Proposal: Camo should not give bonus modifiers to tank destroyers

[MenciusMoldbug]

It seems like at least one unit would need to be looked at, the m10 tank destroyer. If that unit RELIES on the camo bonus, then maybe that unit can either be buffed to be stronger so it doesn't need camo bonuses OR it can be the only unit WITH camo bonuses. I'll leave that for you all to discuss.

Well the M10 has a HEAT shell which has guaranteed penetration chances vs panthers and tigers (and everything below that). It's just too expensive to use most of the time because getting the upgrade and firing the HEAT shell afterwards cost 100 munitions (25 for upgrade, 75 to fire). The thing also has a aim time now so firing it in mid combat is a lot harder than it was before. I personally wanted the HEAT shell for the M10 to cost 40-50 munitions. So you didn't have to spend huge amount of munitions to try to fire it off on a Panther or something. The Hetzer/JP4 also has a HEAT shell which costs way too much to fire. I think fixing/buffing the HEAT shell costs for the respective lower-level TD's like the Hetzer and M10 should alleviate the issue of their camo bonuses being gone; since it's a single fire shell it's perfect to use in ambush. Considering unlike the Stug they don't have HE shells and purely exist to counter tanks (and Marder 3 has HE shells so I think it's in an ok spot for now).

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more; maybe cheap HEAT shells would be too strong because they have garaunteed penetration chances and don't lose penetration at any range. So maybe it could have a long aim-time, with less range compared to normal shells so it can only be used properly in an ambush and not when you bumrush a tank with it.

[CGarr]

- Standardize revert times and revert times on detection for tank destroyers (make them generally long enough so they don't disappear mid combat or immediately disappear after being spotted)
- Set camo shots to only be a max of 1 before revealing
- Remove damage bonuses on camo first strike
- Remove penetration bonuses on camo first strike
- Keep accuracy bonuses on camo first strike

Additionally, based on the sniper post there is mixed opinion on whether detection really is a problem or not. I think we can consider flares and more detection after a round of updating how camo bonuses will work.

If TD's are fine without camo, then do they really need to get bonuses in camo? If they lose bonuses with camo, do they need to be balanced upwards?

It seems like at least one unit would need to be looked at, the m10 tank destroyer. If that unit RELIES on the camo bonus, then maybe that unit can either be buffed to be stronger so it doesn't need camo bonuses OR it can be the only unit WITH camo bonuses. I'll leave that for you all to discuss.

Any other units that may need help ASSUMING these camo bonuses are removed?

1. I agree with the 5 points you've taken as results of these polls/discussions.
2.Waiting to do detection changes after would probably be the better move.
3. The M10, M18, and marder should all get straight buffs to their AT performance, with the first 2 possibly getting a price increase (35 fuel super TD spam would be aids, I'd rather they be 60 fuel and a good unit than 35 and a pathetic gamble due to their current ineffectiveness / lack of consistency. I'll have to look but I think I've got multiple replays of them bouncing with AP and camo or even missing their shot entirely). With that being said, I think that could be implemented by giving all medium TD's (M10, M18, marder, hetzer, jpz4/48, stug IV) some kind of pen modifier when shooting at their intended targets (medium tanks) so they they can more consistently do their job.

I don't hate RNG, but this mod's handling of it isn't spectacular since there are places where consistency should take priority over having RNG just for the sake of making it "realistic". With that being said, I believe heavy TD's (M36, achilles, big cat TD's) are actually pretty well balanced in terms of their base offensive stats, the bonuses might be a little overkill but they already perform so well without said bonuses that it's not really noticeable. They kill everything they're meant to regardless of the camo bonus (assuming you use AP shells when needed). In that sense, camo on heavy TD"s is implemented well in that the main benefit to using it is the invisibility, not bonuses (revert times could obviously use some work but I think that's been established as a global issue with camo in this mod so I won't touch that).

Assuming those 5 changes you mentioned are made, camo should be a lot less of a pain in the ass. Testing will determine whether more detection options are needed.

Thinking about it a bit more; maybe cheap HEAT shells would be too strong because they have garaunteed penetration chances and don't lose penetration at any range. So maybe it could have a long aim-time, with less range compared to normal shells so it can only be used properly in an ambush and not when you bumrush a tank with it.

Agreed.

[Krieger Blitzer]

After the latest changes, i think the next thing to do is the following:

Things to stay:
- Range bonus.
- Accuracy bonus.

Things to remove:
- Penetration boost.
- Damage boost.

That is all, as i believe then nothing else should be done except for just that.

P.S
I also think M10, Marder, and Hellcat are fine.. no need for any buffs.

[kwok]

I don't think a range buff is a good idea. From a historical perspective, ambush tactics are intended as a method to close the distance to the target, not increase the range of a weapon in any way. If anything, I'd prefer if ambush mode reduced range only because my personal want would be for the ambush to only fire when penetration chances are higher. That being said, from a balance perspective, longer range ambush without pen bonuses (which I've already mentioned I think isn't a good idea) would just lead to units firing at long ranges with the lowest possible penetration chances. Controversial opinion I know... But honestly that's how I use ambush anyways. I go on hold fire until the target comes close enough that I know my unit will wipe a squad or penetrate reliably. It's more micro intense to use this tactic currently.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I don't think a range buff is a good idea. From a historical perspective, ambush tactics are intended as a method to close the distance to the target, not increase the range of a weapon in any way. If anything, I'd prefer if ambush mode reduced range only because my personal want would be for the ambush to only fire when penetration chances are higher. That being said, from a balance perspective, longer range ambush without pen bonuses (which I've already mentioned I think isn't a good idea) would just lead to units firing at long ranges with the lowest possible penetration chances. Controversial opinion I know... But honestly that's how I use ambush anyways. I go on hold fire until the target comes close enough that I know my unit will wipe a squad or penetrate reliably. It's more micro intense to use this tactic currently.

Camo mode doesn't seem anything viable without range bonus to me... Also, ambush mode for infantry with handheld AT weapons isn't the same as for tank hunters or AT guns. Each of them has a different philosophy.. infantry units would usually wait to shoot at close range, while AT guns and tank destroyers would be hidden & stationary.. waiting for the prey to come into the range of their long barrel cannons, hitting them from a far.

Range bonus is a total must for TDs in my opinion, i wouldn't even imagine TD camo without it! Specifically with the removal of penetration and damage boost(s). Player should always have the choice to shoot from distance or wait for the enemy tank to get close...

Needless to say, shooting at a long distance with the "lowest possible penetration chances" isn't really a problem for some TDs, because their guns are powerful anyway. Thus, it wouldn't make sense for such tanks to remain as sitting ducks unless range bonus is provided... Otherwise it would be a straight nerf to those tanks in particular.

[MarKr]

You're talking only from the perspective of TDs with strong guns where the penetration drop over distance doesn't matter (Jagdpanther, Nashorn, JPIV L70...) because their guns penetrate Allied tanks 90% of the time anyway. Howeve, for allies this would be a lot less beneficial because M10 and M18 will all lose a crap ton of penetration with the higher range and so they will either waste a shot (if you let them on auto-attack) or you will need to wait for the target to come closer to apply better penetration chances at closer ranges (unless they shoot at some light vehicles). With M36 and Achilles it is similar only these would probably still kill medium tanks at max range but any heavy tank (which is why you get these units) will still require to get closer. So overall, your suggestion is a lot more beneficial for Axis than for Allies.

The fact that you remain hidden and get basically a guaranteed hit with the first shot is already worth the camo. For some units with special ammo types with more penetration (which usually have shorter range) it is also a good opportunity to use that ammunition because otherwise they would take a risk getting closer to their targets.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i genuinely disagree on this one, even tanks with weaker guns have benefit from range boost.. not all targets are heavily armored, as there are also soft targets to ambush, like half-tracks and so on.

Not to mention if the player thinks there is a target hard to penetrate.. then he could simply disable auto-firing and wait for it to get closer.
Players should always have the choice to shoot at long range from ambush... "Camo mode" is basically a "Stationary mode" and both give range boost.
The difference is only how "camo" requires certain conditions to be used, like nearby trees.. etc.

Also, majority of Axis TDs are more expensive and don't have turrets, and take longer to reload, also no flank speed.
So... i can't see how range boost from camo is favoring Axis more! it's a benefit for both sides...
And you know very well how i play ALL sides equally good, so there is nothing i'm biased for right here.

Removing range bonus from camo mode is a big nerf to the ambush mechanism of Bk Mod, specifically considering the several other nerfs that were already done in this regard. Therefore, in my opinion.. it would be a very negative thing to consider.

[Diablo]

I think kwok's proposition is the more interesting here. Having tank stealth become a close combat initiator puts a nice twist to it, rather than a dull stat buff.

So for those ambushes at close range, just an accuracy boost would be sufficient.. to ensure that "paper" TDs like the Hellcat actually get a chance at german heavies. In short: the first shot from ambush should generally hit an unmodified target (e.g. not in smoke).

Other than that, maybe an increased critical chance could be a benefit of camouflage?

..
Players should always have the choice to shoot at long range from ambush... "Camo mode" is basically a "Stationary mode" and both give range boost.
..

I feel like the long range combat should be done by AT guns. They have extraordinary range - even from ambush - which is fine. If you are taking shots from an AT gun, you can retaliate with indirect fire and most likely remove the threat since those things arent mobile enough to escape. Flanking said AT guns is possible aswell. But a stealthed tank hunter actively turns 360 degrees (atleast the german turretless ones, not sure about allied TDs), that combined with a strong gun and the discussed range increase nets them a role not quite unlike the FlaK 88, which i dont think is appropriate.

But thats just my two cents :)

[Krieger Blitzer]

But a stealthed tank hunter actively turns 360 degrees (atleast the german turretless ones, not sure about allied TDs), that combined with a strong gun and the discussed range increase nets them a role not quite unlike the FlaK 88, which i dont think is appropriate.

Allied TDs do turn 360 degrees from camo just as Axis TDs do.
Some expensive tanks (such as Elefant and jagdPanther) are mainly designed to work as mobile 88s with long range.. and not short range shot-guns. How else would they work! Elefant - actually - is even deemed useless in most PvP games despite the current range bonus from ambush already. As it's too slow to catch anything.. and too big which makes it an easy target for arty and airstrikes, and as soon as it's immobilized.. it suddenly becomes a trash box, or more like a shooting practice. Much cheaper Hellcats usually offer much higher value...

So, i can't see how such expensive TDs with big long cannons are somehow meant to work as close combat shot-gun... Needless to say, most people here voted NOT to touch camo settings in the first place, so removing damage and penetration bonuses already go against the desire of the majority who participated in the poll to begin with, although i'm OK with it.. though, definitely not OK with touching the camo mode range bonus.

[Diablo]

Regarding the bigger calibers, i agree partially with you: i dont think 88 or 90mm guns are made for close quarters, on the contrary. At least the 88 excels in ranged combat and sometimes struggles with near and small targets. This is good, it gives a sort of identity to that weapon.

Btw. talking about these large tank hunters.. does it even make sense to have camo for those? With their sheer firepower and armor they have no trouble fighting their intended targets already - and their large frame appears as an awkward thing to hide.

Cheers

[Krieger Blitzer]

Low silhouette tank destroyers were often totally covered by as many tree branches & bushes to make them virtually invisible or hard to spot.. this way those tanks can be used at long range from within forests as ambush to enemy targets.. no matter how big they were.

Only exception would be the Elefant, as it was probably too large to hide anywhere.. but this tank previously had stationary position mode in the game, not camo mode... However, it was later replaced by camo mode, not sure why; but obviously both abilities provide range bonus at the end of the day.

After all, it doesn't really make that much of a difference, right now camo mode would reveal its position right after the first strike anyways.. although i wouldn't mind if the Elefant would have stationary position ability once again.. but with the same +10 range boost currently provided.

Cheers back.

[Mantis]

Agree with Tiger in all.

[MarKr]

Regarding the bigger calibers, i agree partially with you: i dont think 88 or 90mm guns are made for close quarters, on the contrary.

The 88mm guns on Nashorns, Jagdpanthers and Elefants already have maximum range of 70 instead of the standard 60. With camo that currently goes up to 80. With this range and also the armor you mentioned they become hard to deal with because they can destroy almost anything even before it can shoot back at them and if the enemy has more units, they can go head on head with them anyway thanks to their armor as you said (well, maybe not the Nashorn). This high range basically gives them an ALRS shot which has a bit less range but it's free. So they work as long range units thanks to their longer basic range.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i don't see any players who complained about their long range from camo... So, where this desire to nerf them is coming from? Also, don't forget this range was previously given as a result of significantly increasing the reload time of those tanks from 5 seconds in the past to around 10 seconds currently. And how is 80 range any problematic for a tank that costs 8 command points, 180 fuel and 1000 manpower??

This whole range discussion seems off to me, specifically that no one complained about this at all.

[Viper]

Agree with Tiger in all.

me too.

The 88mm guns on Nashorns, Jagdpanthers and Elefants already have maximum range of 70 instead of the standard 60. With camo that currently goes up to 80. With this range and also the armor you mentioned they become hard to deal with because they can destroy almost anything even before it can shoot back at them and if the enemy has more units, they can go head on head with them anyway thanks to their armor as you said (well, maybe not the Nashorn). This high range basically gives them an ALRS shot which has a bit less range but it's free. So they work as long range units thanks to their longer basic range.

this is not a free alrs.
alrs gives more range (90 or 100) and 100% accuracy. camo does not give 100% accuracy.

i don't see any players who complained about their long range from camo... So, where this desire to nerf them is coming from? Also, don't forget this range was previously given as a result of significantly increasing the reload time of those tanks from 5 seconds in the past to around 10 seconds currently. And how is 80 range any problematic for a tank that costs 8 command points, 180 fuel and 1000 manpower??

This whole range discussion seems off to me, specifically that no one complained about this at all.

not just the longer reload............but more narrow cone of fire as well.

[MarKr]

this is not a free alrs.
alrs gives more range (90 or 100) and 100% accuracy. camo does not give 100% accuracy.

I guess some analysis of a part of my statement needs to be made because it was misinterpreted:

This high range basically gives them an ALRS shot which has a bit less range but it's free.

The first underlined word "basically" means "in the most essential respects; fundamentally" so in other words "similar in the core aspects".
The comparison to ALRS was made because the core aspect of it is "a highly accurate shot at longer range than usual" if you take a look at the a shot of Nashorn/Elefant/JP from camo you will see that it is also a "shot taken at a range longer than usual" (because of the +10 range it currently has) and it is also "highly accurate" because the basic accuracy of these guns at max range is 75% and the shot from camo increases it to 112.5% (so a guaranteed hit unless the target is in a smoke but then even ALRS does not guarantee a hit). So the core of ALRS and the camo shot IS very similar. "Similar is used here because I didn't say that the two ARE the same. The perceived difference between ALRS and the camo shot is explained in the second underlined part "a bit less range but it's free".

Therefore:

this is not a free alrs.

Yes, I agree because I never said it was a free ALRS.

alrs gives more range (90 or 100)

Yes, I agree. I said it too:

which has a bit less range

camo does not give 100% accuracy

Here you're not right, as I explained above, it does.

[Walderschmidt]

I have ideas on how to attack this. Will post later tonight.

Probably in a separate threads for each idea.

Wald

[Viper]

I guess some analysis of a part of my statement needs to be made because it was misinterpreted:

you dont need to interpret the statement.......i fully understand it.

but please you need to correctly interpret our statements......range camo bonus is completely fine.
and reasons were given; these tanks are very expensive......the reload is long enough......they are turretless....they don't have flank speed......it's the role of these tanks to be long range snipers......and too many nerfs were made for camo already.

i thought this beta is full of "community ideas" like kwok said many times....right?
so who complained about the range bonus here? devs themselves
from the poll.............no one even wants damage and penetration bonus removed from camo..........let alone the range bonus.

[MarKr]

You quoted my post and then reacted as if I said something I didn't, so I felt some clarification was needed.

I read what was said here but your reasons for keeping the range bonus don't sound as a real reason to keep it.
"They are very expensive" - the cost is set this way because their guns can shoot at longer than standard range, can kill any vehicle in the game rather easily and their armor is pretty good too. So the cost reflects all these aspects.

"the reaload is long enough" - reload times are set by the strength of the gun. If you have a gun that can one-shot most (saying most NOT all) tanks in the game, you don't need to have super-fast reloads anyway.

"they are turretless" - this doesn't play such a big role either. We're talking about shooting from camo and the turretless TDs can still rotate on spot without cancelling the camo so it makes no difference if your unit is in camo and rotates its turret or the entire hull to take a shot (actually turning the whole hull is often faster than the turret rotation speed of some Allied TDs). You can say that if their tracks/engines get destroyed in battle, they are as good as dead but that is true for vehicles with a turret too.

"don't have flank speed" - we've talked about this before. Don't have flank speed but have armor. Allies have speed but compared to axis TDs, they have crap armor. I'm not going to say it all again, there is a thread about this topic here somewhere.

"it's the role of these tanks to be long range snipers" - they already have the 70 basic range so they DO snipe units from long range. (you can argue that "70" isn't a long range but it allows you to directly shoot at opponent while he cannot shoot back due to his own shorter range so that counts as "long range")

i thought this beta is full of "community ideas" like kwok said many times....right?
so who complained about the range bonus here? devs themselves

Yes, absolute majority of changes are based on what people asked for (either directly or in a modified way). We try to direct people to the forum to post their suggestions or complaints but people still report/suggest/complain about stuff directly to us on Discord and Steam (or to kwok during games sometimes). If the same/similar complaints come multiple times from more players, we take a look at it too (although we still prefer if people write it here). This was brought up multiple times off-forum.

from the poll.............no one even wants damage and penetration bonus removed from camo

Are you talking about the poll in this topic? Because I see 10 people voting "no" and 8 people voting one of the "yes" options, 44% of votes is hardly "no one".

[Viper]

I read what was said here but your reasons for keeping the range bonus don't sound as a real reason to keep it.

maybe not real to you......but the majority see it real enough.....or why did you make a poll if other point of view is always not real?

from the poll.............no one even wants damage and penetration bonus removed from camo

Are you talking about the poll in this topic? Because I see 10 people voting "no" and 8 people voting one of the "yes" options, 44% of votes is hardly "no one".

don't play with words......you know i meant the majority.........and not literal no one.
and the 10 people who voted NO seem dumb to you ??? 10 people voted NO and provided reasons but you still want to side with the minority just because you like their opinion.........? so why did you make the poll in the first place if our opinion means nothing to you...........?

"They are very expensive" - the cost is set this way because their guns can shoot at longer than standard range, can kill any vehicle in the game rather easily and their armor is pretty good too. So the cost reflects all these aspects.

"the reaload is long enough" - reload times are set by the strength of the gun. If you have a gun that can one-shot most (saying most NOT all) tanks in the game, you don't need to have super-fast reloads anyway.

"they are turretless" - this doesn't play such a big role either. We're talking about shooting from camo and the turretless TDs can still rotate on spot without cancelling the camo so it makes no difference if your unit is in camo and rotates its turret or the entire hull to take a shot (actually turning the whole hull is often faster than the turret rotation speed of some Allied TDs). You can say that if their tracks/engines get destroyed in battle, they are as good as dead but that is true for vehicles with a turret too.

"don't have flank speed" - we've talked about this before. Don't have flank speed but have armor. Allies have speed but compared to axis TDs, they have crap armor. I'm not going to say it all again, there is a thread about this topic here somewhere.

"it's the role of these tanks to be long range snipers" - they already have the 70 basic range so they DO snipe units from long range. (you can argue that "70" isn't a long range but it allows you to directly shoot at opponent while he cannot shoot back due to his own shorter range so that counts as "long range")

sorry but it's not the players who complain now...........it's you.
you complain that 80 range is too much......but pvp players tell you it's not.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i would have to appreciate MarKr's work and everything...
Yet, i still have to really question why 80 range is anything problematic!
Axis TDs are easily flank-able.. also btw, it was MarKr himself who decided to make it 80 range many patches ago, not somebody else.

[MarKr]

maybe not real to you......but the majority see it real enough.....or why did you make a poll if other point of view is always not real?

Maybe the word "real" wasn't the best one...more like "not good enough reason to justify it"? I'm not saying that "it is always not real"? I am asking for opinions, if I see something that doesn't add up in an opinion, I point it out and wait to see if the person will tell me why I'm wrong. If they tell me why I'm wrong and their answer is logical without any "holes", fine. If the answer seems to have some "holes" I point it out again. That is how a discussion works - a topic is brought up, opinions are given and then participants can point out problematic parts of given opinions.

and the 10 people who voted NO seem dumb to you ???

If I say "where did I say they are dumb?" you'll tell me I'm playing with words again, right?

10 people voted NO and provided reasons

if you take a look at the topic you'll see that there are 10 "no" votes but only Redgaarden, Wald and maeglin gave some reasons. Mantis didn't give any reason, just something about "Rambos and Millenium Falcon". Actually, sgtToni - voted "no" but in his post he clarified that he meant "only some bonuses should be removed, not all of them".
However, we're now not talking about the question that the poll was asking (the poll asked if ALL bonuses should be removed from TDs in camo - to this question 10 people voted "no"). Tiger agrees on removal of some of the bonuses (so I guess he actually voted "yes" in this poll), but disagrees on which ones. You and Mantis agree with Tiger's reasons. All I did was provide counter-arguments to those reasons. Those counter-arguments have not been addressed from your side as all you said was:

sorry but it's not the players who complain now...........it's you.
you complain that 80 range is too much......but pvp players tell you it's not.

However, I am NOT complaining about the range, I'm just saying that these units are fine without it. If you give me some logical arguments why the 80 range is vital for them to keep, then why not. But I haven't heard such reason sofar. The reasons given here as for now were the 5 I reacted to in my last post and I said in there why, in my opinion, they do not justify the range bonus in camo.

[Krieger Blitzer]

However, I am NOT complaining about the range, I'm just saying that these units are fine without it. If you give me some logical arguments why the 80 range is vital for them to keep, then why not. But I haven't heard such reason sofar. The reasons given here as for now were the 5 I reacted to in my last post and I said in there why, in my opinion, they do not justify the range bonus in camo.

Maybe it's not too vital for those particular TDs to keep 80 range, they would still work with 70 range. However, the reasons provided in this discussion were not to explain how it's vital to keep the 80 range or not, but they were mainly to explain how it's also not OP at any rate if they would keep 80 range from camo, as it helps giving them the identity\value they deserve.. thus, i see no reason to nerf the ambush bonuses on them THAT much.

For instance, a tank like the jagdPanther has a very high price tag.. and a well respected long range 88 cannon, so keeping in mind how much expensive this tank is, as well as how narrow the cone of fire is (as Viper stated) in addition to the fact that it's turret-less.. with also long reload time; then i would say that 80 range isn't OP whatsoever, specifically when realizing the several other nerfs which were already done on the camo settings.

[CGarr]

However, I am NOT complaining about the range, I'm just saying that these units are fine without it. If you give me some logical arguments why the 80 range is vital for them to keep, then why not. But I haven't heard such reason sofar. The reasons given here as for now were the 5 I reacted to in my last post and I said in there why, in my opinion, they do not justify the range bonus in camo.

Maybe it's not too vital for those particular TDs to keep 80 range, they would still work with 70 range. However, the reasons provided in this discussion were not to explain how it's vital to keep the 80 range or not, but they were mainly to explain how it's also not OP at any rate if they would keep 80 range from camo, as it helps giving them the identity\value they deserve.. thus, i see no reason to nerf the ambush bonuses on them THAT much.

For instance, a tank like the jagdPanther has a very high price tag.. and a well respected long range 88 cannon, so keeping in mind how much expensive this tank is, as well as how narrow the cone of fire is (as Viper stated) in addition to the fact that it's turret-less.. with also long reload time; then i would say that 80 range isn't OP whatsoever, specifically when realizing the several other nerfs which were already done on the camo settings.

The range the tank has with its camo bonuses makes sense, although I think this thing is similar to the elefant in that it either shouldn't be able to camo or should take a very long time to camo/recamo because it it is huge and has enough armor to defend itself if it is spotted. The tanks that need camo are the unarmored TD's (m10, m18, marders, achilles, m36, nashorn), I would say that camo should be removed or made to take a very long time to use for the armored TD's as they don't need it. I include jagdpanzer 4 and hetzer in the armored category because they have decent armor and the stupid "low profile" modifier that makes them really difficult to kill since 75/76mm guns often have trouble even penning in the first place, these things are way more scary/obnoxious than camo'd heavy TD's because you literally can't touch them with anything other than heavy tanks since they can pen everything except heavies and can bounce everything that has a smaller gun than a heavy. They effectively are as hard to kill as heavy TD's due to this modifier yet they have camo which makes fighting them with armor head on difficult and they aren't expensive enough for heavy bombardment. With how cheap they are, it is easy to have 3 of these things and still afford to get a heavy at a reasonable time, yet you have to treat them like a heavy because nothing can just walk up to them and kill them. Even infantry AT has a hard time actually killing them due to the modifier.

Casual conversations with Kwok about the issue give me the impression that people would throw a fit if the modifier got removed (jagdpanzer is still 6 feet tall, hetzer is 7 feet tall, they're still massive targets. The low profile would make them easier to hide but it shouldn't give them some stupid dodge modifier, they already have decent armor and they aren't exactly slow). However, if this modifier was removed, I could care less about any tanks getting offensive buffs in camo, especially having seen camo handled better in other mods like wikinger where pretty much everything can camo, even tigers and other giants. Camo itself isn't the problem, it just compounds other issues like the under-performance of infantry AT (ideally the main tool you should be using to find and kill camo'd tanks) and lack of a means of keeping something detected regardless of whether or not a unit is still in detection range (its not like joe infrantryman is going to forget the big ass metal box with a gun he saw as soon as he was further than 20 feet away from it).

[Krieger Blitzer]

As i said, i wouldn't mind if camo was removed from Elefant and replaced with stationary position mode that provides the same range boost.. it was already like that in the past.. just about recently the stationary position mode was replaced by camo for the Elefant, only god knows why!

However, regarding the JagdPanther, i don't think it's too much of a large tank.. as i believe it shouldn't be treated similarly as the Elefant...
Reason is the JagdPanther is an actual tank hunter with low silhouette, and a very high price tag anyways. Although i'm glad we agree that the 80 range itself isn't the problem, as i could say JagdPanther would be fine if camo was replaced by stationary mode that also provides +10 range boost after all.

Talking about the Hetzer and JagdPanzer, especially the Hetzer... i don't think that it does have that much armor, and the Hetzer range with camo isn't 80 but 70 at best... Also very low HP which means it's often one shotted by 76mm guns. The "hard to hit" modifier makes sense to me, but ya.. probably it shouldn't be too extreme.