Replacing 75mm emplacement with 88mm emplacement

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Replacing 75mm emplacement with 88mm emplacement

Postby Tiger1996 » 14 Aug 2017, 18:57

Pak43 has much more penetration chances against Croc, SP, Pershing, Churchills and Jumbos...
That should be the specialty of the Pak43 over flak 88s on the other hand, i think it should be cheaper to build as well.. since it doesn't shoot airplanes or inf; being a pure AT emplacement.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2520
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Replacing 75mm emplacement with 88mm emplacement

Postby Warhawks97 » 14 Aug 2017, 20:54

@kwok:

Why shall the flak 36 be late tier?
I would make them same tier. Flak 88 is multirole (AT, anti inf, AA) while pak 43 is better in penetration and damage. Simple as that. If you dont face anythng bigger than jumbo-> flak 88, if you face heavy armored tanks or simply many-> Pak 43 with better oneshot capabilties.

@Tiger: Did you even get what i mean? I talked not about Range but instead Range Classification (!). Its the only gun which at like 60 range has still long range applied while most other (AT) guns have their long range ending at 45 range already. This means the flak 36 uses completely different modifiers at each range and thus the target tables and performences are "wrong" (hard to explain).

Like a target that is 60 range away, the pak 43 uses distant range penetration modifer (and accuracy), the flak 36 still long range.

I figured a bug here btw. The 88 pak 43 has no accuracy loss over distance. Never seen this before oO.

Regarding damage: pak 43 max damage vs tanks: 825, flak 36 minimim damage: 750.

Basically the flak 36 is wrong. Because the lowest possible damage means actually a oneshot or death crit for sure. I think thats something that should be more unique to the most powerfull guns. If the flak 36 would perform vs tanks like the tiger gun does, it would still be a strong defense weapon.

It would also make defensive doctrine much more appealing over luftwaffe doctrine when it comes for defensive gameplay. The Luftwaffe does the defensive job as good as the def doc since 88 comes earlier. It doesnt have the arty of def doc but in return much better offensive capabilities with inf, panther and air raids.

So correcting the flak 36 in order to make the pak 43 emplacment really worth to get and to have a real difference between those two guns and not just superior penetration against like three tanks. I mean honestly. The only reason to build a pak 43 would currently be when enemie has a jumbo, churchill crocc and Super Pershing. I think its a bad argument for the pak 43.

The last bug: The flak 36 penetrates the Pershing as good as the pak 43. In fact even better due to the "cheated" range classification of flak 36.

The penetration drop is also less on flak 36 as it is for the pak 43.

So for the devs: If you really want the pak 43 emplacment to be build there need to be a reason than just "two tanks" in an entire game. the overall anti tank performence must be in pak 43 favour.

And since i heared from kronoz that def doc gets a concept for a rework: the pak 43 would be an argument to choose this doc over the luftwaffe doctrine.


@Tiger: Could you sometimes read more carefully and try to really understand what a discussion is actually about?
To underline the damage concerns (all damage values modified x5 against tanks):
Tiger kwk36: 110-140
Flak 36: 150-200
Pak 43: 135-165 (same damage as Jagdpanther, KT, elephant, Nashorn and all who use the weapon)
pak 44 128 mm Jagdtiger gun: 180-220

I dont necessarily want the flak 36 going simply down to tiger damage. I wouldnt mind if the tiger gun damage would be upped to 120-150. But since so far all guns of the same type i can think off in bk have now got standardized damage (remember stug and hetzer having less damage than Tank IV H/J in previous patches?) in recent patches, the flak 36 and tiger shouldnt be so different damage wise. And as if this is not enough, the flak 88 is performing more like the 128 mm JT gun rather than 88 and bypassing any 88 l/71 by far. And thats just dump in my opinion.

So if you want to have tigers with higher damage (i really wouldnt mind, actually support it) fine, but bring the flak 36 in line and dont let it bypass the pak 43.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3202
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Replacing 75mm emplacement with 88mm emplacement

Postby Tiger1996 » 15 Aug 2017, 04:40

Alright Hawks, so I have carefully read your text now. And yes.. you are actually right! I am all fine with fixing all these bugs you mentioned.
Specifically that one:
Warhawks97 wrote:The last bug: The flak 36 penetrates the Pershing as good as the pak 43. In fact even better due to the "cheated" range classification of flak 36.

And I am also fine with increasing the basic damage of the Tiger1 kwk 88mm gun from 110-140 to 120-150 while also applying that same damage values to flak 88s too.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests