it worked well till recent gun fixes, church buff etc) have spammed Hetzers and tank IV´s with some light rocket arty a victory was almost ensured... just one had to get a panther or tiger as finisher.

Thing is most of the time nobody wanted to be the idiot that spams (coz it also means more losses) and all run for Panthers and the like.


Anyway.... my goal was to explain the "90 mm logic" everybody was guessing about. And the effects a 20% damage penalty would have. You answered just to the first 1/3 of my post.