jagdpanzer 4 survivability (or 6pr/57mm pen)

[CGarr]

I still don't understand why it was decided the jagdpanzer 4 should be as hard to hit as a jeep yet also have armor that can bounce 57mm easily. It doesnt cost much more than a hellcat yet it is easily twice as durable, the speed difference doesnt really matter when you dont need to run away from anything. I've played a lot of games where this thing just drives up to AT guns or AT inf without issue, but this last game demonstrates my point pretty well.

NOTE: this match was in beta but the statement holds true for the live version and has been the case for quite some time.

temp.rec

(1.35 MiB) Downloaded 23 times

Before anyone says we were playing like shit, we were both just dicking around. I was watching a documentary and he was trying a doctrine he doesnt play much on a faction he doesnt play much. Focus should be on the engagements with the jagdpanzer 4 specifically, since it demonstrates pretty well how broken the unit is in terms of survivability.

An alternative view on this could be the observation of how useless the 6pdr and 57mm are after the first 5 mins, but every time I bring that up people just complain about how a change to said unit would cause such a domino affect increase in balance that it'd be better to just leave them in their current state, a waste of manpower/muni (@kwok).

[kwok]

I never said specifically to leave it at its current state. But generically I’ve said to many things that any change to any thing will have a domino effect.

Anyways about the 6 pdr. What’s your suggestion?

[idliketoplaybetter]

Funny thing, i played Beta recently and felt that Jagd's offense is still as strong as it was, but defence wise.., Jagd's felt lot and lot more vulnarable.

Not game breaking, but i had to play it very carefully and not rush too far, or not move out of camo at all.
Dunno if that relates to just Def doc (that i played) jagd's or if TH are any different in that way, but it is what it is to me.

[CGarr]

Funny thing, i played Beta recently and felt that Jagd's offense is still as strong as it was, but defence wise.., Jagd's felt lot and lot more vulnarable.

Not game breaking, but i had to play it very carefully and not rush too far, or not move out of camo at all.
Dunno if that relates to just Def doc (that i played) jagd's or if TH are any different in that way, but it is what it is to me.

Might just be placebo, defense wise I don't think they've been changed much. If I'm not mistaken they have a received accuracy modifier "because they're low profile". With the big guns like 17pdrs/76mm AT guns, its less noticeable because it's generally an instant kill assuming it hits, so it just feels like kinda bad RNG since you miss slightly more often. The 6pdr and 57mm are where it becomes a lot more apparent, since even with camo and AP you're still taking a significant gamble on the pen chance, on top of the received accuracy modifier making misses happen more often. That matchup is where you regularly start seeing the stuff that happened in the replay I posted, with cloaked AT guns missing/bouncing multiple shots, or the jp4 just sitting in front of an AT gun eating shots and even killing inf that come to kill it with the main gun's ridiculously high accuracy.

If the recieved accuracy modifier was removed it probably wouldn't be such a pain in the ass, but currently you can get away with a lot more than you should be able to as long as you don't get encircled. Even then, you can just back straight up and there's a good chance rockets will bounce off the front at close range (assuming they even hit) so the only real flanking threat is tanks flanking or a heavy AT gun. Again, keep in mind we're talking about the axis equivalent to the achilles/m18 (in terms of role and implementation within doctrines), since its only 2cp and the price isn't much higher for significantly better performance both in the intended role and all around.

[idliketoplaybetter]

I dont think Jagd's were changed anyhow, although Allies tanks were.
Equivalent to m10 or not, the timing/tiering they regulary occure to are different/

In my game, i was 2 to 1 against shermans the moment i CP teched and could afford least 1tankhunter. Could i push and riskkill sherman regardless of AT's? ehh i tried..

Dont get me wrong, i dont arque magic slick tricks axis th's do on a common basis, just in my eyes, it is way way more risky now and punishable.
More to say, for the Def doc i had thoughts that it should just cost 2CP to open both Jagd's (bigger and smaller one) and there should only be a price decision for the player. Instead as it is now, u spend 4(?) and teching for too long.

So much options stood aside. Panterturm and bunkers. Elephant is over expensive and doesnt even have vet crew.

[Warhawks97]

The def doc IV/48 had an additional reduced received accuracy modifier in addition to the already low hit chance in the target table. But it was only def doc one. In beta all IV´s should be similiar hard to hit by weapons. But they are afterall decently hard to hit.
But its not just the TT´s fault but also that pretty much all guns have kind of an almost insta accuracy drop once the target is 25 range away (60 range is max range of most guns). If guns in general wouldnt drop of 100% basic acuracy to 75% accuarcy from 25-35 range things wouldnt be as bad. That combined with 15% accuracy drop vs Jagppanzer Iv´s makes it difficult to hit Jagdpanzer IV´s even when you are already quite close to them.
I also have had my funny close range dances with 2-3 tanks against one JP IV with all my tanks either failing to hit, bouncing or only damaging the tank.

If accuracy wouldnt drop more smoothly and not so drastically, there would be a lot better chance to take them down when you managed to get close to them.

[CGarr]

The def doc IV/48 had an additional reduced received accuracy modifier in addition to the already low hit chance in the target table. But it was only def doc one. In beta all IV´s should be similiar hard to hit by weapons. But they are afterall decently hard to hit.
But its not just the TT´s fault but also that pretty much all guns have kind of an almost insta accuracy drop once the target is 25 range away (60 range is max range of most guns). If guns in general wouldnt drop of 100% basic acuracy to 75% accuarcy from 25-35 range things wouldnt be as bad. That combined with 15% accuracy drop vs Jagppanzer Iv´s makes it difficult to hit Jagdpanzer IV´s even when you are already quite close to them.
I also have had my funny close range dances with 2-3 tanks against one JP IV with all my tanks either failing to hit, bouncing or only damaging the tank.

If accuracy wouldnt drop more smoothly and not so drastically, there would be a lot better chance to take them down when you managed to get close to them.

I did not know this, if the accuracy drop is really the main issue then I could see a fix to that possibly helping. However, keep in mind that that kind of change would affect every engagement involving pretty much anything bigger than a 37mm. Not sure how that would affect all the other tanks in the game, so I'd need to see it for myself.

[CGarr]

I dont think Jagd's were changed anyhow, although Allies tanks were.
Equivalent to m10 or not, the timing/tiering they regulary occure to are different/

In my game, i was 2 to 1 against shermans the moment i CP teched and could afford least 1tankhunter. Could i push and riskkill sherman regardless of AT's? ehh i tried..

Dont get me wrong, i dont arque magic slick tricks axis th's do on a common basis, just in my eyes, it is way way more risky now and punishable.
More to say, for the Def doc i had thoughts that it should just cost 2CP to open both Jagd's (bigger and smaller one) and there should only be a price decision for the player. Instead as it is now, u spend 4(?) and teching for too long.

So much options stood aside. Panterturm and bunkers. Elephant is over expensive and doesnt even have vet crew.

If what Hawks said about the extra received accuracy modifier is true, I'd assume it'd be the other way around, I think you and I are just really unlucky with these tanks since I've seen plenty of people do really dumb things with them and get away with it on a regular basis, so much so that some have even acknowledged it themselves.

As for the CP costs on the bigger version of the jpz4 and the idea of merging them, I'm not sure how much of an effect it would have on gameplay since defense doc is an extremely strong doctrine overall, arguably only really passed up by either propaganda doc or TH for panzer elite. The change you suggested definitely does make sense, just not sure if its set up the way it is to purposely slow the players access to the other stuff. I'd be willing to try it. US and brits have access to heavy tank killers pretty quickly (m10/m18, achilles), and the tech up cost would still be there to slow rushes a bit.

The elefant is pretty expensive but I don't know if I could really say its over expensive, although it is weird that it doesn't come with vet crew. Honestly it doesn't really need it since thing has a ton of armor and anything in front of it is usually dead before they even see it, so the only threats are indirect fire (or airstrikes) and immobilization. It's just a weird unit to have in an RTS game. I personally kind of like it, as it feels more like a heavy than most of the other heavies in the game since its armor is stupidly thick on all sides. It's a good damage sponge / aggro sink, and its got a big ass gun so it can blow away every tank it faces. It doesn't really do much to inf though, and its super slow. I think it's well balanced overall in terms of stats with huge strengths and huge weaknesses, but again I can't really comment on the price or need for a tank commander.

[kwok]

About accuracy drops, I think this is something I've personally tested on private modding. Those acc drops are really important from a playability "fun" standpoint. It's what enables things like general prolonged fighting and flanking possible. It adds excitement to the game to take a few low cost gambles on misses at long range or try for a more sure but tactically risky short range trade. For example, a player going into a tank on tank fight with equal tier will most likely both have tanks that can absorb two hits from each other. Making trades at long range is "low cost" because you can always pull out of the engagement into the "bad accuracy" range and out because chances are the enemy won't go chasing into enemy territory where more dangers are. At most you just lose a little bit of ground. But if accuracy at long range is good enough, the enemy will chase into your own territory and kill the "loser" and you will have lose even MORE ground since you lost a critical unit. This type of dynamic will deter people from making any but long range plays since there is very marginal gain to short range play which will lead to more camping over game tactics. These "realistic accurate ranges and accuracy" was tried in SOOOoooo many mods and they failed while bk is still alive because BK is still gamey.

I know this rant wasn't much contribution to the main point of the thread, but I wanted to address this small topic as it's something that always comes up and I feel like players just DON'T understand the impacts of it. One time I was fed up and purposely gamed up a side mod with the exact changes the players wanted (super long "realistic ranges and accuracy"). The game was absolute trash. Then I accidentally saved it over my personal mod which made it so I could'nt revert back to my own version so I had to go back and manually correct my values one by one. Lesson learned there is don't accept player wanted changes.

[Warhawks97]

BK as three issues with )tank) guns.

1. Its the range classification which is quite often something like 10/25/35/48 or something. Min range is 5 and max range 60. So any "point blank shots" are techincally imposible to achive and thus short range modifiers never applay anyways.
2. The accuracy from short to max range is usually 1/1/0.75/0.75.
3. They dont lose accuracy when targeted tank is moving.

That means point blank shots are impossible to achieve. Even the mid range ending at 25 range (the range germans throw grenades) makes it impossible to use these mid range stats. So for the most part of tank engagments you have to live with the worst possible accuracy available. And this is frustrating when you manage to flank out a tank like a JP IV with two of your own tanks, both already very close on said target but still having an accuracy as if you were very far away and your tanks still hit the dirt as if the shots just drop out of the fucking barrel. This is super frustrating as well.

Meanwhile some tanks out there (eg panther) have an accuracy of 1/1/0.9/0.9 and they snipe out your tanks from afar even you put put up some smoke and driving arround like crazy


So tell me where is it fair when i park my tank right next to a tank like JP IV that is not moving and still hitting the dirt while others can snipe out crazy driving, smoke covered tanks with ease from max range.


What i would do is


1.Change range classifications to 15/30/45/60 range.
2. Change accuracy from 1/0.9/0.85/0.75..... depending on gun though. So tanks like Panther and other long barrel high velocity guns with flat trajectory would be of course better than low velocity guns with huge trajectory.
3. Accuracy drop against moving targets. That would make maneuvering with tanks a lot more important, esspecially during the shooting phase of your opponent. Depending on tank type the accuracy would drop by 10-20% when the target moves arround. Combing that with smoke would open up whole new levels of tactical possibilties.

The bad news are: Its a lot of work to do for every gun against every tank target. But at least we could get a more convinient and consistent accuracy tables. As of right now you have either 100% accuracy or, when being just a tiny bit further away, using only 75% base accuracy. Closing in maneuvers are thus either a "100%" success when having crossed the "magic line of accuracy" or a complete failure bc you have stopped a meter too early and thus staying in front of this "magic accuracy line".

[kwok]

well first of all, there isn't a "magic accuracy line", we discussed before it's a proportionate slope from each bracket. So for example, the accuracy from short to medium isn't a drop off at .85, it would be something like .90 in the middle. The accuracy at each bracket essentially defines the rate at which accuracy drops at each bracket, not what the entire bracket would be. Not saying the accuracy tables are correct now but I don't want to spread the misinformation that the brackets are set up in a way where it's 100% from short to medium because the bracket is set a certain way.

[Warhawks97]

well first of all, there isn't a "magic accuracy line", we discussed before it's a proportionate slope from each bracket. So for example, the accuracy from short to medium isn't a drop off at .85, it would be something like .90 in the middle. The accuracy at each bracket essentially defines the rate at which accuracy drops at each bracket, not what the entire bracket would be. Not saying the accuracy tables are correct now but I don't want to spread the misinformation that the brackets are set up in a way where it's 100% from short to medium because the bracket is set a certain way.

you dont need to explain again. Jalis showed us how it works.

still, from end mid range to long range it drops from 100% to 75%. So within just one bracket it drops 25%.
Since mid range ends at 25 and long starts at 35 range, the accuracy drops to 75% within just these 10 range which is less than allied grenade throwing range. So i think we can consider this almost as a "magic line" and that is bad. The accuracy should drop from bracket over bracket and not stayin untouched the first 25 range units and then untouched for the last 25 range units.

[kwok]

you’re saying that there’s a one meter difference between “100% success” or 100% “complete fail” which is ENTIRELY inaccurate. Even within the 25% difference bracket, each “coh meter” only lowers the accuracy by 2.5%. But say this magic line you’re saying actually exists.
Imo the magic line for me would be wherever 50% acc is because that’s the difference of saying most of the time it takes one shot to hit or two shots... but that’s subjective... which is what I’m saying you’re being here: subjective. You are saying the magic line is bad when I’ve specifically said it is good.

[Warhawks97]

what is "10 range". I think roughly the range of stickies and they almost have to touch the tank. So the 25% drops very quick. And when fighting the JP IV in particular the difference is even bigger. There your short range accuracy is already at 85% due to the target TT. So here the accuracy drops from 85 to 63,75 within 10 range. So there is only a very small gap that has a huge impact. Does the TT manage to increase the distant to the enemie tank by a range that is less than that of an allied grenade throw? Or does the sherman perhaps stops a second too early or shoots a second to early? 10 range is nothing for a tank in full speed. But these are super critical and have a huge impact on whether you win the fight or not.

[kwok]

Okay, I'll admit that's a fair point to a limited extent but then I feel like it really contradicts your original point... Liek you said, 10 range isn't that far to close in for the tank so why doesn't the sherman just.... keep going... Like there are literal changes to enable shermans to do this. There was a patch specifically that lets allied tanks be more accurate on the move AND shoot faster while axis tanks are not. Close that distance as fast as you say it's able to be closed and cross the magic line. That's called tactics which is encouraged in a strategy game. You make it sound like it's impossible for allied tanks to hit anything because the range is so far and impossible to hit before getting hit first but now you're saying that the distance isn't far at all and nothing for a tank in full speed.

Break from arguing with warhawks because this will go on forever and i really think the proposed changes are DANGEROUS changes. Here's my idea.

If the issue is killing these damn magic evasion tank hunters which are designed to kill tanks, I was thinking through what WOULD be the typical way to tackle these units. The issue comes up more when the tankhunters are being passive and defensive hiding in camo. Leaving the performance of the 6 pdr aside, I think the recommended tactical solution for tank hunters is to hunt them down with anti tank infantry (bazooka teams, piat teams, commandoes, etc). Given that, my personal proposed solution is to increase the accuracy of handheld AT against the tank hunters so that it negates the evasion bonuses used by the tankhunters so that it limits the impact only for this particular match up. The tankhunters still retain their intended "realism" characteristics of a low profile tank all the while still being vulnerable to essentially the weapon that was designed to hunt them down at ranges where accuracy is less of a problem. We can talk about the role of the medium AT guns separately, but for now is this a solution for the jp4 survivability?

[CGarr]

Jesus, didn't think there'd be much back and forth on this. Ignore the range thing if its going to be problematic, just trying to think of a way to regularly kill the jpz4 since medium AT guns currently don't do the trick and their dodge chance makes them hard to hit with any AT gun. The change Kwok brought up with inf AT being the main counter might be good enough to make the thing killable. In my experience, (can't speak for others on this) rockets are currently so unreliable that I pretty much never use them against the jpz4. Even the jpz4/70 seems a lot easier to counter with inf AT or even just AT guns, but between its armor and the recieved accuracy bonus, the jpz4 just feels unreasonably difficult to kill. With that being said, I think that change would need testing, since there's still a good chance that the rockets will bounce. Between that, the speed at which this tank can kill inf, and the fact that the thing can just back continuously back up until they die/retreat since they cant do much from the front, I don't think it'll change much but I'm willing to test it.

A similar change being applied to field AT guns would be more ideal. They have the pen with AP shells to get the job, it just currently doesn't feel worth it to use said AP shells since there's a good chance they'll just miss the jpz4. I agree with you Kwok on AT inf making more sense, but unless theres a way to increase their pen against this tank specifically, the AT gun option seems like it'd be more effective or easier depending on how much work the AT inf option is.

[kwok]

I agree with you Kwok on AT inf making more sense, but unless theres a way to increase their pen against this tank specifically,

yeah there is. is it necessary though? would just the accuracy buff be enough? depending on my doctrine, i usually screen for my at inf with a jumbo or air strafe run to clear the way.

[CGarr]

I agree with you Kwok on AT inf making more sense, but unless theres a way to increase their pen against this tank specifically,

yeah there is. is it necessary though? would just the accuracy buff be enough? depending on my doctrine, i usually screen for my at inf with a jumbo or air strafe run to clear the way.

It'd need testing is what I'm saying. I dont know if it'd be enough, based on my own experiences with the current game it wouldn't but maybe i'm just really unlucky.

[Warhawks97]

Okay, I'll admit that's a fair point to a limited extent but then I feel like it really contradicts your original point... Liek you said, 10 range isn't that far to close in for the tank so why doesn't the sherman just.... keep going... Like there are literal changes to enable shermans to do this. There was a patch specifically that lets allied tanks be more accurate on the move AND shoot faster while axis tanks are not. Close that distance as fast as you say it's able to be closed and cross the magic line. That's called tactics which is encouraged in a strategy game. You make it sound like it's impossible for allied tanks to hit anything because the range is so far and impossible to hit before getting hit first but now you're saying that the distance isn't far at all and nothing for a tank in full speed.

You never know when you passed this exact 10 range. You might keep on closing but the sherman has reloaded the gun just a second too early and fires (and misses) or you stop (usually you try to stop when firing) to fire which is again a half second too early.

My point is that any meter you get closer (and that should be for all guns in game) you should be slightly rewarded instead of getting no reward at all and then a huge bonus at once. Esspecially the first meters are totally usless to close in bc from 48 to 60 range the stats of guns remain the same.
Its kind of a death trap: "Get close dude!" "I did." "Darn, it wasnt quite enough. You get no reward for the distant you already closed in, sorry dude".

And i did not mention only allied tanks suffer from such broken range brackets and accuracy drops. Pretty much all medium armor suffers from it. It happens in the same way when you have to deal with a Tank IV against cromwell which i think also has quite low received accuracy due to its TT.

The only units that do not suffer are the biggest once. They often have more proper range brackets. And the Hetzer i think has completely different brackets and gets rewareded for every inch it gets closer to its enemie. At least it was so in the past.

The accuracy while moving things on ally doesnt really count to be honest. You can be point blank on a JP IV and you still have a 49% miss chance. I already made that experience quite a few times. Looks hilarious if it wouldnt be so frustrating.

On top of that a Panther is just as accurate while moving as a sherman is bc the panther does not really suffer any accuracy drop at max range.


Break from arguing with warhawks because this will go on forever and i really think the proposed changes are DANGEROUS changes. Here's my idea.

If the issue is killing these damn magic evasion tank hunters which are designed to kill tanks, I was thinking through what WOULD be the typical way to tackle these units. The issue comes up more when the tankhunters are being passive and defensive hiding in camo. Leaving the performance of the 6 pdr aside, I think the recommended tactical solution for tank hunters is to hunt them down with anti tank infantry (bazooka teams, piat teams, commandoes, etc). Given that, my personal proposed solution is to increase the accuracy of handheld AT against the tank hunters so that it negates the evasion bonuses used by the tankhunters so that it limits the impact only for this particular match up. The tankhunters still retain their intended "realism" characteristics of a low profile tank all the while still being vulnerable to essentially the weapon that was designed to hunt them down at ranges where accuracy is less of a problem. We can talk about the role of the medium AT guns separately, but for now is this a solution for the jp4 survivability?

if its hidden you usually try to bomb it out or to rush it with inf. I think the original question was more like what can i do what that thing attacks me and my AT guns keep failing and bouncing.

Removing the reduced received accuracy against zooks from that tank while its moving will probably lead to shitstorm which i can understand. Every tank has a chance to run from schrecks and zooks to reduce their accuracy while shooting them at the same time with HE´s and MG´s. The JP IV does not have any of that option to get away from inf.

The only thing i could think of is to check its armor against these weapons but iirc it gets penetrated quite reliable by these.

I think there is no quick answer to solve the problem.

[idliketoplaybetter]

For me, all the Stat wise OP not OP discussion aside. Jagdpanzers biggest issue stays availability in new concept. It is either should be decided by MP/fuel Price tweaking down, or CP down.

It was hard to operate within Def doc between all those options alike panterturm/88/elephant and having considerable answer for early-mid tanks.

Elephant should be cheaper without much doubts just cause not much people ever get them for reason(!) that is not to end game fun/troll. I'd give it a chance, just for that.

[kwok]

Mmm.... playbetter seems to ahve a really opposite view of jp's lol.

About the elefant, i'd make a different topic. I somewhat agree that it's a unit never really used because its hard barred by its costs. But, a nerf like that would need major counterbalancing. For example, is there anything an armor doc could do against it in a 1v1 scenario? The current "counter" armor doc has against the elefant is basically to make sure it can never see the battlefield through pressuring the opponent to spend to survive. If it the elefant costs reduced and becomes more available then that "counter" no longer exists. Something to think about if you do post about the elefant.