[BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

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
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3063
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MarKr »

The removal of 1CP is not necessary, we put it there in case the other changes weren't enough but they probably are.

I have to ask why you guys insist so much on the 550MP cost. Is it just because of the range compared to German TDs? We came up with this cost because as the game progresses, later it saves 50 ammo on the engine upgrade which you'll get for free. The upgrade doesn't just enable the flank speed but also increases the default speed of the vehicle by 20%.
Warhawks97 wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 03:35
But as you fix the accuracy, can you fix it for pershing in the same way?
Tanks have this accuracy settings as standard. Open-top tank destroyers have gradual drop and usally better accuracy than same weapons mounted on tanks. The change on M36 is basically putting it to standard, changing it the same way for Pershings would be un-standardizing it.
MEFISTO wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 04:38
3cp 110 Jackson
2cp camouflage Jackson
Also reduce 1 cp for the Jumbo and be able to have both 75mm and 76
and reduce 1cp to the Sherman calliope it will by 4cp after use 5cp on Jacksons or 5cp on a Jumbo.
CGarr wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 06:16
The extra CP could be put onto the jumbo unlock in exchange for bringing back the 76 jumbo alongside the 75mm one.
Sorry but the Armor doctrine doesn't have both Jumbo and Jackson versions on purpose. It would create very strong unit combinations that we wanted to prevent.
Warhawks97 wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 11:14
The Issue is that the APCR from the 90 mm gun reduces the damage by 15%. The Max possible basic damage is thus reduced to 680 damage or 850 damage from ambush.
Originally, i would have wanted that all AP deals less damage since they dont have HE filler. In the past most had damage buff that got removed. Right now it seems that that we stay with "AP doesnt change damage" and so i would remove the damage reduction from 90 mm guns.
Other AP abilities got the damage buff removed and it provides just the penetration buff. The penetration buff differs so that Axis, who have in general better penetration stats, get about +33% increase while Shermans with worse base stats get about +55% increase but for the 90mm guns get +75% penetration bonus which significantly increases penetration chances so the huge penetration buff is offset by 15% damage drop.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3918
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Warhawks97 »

550 MP bc when compared to competitors like Achilles, Nashorn or jp iv 600 is a lot. It would barely make a difference. In late game as axis bk doc I can get considerable amount of panthers an Jack's can die quick in the line of fire


Yes, guns benefit differently from ap rounds. But those modify base pens thus smaller percentage boosts might still end up in better increase in percentage points.


And accuracy was made by guns. Panther has 09 accuracy as well. Allied td got accuracy buff bc they failed too often. But it's usually set by gun, not unit.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4041
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Not so delighted reading what this topic has led to.. but i won't be whining as others do, not that i have the time either; so whatever.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 532
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Walderschmidt »

MarKr wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 02:32
We just talked about this and came to this:
- cost lowered to 600MP 75F
- accuracy increased to 100%\100%\90%\85%
- when the 2nd Tank Depot upgrade is purchased, M36 is built with engine upgrade installed
- maybe also lower the CP from 3 to 2?

We would like to avoid any damage increase (as CGar suggested) because with standardized stats it would mean buffing damage on Pershings too and putting camo behind a paywall/vet sounds weird for a TD which has only the Sherman armor and so getting the vet might be a problem and the camo upgrade would be basically a must-have so it would be better to just add the upgrade cost to the basic cost.
The CP drop is there with a question mark because it might lead to people skipping Hellcat just to get Jakcson faster so it would be basically changing one underused unit for another one. However, if ithe CP cost gets lowered, where should the 1CP point be moved?

Opinions?
I think this would be a good deal and maybe lower it's reload time by a 2nd or two as it seems to shoot 1 shot for every two every other tanks shoots.

No, I didn't do this with a stop watch - just all the games I've played where I got one I felt punished for making a bad decision in light of its performance.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MEFISTO »

MarKr wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 13:33
The removal of 1CP is not necessary, we put it there in case the other changes weren't enough but they probably are.

I have to ask why you guys insist so much on the 550MP cost. Is it just because of the range compared to German TDs? We came up with this cost because as the game progresses, later it saves 50 ammo on the engine upgrade which you'll get for free. The upgrade doesn't just enable the flank speed but also increases the default speed of the vehicle by 20%.
Warhawks97 wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 03:35
But as you fix the accuracy, can you fix it for pershing in the same way?
Tanks have this accuracy settings as standard. Open-top tank destroyers have gradual drop and usally better accuracy than same weapons mounted on tanks. The change on M36 is basically putting it to standard, changing it the same way for Pershings would be un-standardizing it.
MEFISTO wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 04:38
3cp 110 Jackson
2cp camouflage Jackson
Also reduce 1 cp for the Jumbo and be able to have both 75mm and 76
and reduce 1cp to the Sherman calliope it will by 4cp after use 5cp on Jacksons or 5cp on a Jumbo.
CGarr wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 06:16
The extra CP could be put onto the jumbo unlock in exchange for bringing back the 76 jumbo alongside the 75mm one.
Sorry but the Armor doctrine doesn't have both Jumbo and Jackson versions on purpose. It would create very strong unit combinations that we wanted to prevent.
Warhawks97 wrote:
25 Jul 2020, 11:14
The Issue is that the APCR from the 90 mm gun reduces the damage by 15%. The Max possible basic damage is thus reduced to 680 damage or 850 damage from ambush.
Originally, i would have wanted that all AP deals less damage since they dont have HE filler. In the past most had damage buff that got removed. Right now it seems that that we stay with "AP doesnt change damage" and so i would remove the damage reduction from 90 mm guns.
Other AP abilities got the damage buff removed and it provides just the penetration buff. The penetration buff differs so that Axis, who have in general better penetration stats, get about +33% increase while Shermans with worse base stats get about +55% increase but for the 90mm guns get +75% penetration bonus which significantly increases penetration chances so the huge penetration buff is offset by 15% damage drop.
Armor doctrine is to weak, unable to face a heavy axis tank rush or even worst when you are facing a TD spam (stugIV/late version, hetzel, L70 etc...), Jackson 5 CP, easy to take down, 1 stgug shoot etc... jumbo 5CP 75mm unable to kill anything, by that time Axis could have 4cp Tiger even StugIV and hetzel can take it down. And it become hilarious after you make a 9cp pershing and it get penetrate by a 75mm (stugIV, PE puma, hetzel) God bless Armor doctrine...RIP.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4041
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

i don't think so, in my last 4v4 game.. the Axis team got steamrolled with dozens and dozens of E8 Shermans. And later Pershings as well...

And you can unlock 76 Sherman at 1 CP, whereby Panzer Support unlocks Hetzer at 3 CPs.

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MEFISTO »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
26 Jul 2020, 01:07
i don't think so, in my last 4v4 game.. the Axis team got steamrolled with dozens and dozens of E8 Shermans. And later Pershings as well...

And you can unlock 76 Sherman at 1 CP, whereby Panzer Support unlocks Hetzer at 3 CPs.
you rush hotskiss, no hetzel, no stugIV, no heavy tank no push. I was watching the game.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3063
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MarKr »

MEFISTO wrote:
26 Jul 2020, 00:57
And it become hilarious after you make a 9cp pershing and it get penetrate by a 75mm (stugIV, PE puma, hetzel) God bless Armor doctrine...RIP.
Pershing is on about the same tier as Panthers.

The 75mm gun on StuG, PE Puma, Hetzer etc.) has 20% chance to penetrate Pershing at max range (about 25% from camo).

The 76mm gun on Shermans, Hellcats, M10 has about 16% chance to penetrate Panther at max range (about 20% from camo).

You cannot say that 5% better chance is "huge advantage for Axis" so the chances are about the same on both sides. However even if a shot form the 75mm penetrates the Pershing the tank will survive the hit and the 90mm gun will one-shot any StuG, Puma or Hetzer.

Jumbo can deflect shots from Axis 75mm L48 guns and Armor doctrine has the 75mm Jumbo because it can help against infantry. If you combine the Jumbo with a 76mm Sherman (or E8) then the Jumbo can tank the shot and the 76mm Sherman can destroy the StuG/Hetzer/Puma etc. If Armor doc has both 75 and 76mm Jumbo any player would just build both and it is a very strong combo against infantry and medium tanks which would only mean that Axis will always rush heavy tanks again to stop the double Jumbo combo.
Image

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 251
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

MarKr wrote:
26 Jul 2020, 01:44
However even if a shot form the 75mm penetrates the Pershing the tank will survive the hit and the 90mm gun will one-shot any StuG, Puma or Hetzer.
Are you sure about the 90mm one-shotting the hetzer? I remember even in beta games my 90mm bouncing off the hetzer for some reason, I checked the reason and it has to do with the penetration multiplier being only 1.4 (panther has a penetration modifier of 1.3). I don't know if that is intended for the hetzer armor too be that strong but I'm just bringing it up in case it isn't.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3063
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MarKr »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
26 Jul 2020, 02:48
Are you sure about the 90mm one-shotting the hetzer?
I thought so but you're right. It is probably just an oversight. It will be fixed with the next update.
Image

MEFISTO
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Jun 2016, 21:15

Re: [BETA] Armor Doctrine M36 Tank Destroyer usefulness

Post by MEFISTO »

Mark I think axis have good and strong combinations too, like panthers and stupa, also all axis heavy tanks are able to take down any allies heavy or medium armor, what I am saying is If you go for pershings (stright in that path) you won't be able to face a 4cp tiger, 6cp panther,4cp L70) at the other hand if you choose to use your CP wisely I mean split them in things you need like artillery or any buff Sherman buff it's going to be really hard as "Armor doctrine" to have a response for that, Armor should have at least something to hold a mid game stage.

Post Reply