[5.1.5] Reload Times

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: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

[5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Tiger1996 » 07 Sep 2018, 20:44

Hi.

Been looking into Corsix with Hawks recently.. and we found some values that are rather very interesting.

Jackson B1 reload time (basic) is 6.5 - 7.5 seconds with 60 gun range.
in lock-down mode.. there is 0.75 reload time modifier + gun & sight range increase by +10 squares. (up to 80 range with command car)
This means the gun range will be 70 and the reload time will be 4.8 - 5.6 seconds.

Firefly reload time (basic) is 7 - 8 seconds, with 60 gun range.
in lock-down mode.. there is 0.75 reload time modifier + gun & sight range increase by +10 squares. (up to 75 range with command tank)
This means the gun range will be 70 and the reload time will be 5.25 - 6 seconds.

Keeping in mind:
Tiger1 has 8 - 9 seconds reload time, Pershing has 7 - 8 seconds, Panther has 7 - 8 seconds.. all with 65 basic range.
Tiger gun has 110-140 _ Panther gun has 100-130 _ and 90mm gun has 130-160 damage.

Also;
Tiger1 penetration chance vs Pershing is 60%
Pershing pen chance vs Tiger1 is 78%
Tiger1 pen chance vs Jackson B1 is 68%


Accuracy for Tiger1 gun is 75% at max range, same for the Pershing.
Panther has 90% accuracy and Firefly has 85% at max range.
===================================================================================


These were just some info, given that these info are all correct... Then now let's point out the problem:
Numbers highlighted in yellow color, are the problem.

- First of all,
reload time of Jackson B1 is insane.
I would say the basic reload has to be 8 - 9 seconds.
Then the static mode will reduce it to 6 - 6.75 seconds.. so the 0.75 reload modifier could stay.

- 2ndly,
Pershing reload time is lower than Tiger1, why?
It does already has more pen chance vs Tiger1 as well as more damage! (without AP for anyone)
The reload time for the Pershing should be same as Tiger1 (8-9) instead of (7-8) currently.

- 3rdly,
Tiger1 accuracy can be boosted from 75% to 85% or something, 88s were generally known for superior accuracy.
And the damage would be boosted from 110-140 to 120-150 or such.

Additionally, the damage boost from ALL special AP rounds would be removed.. for all factions that have it, Axis and CW.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 07 Sep 2018, 21:35

Your own answer to that would be ; yes but pershing and Jackson are owned by only one faction when Tiger is far more common and available by several factions.

At least it is the answer you made when I made comparaison about cost - range - damage between sticky bombs and Anti tank grenades.

Also you also said balance was about perfect today at bk, so it would be logic you find and ask a correction for an allies unfairness for each axis unfairness.

harmonisation for tiger/pershing reload time make sense.
for damage may be … However typical US 90 mm is 10 per cent heavier than the 88 mm pzgr 39 and is filled with 30 per cent more explosive charge.

Edit ; tiger vs pershing pen seems more to be 61 and pershing vs tiger 73, however there is nothing unfair here because pershing is a more modern concept and have a better frontal armour.
Last edited by Jalis on 07 Sep 2018, 21:44, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3144
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Sep 2018, 21:40

I dont see much of an issue except accuracy and AP damage boost.

jacks is a dedicated Tank destroyer. It shall repell attack from heavy and even super heavy tanks and is limited to a single doc. But its not that good in hunting them with stat mode which btw makes you 25% easier to hit and leaves you 10 sec immobile. So schrecks nearby and you are pretty much dead.

So Jacks seems fine. You also forgott to mention that KT and Elephants reload in 8-9 seconds. The Jacks is far away from that league+ its a dedicated TD that needs something to do his job.
The Panther also accelerates faster than Jacks B and has better top speed. Jacks A is faster but paper armor and low HP and has lower acceleration,. Flank speed requires special engine.


The 88 could get better accuracy for what it was famous for. This and AP damage boost removal is what i support. A slight damage increase to 115/120 to 145/150 would seem also fair, esspecially with AP damage boost removal. Effectively it would go up from 550-700 to 575-725 or 600-750.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 07 Sep 2018, 21:57, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 07 Sep 2018, 21:51

From an historical point of view elefant may have a slightly better reload time than KT or jpanther because it was a 6 crews (last man was the second loader).

Jackson reload time as a TD make sense when you compare it to its german counterpart the nashorn. Nashorn have also 6.5 - 7.5 reload time.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Tiger1996 » 07 Sep 2018, 22:07

Warhawks97 wrote:The 88 could get better accuracy for what it was famous for. This and AP damage boost removal is what i support. A slight damage increase to 115/120 to 145/150 would seem also fair, esspecially with AP damage boost removal. Effectively it would go up from 550-700 to 575-725 or 600-750.

Well, glad that we can agree about the accuracy boost for Tiger1 and slight damage increase for the gun.
As you said.. specifically with APCR damage boost removal too, which we obviously agree as well.

About the Pershing with 7-8 seconds reload.. well, sounds reasonable since it's available in only 1 doc.. but if Tigers and Panthers would be available in the future in only 1 doctrine as well (given the futuristic possible Axis docs rework) then this reload time for the Pershing and SP will have to change. So ya, it's probably just fine now!

Regarding jackson B1 though:
Jalis wrote:Nashorn have also 6.5 - 7.5 reload time.

The issue isn't the 6.5 - 7.5 reload.. but more the 4.8 - 5.6 reload.
It just breaks the whole concept of the previous patch.. the approach was "heavier guns reload slower and smaller guns reload faster" but this way the jackson B1 can reload as fast as or even faster than some medium tanks with the static mode ability!
So, even if the basic reload time of 6.5-7.5 is fine.. then what about the reload time modifier for the static mode ability?
I just wonder if it's also fine...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3144
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Sep 2018, 22:19

Tiger1996 wrote:I just wonder if it's also fine...


All such modes reduce reload time by 25%. Nashorn as well. So yes.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 07 Sep 2018, 22:33

For real reload time I suggest you use test maps and chrono.
Reload time is only a part of the time between two shots.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 78
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 08 Sep 2018, 16:26

Churchill and Tiger are the most fragile heavy tanks in the game, because they are in this weird time-box where they are one of the 'earliest' heavy tanks you can get and so are gimped accordingly for receiving the high praise of being able to rush them so fast.

How Tigers gets affected by being the earliest CP available heavy tank for axis seems obvious, but let's also take a look at CW's premiere heavy tank: Churchills were one of the first few tanks that 'knocked out' Tigers in N. Africa. But BK churchills get oneshotted by P4s loading AP rounds because 750 HP(same as jumbo) for 1 CP 'heavy' tanks seems fair.

Tiger should get rapid firing position so it is different to the panther, buff its accuracy too if needed; because as it is, it is not that scary iconic tank that it supposedly should be in BK. While churchills should get a range increase or an HP buff because they are a 'heavy' tank(every other heavy tank gets a range buff BUT the churchill) instead of getting treated like a jumbo sherman with a crap engine. Maybe swap around CP points so the first churchill is 2 CP's so you don't necessarily have to gimp it so badly because of how early it comes. Like seriously, late game churchills get screwed over by everything; that only the crocodile churchill can compete and it's not even down to it's flamethrower but its massive HP pool/armor.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 08 Sep 2018, 17:28

Churchill tanks you have at BK are not Churchill tanks that mostly fight in Normandy. MKIV are old models, the common one at bk time would be the MKVII.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Tiger1996 » 08 Sep 2018, 17:36

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Tiger should get rapid firing position so it is different to the panther

Rapid Firing Position for Tigers isn't a good idea at all in my opinion... A static Tiger tank that is unable to move, is clearly a dead Tiger.
So called "ALRS" ability is what makes the Tiger already different from Panthers.. and Pershings. So, I think Tigers should just have the ALRS earlier; this will finally happen for the Tiger ACE on the next release.. but I think normal Tigers will just lose flank speed for the hold fire ability.. not sure how MarKr is going to add hold fire also for the Ace Tiger though, there is no enough slots in the UI panel I think!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3144
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Sep 2018, 19:25

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Churchill and Tiger are the most fragile heavy tanks in the game, because they are in this weird time-box where they are one of the 'earliest' heavy tanks you can get and so are gimped accordingly for receiving the high praise of being able to rush them so fast.

How Tigers gets affected by being the earliest CP available heavy tank for axis seems obvious, but let's also take a look at CW's premiere heavy tank: Churchills were one of the first few tanks that 'knocked out' Tigers in N. Africa. But BK churchills get oneshotted by P4s loading AP rounds because 750 HP(same as jumbo) for 1 CP 'heavy' tanks seems fair.

Tiger should get rapid firing position so it is different to the panther, buff its accuracy too if needed; because as it is, it is not that scary iconic tank that it supposedly should be in BK. While churchills should get a range increase or an HP buff because they are a 'heavy' tank(every other heavy tank gets a range buff BUT the churchill) instead of getting treated like a jumbo sherman with a crap engine. Maybe swap around CP points so the first churchill is 2 CP's so you don't necessarily have to gimp it so badly because of how early it comes. Like seriously, late game churchills get screwed over by everything; that only the crocodile churchill can compete and it's not even down to it's flamethrower but its massive HP pool/armor.



Jalis wrote:Churchill tanks you have at BK are not Churchill tanks that mostly fight in Normandy. MKIV are old models, the common one at bk time would be the MKVII.

Jalis mentioned the issue. The Churchill MK IV and VI in game are one of the first that seen combat. They would get penetrated easier by any long barreld axis 75 mm but in game they do not. Even Tiger can bounce 45% of all times shooting from max range.
Also 750 HP is good, just AP shells for axis and CW skyrockets their damage. A Tank IV would never get over 600 damage but it achieves 750 with AP.

Actually all except perhaps the 95 mm would have to be removed and exchanged by MK VII models bc those had been the main churchills in 44 and the only frontline churchills. In game its just one elite tank. Those would really be able to bounce even tigers but have generally a weak gun. So you get tank but not a gun. Tiger combines both.

So technically the MK IV and VI are overpowered but at the other hand they would be MK VII anyway.


Tiger1996 wrote:
MenciusMoldbug wrote:Tiger should get rapid firing position so it is different to the panther

Rapid Firing Position for Tigers isn't a good idea at all in my opinion... A static Tiger tank that is unable to move, is clearly a dead Tiger.
So called "ALRS" ability is what makes the Tiger already different from Panthers.. and Pershings. So, I think Tigers should just have the ALRS earlier; this will finally happen for the Tiger ACE on the next release.. but I think normal Tigers will just lose flank speed for the hold fire ability.. not sure how MarKr is going to add hold fire also for the Ace Tiger though, there is no enough slots in the UI panel I think!


You are killing me dude. We had a one hour debate where you tried to convience me how OP static mode is and that jacks B is is unbalanced bc of that and etc etc etc etc etc. I tried to tell you exactly what you just confirmed but in our debatte you didnt want to see or believe it: Static mode has severe and dangerous downsides.
So should think that you would be glad that tiger has static mode but suddenly its a crap ability?! Lmao.

My Suggestion: Remove flank speed and ad static mode at vet 1. Range would be fearfull 75. At vet two the even the Long shot ability.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Tiger1996 » 08 Sep 2018, 19:42

Warhawks97 wrote: We had a one hour debate where you tried to convience me how OP static mode is and that jacks B is is unbalanced bc of that and etc etc etc etc etc. I tried to tell you exactly what you just confirmed but in our debatte you didnt want to see or believe it: Static mode has severe and dangerous downsides.
So should think that you would be glad that tiger has static mode but suddenly its a crap ability?!

Throughout our private Steam chat conversion, we discussed for a long time about Jackson static mode and I said how the ability is very useful.. yes.

However;
Static Mode will be absolutely terrible for Tiger1, but at the same time.. perfect for the Jackson B1 of course! Don't be surprised.. because it's not like anything can fit anywhere... Some abilities can fit on some particular units, but the same abilities simply can't fit on others.

The same logic; flank speed is bad for Tigers, but good from Cromwells.. as simple as that.

I believe static Mode for Tiger1 has too many disadvantages, nonetheless... This suggestion doesn't sound too bad:
Warhawks97 wrote:My Suggestion: Remove flank speed and ad static mode at vet 1. Range would be fearfull 75. At vet two the even the Long shot ability.

Worth a try I would say, despite that I'm still not too convinced that static mode will be a good thing for Tigers.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 08 Sep 2018, 21:28

Warhawks97 wrote:

So technically the MK IV and VI are overpowered but at the other hand they would be MK VII anyway.



Overpowered ; yes and no.

Brits made ADPS for 6 PDR and 17 PDR, but not for the most common gun they use at BK time ; the OQF 75 mm.
Roughly that means If you keep anachronic Churchill MKIV 6PDR it is eligible for APDS, able to pen tiger and panther alike at any range.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Tiger1996 » 09 Sep 2018, 13:48

Btw, about 2pdr guns...
I also don't understand why should they act like 6pdr guns with long reload and high damage!
These small guns should act similarly to the 28mm car, with fast reload.. good penetration, but not too high damage.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3144
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Warhawks97 » 09 Sep 2018, 14:58

Tiger1996 wrote:Btw, about 2pdr guns...
I also don't understand why should they act like 6pdr guns with long reload and high damage!
These small guns should act similarly to the 28mm car, with fast reload.. good penetration, but not too high damage.


2 pdr are 40 mm guns. The damage is 40-65 and 75 for little john (mulitplied with 4.5 vs vehicles like HT). The 6 pdr (57mm) has 65-90 damage (modified with 4.5 vs vehicles like HT). The 28 mm has 30-40 damage modified with 3.5 against HT´s and stuff.


I dont see an issue here. The 40 mm has more in common with a 57 as with a 28 mm. The 28 mm AP shot weight approx 100 gram, the 2 pdr (40 mm) approx one kilo. So its 10 times the mass of an 28 mm. So dont see any similiarities between 28 mm and 40 mm.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 09 Sep 2018, 16:07

Closest 2 pdr cousin is the 37 mm. It share reload time with it 3-4, then come the puma 50 mm with 4-5 reload time.

37 mm damage is 40-50, 2pdr 40 mm is 40-65 and 50 mm is 50-80.

There is nothing that hurt logic here.

Now I can find something that really hurt logic. Usually everybody dodge and avoid to reply this, quite cowardly.

Sherman armour vs pamzer IV G to J armor. Average frontal PZ IV armour is about 73 mm, average most basic Sherman frontal armour is 92 mm.
Sherman have better side and rear armour, is up to 10 tons heavier than the PZ IV that explain why it have such superior armour in comparaison to PZ IV. Weigh is compensed by far more powerful engine.

Explain me why PZ IV have a better armour at BK ; It is not a balance problem. if it is, just adjust cost.

Gunnery M1a 76 mm L 55 gun penetration with range was at vcoh 1/0.92/0.84/0.84 and at bK became 1/0.84/0.67/0.54. WHY ?

There no historical nor balance explication for that except a basic nerf for free on US stuff to make german one more desirable.
Worst, it is for stuff which is high/end tank for most US factions, when axis have not one but two upper tier tanks above the Sherman/pz IV tier class.

For info the usual AT shell for the Sherman 76 mm was the M62 and for BK table penetration would be 1/0.92/0.83/0.75

Penetration of the US 76L55 pak 40 L46 and KWK 40 L 48 are quite the same. If US tend to loose very slightly energy with range it could be because of its longer barrel.

At the same time german KwK 40 75 mm would be ; 1/0.91/0.8/0.7 but is 1.25/0.91/0.8/0.7 or 1.25/0.92/0.82/0.73


Summary what it would be Axis 1/0.91/0.80/0.70 ------- what it is 1.25/0.91/0.80/0.70
----------------------------------Usa 1/0.92/0.83/0.75-------- what it is 1.00/0.84/0.67/0.54

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3144
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Warhawks97 » 09 Sep 2018, 20:32

Jalis wrote:Closest 2 pdr cousin is the 37 mm. It share reload time with it 3-4, then come the puma 50 mm with 4-5 reload time.

37 mm damage is 40-50, 2pdr 40 mm is 40-65 and 50 mm is 50-80.

There is nothing that hurt logic here.


yes
Now I can find something that really hurt logic. Usually everybody dodge and avoid to reply this, quite cowardly.

Sherman armour vs pamzer IV G to J armor. Average frontal PZ IV armour is about 73 mm, average most basic Sherman frontal armour is 92 mm.
Sherman have better side and rear armour, is up to 10 tons heavier than the PZ IV that explain why it have such superior armour in comparaison to PZ IV. Weigh is compensed by far more powerful engine.


Keep in mind overmatching factors. So sheman might have 92 mm effectively but 75 mm had overmatch bc the armor plate was just 50-60 mm thick (depending where and which version)

Explain me why PZ IV have a better armour at BK ; It is not a balance problem. if it is, just adjust cost.


From combat reports and other sources its been said that Tank IV and sherman 76 could take out each other on equal level with equal chance and distance. Sherman however had advantages when it was angled due to its thicker side armor.

The Germans had higher BHN value. While allied was quite soft with 260-270 BHN max, even on thin plates, axis had 500 BHN on thiner plates and even 280 or 290 on Tigers 100 mm front. Allied got quite surprised when their gun tests vs allied steel didnt match with tests made in france vs german steel.
So both are pretty equal just that shermans were not overloaded, had better escape options, burned less likely, had less shatter effects on armor and much better working space for crews as well as much better vision for all crew members and easier maintanance.


Gunnery M1a 76 mm L 55 gun penetration with range was at vcoh 1/0.92/0.84/0.84 and at bK became 1/0.84/0.67/0.54. WHY ?

There no historical nor balance explication for that except a basic nerf for free on US stuff to make german one more desirable.
Worst, it is for stuff which is high/end tank for most US factions, when axis have not one but two upper tier tanks above the Sherman/pz IV tier class.



For info the usual AT shell for the Sherman 76 mm was the M62 and for BK table penetration would be 1/0.92/0.83/0.75

Penetration of the US 76L55 pak 40 L46 and KWK 40 L 48 are quite the same. If US tend to loose very slightly energy with range it could be because of its longer barrel.

At the same time german KwK 40 75 mm would be ; 1/0.91/0.8/0.7 but is 1.25/0.91/0.8/0.7 or 1.25/0.92/0.82/0.73


Summary what it would be Axis 1/0.91/0.80/0.70 ------- what it is 1.25/0.91/0.80/0.70
----------------------------------Usa 1/0.92/0.83/0.75-------- what it is 1.00/0.84/0.67/0.54

In my private test version i made it that way but quickly faced problems.
While this might reflect realistic pen drops, it is also true that allied had to get close on several targets to pen (let it be JP IV/s, All Panthers frontal armor, Tigers to some extent and well, everything that got bigger.
In game you want to reward the player when he manages to close in with a medium tank on a heavy to be able to kill it. With realistic pen drops that wouldnt work bc you have to set the pen so low that closing in wont change anything (which would be unrealistic) or you can pen it at any range (which would also be unrealistic).

I am so far as to say that the same should be done with axis Medium guns. Why? Bc allied got their heavies as well now. Or lets say: their heavies became real heavies. It would be much easier to make for example the L/48 bouncing from Jumbos more often from distant range while close range pens could stay as they are. Or against churchills: Those could bounce the L/48 from longer range but not from closer distances (MK IV and VI, the MK VII bounced em all).

You are right with your logic and realism but you havent got the full picture how that would change the game.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 09 Sep 2018, 21:23

Warhawks97 wrote:Keep in mind overmatching factors. So sheman might have 92 mm effectively but 75 mm had overmatch bc the armor plate was just 50-60 mm
thick (depending where and which version)


Overmatching is something not calculated in actual TT (even I tested it in one version). It is fairly compensated bc game dont calcul bounce/ricochet effect (that have nothing to do with penetration) that occurs far more often on sloped armour.

Warhawks97 wrote:
From combat reports and other sources its been said that Tank IV and sherman 76 could take out each other on equal level with equal chance and distance. Sherman however had advantages when it was angled due to its thicker side armor.



From combat report first to shot the other win the day.

Warhawks97 wrote:
The Germans had higher BHN value. While allied was quite soft with 260-270 BHN max, even on thin plates, axis had 500 BHN on thiner plates and even 280 or 290 on Tigers 100 mm front. Allied got quite surprised when their gun tests vs allied steel didnt match with tests made in france vs german steel.


High brinell require high quality steel made by highly skilled workers and with adequate strategic raws. All of this, germans had no more in 1944, and issigny (july 44) tests proved it. IIRC half panther glacis were defectives. in 1944 germans rushed production and the same time they ran out strategic raw and recuit skilled workers in the army (replacing then by slave workers). To reach production goals control quality was mostly ignored.

if high brinell steel is not perfect it simply shatter like glass.

Reward player who take to risk to go closer is an argument, but it apply to any tank going on an other of the same class or upper. So the solution would be ;

Summary what it would be Axis 1.00/0.84/0.67/0.54 ------- what it is 1.25/0.91/0.80/0.70
----------------------------------Usa 1.00/0.84/0.67/0.54-------- what it is 1.00/0.84/0.67/0.54

drivebyhobo
Posts: 101
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby drivebyhobo » 28 Sep 2018, 18:21

Tiger1996 wrote:reload time of Jackson B1 is insane.
Pershing reload time is lower than Tiger1

The Pershing and Jackson (as well as other US tanks like the M10), have large secondary ammo 'ready racks' that should give them an edge on reload speeds. The Panthers and Tiger I don't have secondary racks to server as a 'cache' for quick reloads. The King Tiger has such racks though.

I'm sure that's not the developer's justification, but when loading from these 'ready racks', reload speeds of
4.8 - 5.6 seconds with skilled crews were not unheard of.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: [5.1.5] Reload Times

Postby Jalis » 28 Sep 2018, 19:11

drivebyhobo wrote: The King Tiger has such racks though. .


But they were empty. It was forbidden to fill turret ammo racks.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests