[Pool] Super Pershing - Call in

[mofetagalactica]

Oh i misspelled , but second option is actually "SP shouldn't be a one time call in"

[Devilfish]

If I remember correctly, when SP was added, it was made one-timer only because of "historical" reasons. Since then, dev expressed themselves multiple times that gameplay has much higher priority than historical accuracy, so I don't really see any reason why it should be a one time call-in, when axis get several super-tanks across docs. On the other hands, call-in should be transferred to production imo but that's another discussion...

[Warhawks97]

Everything thats not an ace should be produced.

Battlegroup call ins with tanks should have fuel in their call in cost, like the british one.


And Aces should always only be a one time call in. Coz its dump to see players just playing with an ace and when it gets destroyed having enough MP spared to call the next in again.


Aces should have coold abilties and stuff and be every special but always only be one time call ins.

[Krieger Blitzer]

i'm for ACE being available after SP is dead.

[Warhawks97]

i'm for ACE being available after SP is dead.

i would remove aces from the US entirely.

Axis will have its two aces that they have now but only once in a game.


I dont see a need of never ending aces that totally bypass fuel and on top of that give you high vet units without the need of skillfully vetting your units up.

[Devilfish]

Can anyone tell me a gameplay reason why one should have only 1 try with SP while you can get an infinite number of KTs, JgTigers and Elephans?
Because I can't think of anything.

[kwok]

I can think of one. Because the SP has few counters for something that hard counters extremely expensive units. Its general presence as a unit gives the freedom for an armor player to basically play around and bank resources to wait out a cooldown time for a second call-in, essentially making it an always available strong unit. Imagine a tiger ace call-in facing an airborne doc if airborne doc didn't have its AT airstrike. The blitz doc can call in the tiger ace and sit on it safely until they gain the resource and cooldown back, THEN push the tiger ace knowing that if anything goes wrong another call in is available.

That being said, I'm just here to play devil's advocate, i'm not voting nor do i have a really thought out opinion on it. Don't take my answer as any indication or opinion to what direction the mod will go or what i personally think on the matter.

Also what's the difference between the option "SP should remain one time call in" and "no changes". I'd probably just assume add those votes together....

[Devilfish]

Kwok, that's exactly how Tiger ACE is played right now, same as any heavy axis tanks. Look up a gameplay of players like tiger or wurf. Just waiting out for heavy tanks and then super-microing babysitting chicken-style playing them. I'm not blaming them, they found a playstyle they enjoy and is effective. I just don't get why similar unit is treated differently in other doc/faction, I'm not even going to use a word "Allies", because it doesn't matter, every single game needs both sides and all parties should have fun.

Anyway, let the few decide via the poll I guess.

[Mood]

Kwok, that's exactly how Tiger ACE is played right now, same as any heavy axis tanks. Look up a gameplay of players like tiger or wurf. Just waiting out for heavy tanks and then super-microing babysitting chicken-style playing them. I'm not blaming them, they found a playstyle they enjoy and is effective. I just don't get why similar unit is treated differently in other doc/faction, I'm not even going to use a word "Allies", because it doesn't matter, every single game needs both sides and all parties should have fun.

Anyway, let the few decide via the poll I guess.

Might as well make all factions carbon copies of each other then.

[Mantis]

Can anyone tell me a gameplay reason why one should have only 1 try with SP while you can get an infinite number of KTs, JgTigers and Elephans?
Because I can't think of anything.

Because SP was historicaly only one in European continent? I am for mass production new superheavy tank Maus for terror doc Please:(

[Warhawks97]

Kwok, that's exactly how Tiger ACE is played right now, same as any heavy axis tanks. Look up a gameplay of players like tiger or wurf. Just waiting out for heavy tanks and then super-microing babysitting chicken-style playing them. I'm not blaming them, they found a playstyle they enjoy and is effective. I just don't get why similar unit is treated differently in other doc/faction, I'm not even going to use a word "Allies", because it doesn't matter, every single game needs both sides and all parties should have fun.

Anyway, let the few decide via the poll I guess.

True.

Thats why i said:

Aces should be one time call in. Everything else should cost fuel and axis tanks should get fixed fuel upkeep values, esspecially tanks like panthers.

[Devilfish]

Mood, carbon copies? So SP being one-timer makes the factions diverse? Mantis? That's a gameplay reason?

I give up on this shit, do whatever the fuck you want with all this mod, I wonder why I ever bothered.

[MarKr]

I give up on this shit, do whatever the fuck you want with all this mod, I wonder why I ever bothered.

C'mon, man. Forum is about expressing opinions. Whenever anybody does that there are always people with oposing points of view, sometimes more sometimes fewer but you always find some. If you go to any forum with "I make a post and everyone will agree" mindset, you'll never get anywhere.

I think the "carbon copy" coment was meant in the sense that "not everything needs to be the same". If you zoom in at specific examples of similar abilities/units then you could ask a lot of similar questions. There is no gameplay reason why all US docs shouldn't have Pershings, especially when almost all axis docs have some sort of heavy tank. You can say it is because the theme of doctrines but Luft and BK docs have Panthers so, from a strictly gameplay point of view, AB and Inf could get it too.
Why flamethrowers for US and WM cost 45 ammo but CW pays 65? Why CW keeps trucks when the other docs have buildings and are bound to the starting sector?
Why WM and PE has in T2 buildings halftracks and armored cars with 75mm L48 guns but allies have a 57mm HTs at the best?
Why WM AT squads have two schrecks and PE squads have just one schreck?
Why axis heavy tanks have strong armor and good guns and CW heavy tanks have strong armor and crap guns? (remember - you're asking for gameplay reasons, not historical accuracy)
You can find dozens of similar examples and if answers such as kwok's aren't enough for you then someone will always play the "diversity" card.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Kwok, that's exactly how Tiger ACE is played right now, same as any heavy axis tanks. Look up a gameplay of players like tiger or wurf.

Hmm, i really don't think my game-play is similar to Wurf's style in any possible way, shape or form.. like at all.

Wurf also plays Axis 80% of the times, while i do play Allies just as much as i do play Axis.

Kinda off-topic highlighting this.. but i think u should have tried harder finding better examples to support your argument.

That said, i actually wouldn't mind if SP is available more than once.. but then it should be deploy-able from tank depot for a high price.

@Hawks
i get your point by making Aces only 1 time available, but i'm against making an entire CP unlock only to have a single unit available.
Like.. you spend 8 CPs or more on a particular unlock, just to have something available once?
This unlock is then totally worthless once you lose the unit...

That's why we suggest making the SP unlock more useful, so the player would spend 11 CPs not just for a single SP tank.. but can benefit from the same unlock having Pershing ACE after the SP is killed... And the cool-down time can be long enough to prevent it from being too frequently used.

[Mood]

Mood, carbon copies? So SP being one-timer makes the factions diverse? Mantis? That's a gameplay reason?

I give up on this shit, do whatever the fuck you want with all this mod, I wonder why I ever bothered.

Calm down, haha.

I just quoted this part mainly:
"I just don't get why similar unit is treated differently in other doc/faction, I'm not even going to use a word "Allies", because it doesn't matter, every single game needs both sides and all parties should have fun."

It comes off as a slippery-slope comment since you question why "similar unit is treated differently" between factions. What if next this will be applied to some other unit, ability or structure, and so on? In the end there will be no difference except different names and skins?
I might be mistaken but I construed it as if factions need be less diverse and more similar so that "all parties should have fun".

For me it's always been about diversity between factions and doctrines. I prefer Axis-playstyles, my friend prefers allies (US). Neither of us wants the factions to become more and more similar to each other but rather see them have even more variation. I realize it's more difficult to balance vastly different factions than carbon-copies, but I think Kwok and his team are doing pretty well in this department.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Also what's the difference between the option "SP should remain one time call in" and "no changes". I'd probably just assume add those votes together....

No, they are different options.. in his post, he clarified how he meant "shouldn't be 1 time call-in" so the SP would be available more than once.

[Devilfish]

Ok, let me make the last post here. It's impossible to have any reasonable discussion in this forum, not because people have other opinions, but because nobody can lead a argument and counter-argument based discussion here (apologies to exceptions). I make a post about gameplay reasons of SP being one-timer, and here comes Mantis saying there was just one seen in European front. Mood comes talking about diversity between faction, like come on, seriously?

Tiger comes defending himself, taking the "tiger and wurf" playstyle statement out of context and claiming he isn't playing like wurf at all. Yes, Tiger, you don't, I was talking only about the Tiger babysitting, which you do all the time, you cherish and play around with the super-duper tiger abilities, like alrs, tigerphobia, s-mines....YES, otherwise you play differently than wurf.

Kwok is the only one who tried to come up with a real argument, though I don't understand where does it come from. Axis got much more tools available to take out SP compared to allies countering KT, JgKT, Ele....basically shrinks down to planes, heavy arty or crazy rushing TDs. So how exactly does "SP stronk" justify being one-timer while axis stronk stuff doesn't, oh wait, diversity, ye...

All this emphasis on come to forum, give feedback, discuss always just boils down to a same few coming in throwing bullshit a pretending it answers the inquiry and I don't really have energy to exchange 10 posts in an attempt to get any real discussion going.

Don't take me wrong, thx devs for trying to keep this alive and going. But I'm out, mayhaps we'll meet in game, cheers boys.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Tiger comes defending himself, taking the "tiger and wurf" playstyle statement out of context and claiming he isn't playing like wurf at all. Yes, Tiger, you don't, I was talking only about the Tiger babysitting, which you do all the time, you cherish and play around with the super-duper tiger abilities, like alrs, tigerphobia, s-mines....YES, otherwise you play differently than wurf.

"you cherish and play around with the super-duper Tiger abilities" There is a BETA game out there where YOU cherished your SP so much and played around with it, as you played Armor doc with Sgt.Barnes vs me and Kwok on Bloody Gulch... Don't remember it? Check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvVLqZRAEdc

This game is also a good "game-play" reason why SP shouldn't be available more than once btw.. easily knocking out dozens of heavy Axis tanks.

So, apparently.. you are more of a baby sitter than i am!

[Warhawks97]

SP is the only US Tank that can "easily" take out axis tanks, but each time at the risk of being killed by them.

Axis have dozens of tanks that can take out any allied tank really easily, but which can get killed only by a very few allied tanks in turn.
So gameplay wise it doesnt make sense to have SP a one time tank.



But i am against more Super Pershings bc at some point we will start drifting into something that looks more and more like "hypothetical 1946 war" with more and more units being added that were barely deployed or only prototypes. And at some point this game has to reflect the time its supposed to play.


And things will get weird when US gets more "1946" tanks available while axis going more and more back in time with more Panzer IV f2 than H and J, more Panther D´s but barely any G version and so on.



So for me i would keep the SP to be one unit that might even cost fuel and a bit less MP.
Aces to be a one time call in that has to be used wisely and which buff units nearby and cool abilties.
To balance out the Sinlge SP (and Pershing ace removal) the US would get cost effective TD´s with 90 mm guns as a effective counter to the late game german armor.

[mofetagalactica]

But i am against more Super Pershings bc at some point we will start drifting into something that looks more and more like "hypothetical 1946 war" with more and more units being added that were barely deployed or only prototypes. And at some point this game has to reflect the time its supposed to play.

??????

Curren't devs dosn't know how to make any new models or animations for them so.... beside SP there isn't really any other prototype available or "free copyright" models.

Ok, let me make the last post here. It's impossible to have any reasonable discussion in this forum, not because people have other opinions, but because nobody can lead a argument and counter-argument based discussion here (apologies to exceptions). I make a post about gameplay reasons of SP being one-timer, and here comes Mantis saying there was just one seen in European front. Mood comes talking about diversity between faction, like come on, seriously?

Tiger comes defending himself, taking the "tiger and wurf" playstyle statement out of context and claiming he isn't playing like wurf at all. Yes, Tiger, you don't, I was talking only about the Tiger babysitting, which you do all the time, you cherish and play around with the super-duper tiger abilities, like alrs, tigerphobia, s-mines....YES, otherwise you play differently than wurf.

Kwok is the only one who tried to come up with a real argument, though I don't understand where does it come from. Axis got much more tools available to take out SP compared to allies countering KT, JgKT, Ele....basically shrinks down to planes, heavy arty or crazy rushing TDs. So how exactly does "SP stronk" justify being one-timer while axis stronk stuff doesn't, oh wait, diversity, ye...

All this emphasis on come to forum, give feedback, discuss always just boils down to a same few coming in throwing bullshit a pretending it answers the inquiry and I don't really have energy to exchange 10 posts in an attempt to get any real discussion going.

Don't take me wrong, thx devs for trying to keep this alive and going. But I'm out, mayhaps we'll meet in game, cheers boys.

Also everything he said here is true.

[Constantino]

I don't see a problem with the SP call it in if it was unlimited or if it was available alongside Pershing Ace from a balance perspective, but I don't like the SP because I don't think the US should have to rely on heavy tanks to deal with late-game German heavies, not only because it is ahistorical, but it's simply boring to have US armored play like heavy German tank docs when you could just buff US medium tanks/ tank destroyers to make them less reliant on heavy tanks.

Countering German heavy tanks can be challenging and usually is cost inefficient for US, there a lot of more realistic and better ways to balance tanks (not saying all or any suggestions should be implemented):

1. Buff 90 mm accuracy; target tests demonstrated that the 90 mm gun was actually more accurate than the 17 pounder, even 76 mm was more accurate.

2. Buff 76 mm penetration; it is absolutely horrible and makes 76 mm Shermans pointless other than just cannon fodder when they can barely kill a Panzer IV without outnumbering it. Frontally, the 76 mm could easily pen anything up to a Tiger I and even the turret front of a Panther. Currently, they can barely even penetrate the rear armor of the King Tiger or Jadgtiger which makes flanking pointless as well, which is bad from both a balance and realism perspective.

3. Decrease aim time for gyroscopically stabilized tanks like Easy Eight, which allowed gunners to keep sight continuously on a target even while moving without need to readjust aim after stopping.

4. Increase rate of fire of Shermans; from the documents I've read, the average rate of fire was about 20 rounds a minute mainly due to ergonomics.

[Warhawks97]

I don't see a problem with the SP call it in if it was unlimited or if it was available alongside Pershing Ace from a balance perspective, but I don't like the SP because I don't think the US should have to rely on heavy tanks to deal with late-game German heavies, not only because it is ahistorical, but it's simply boring to have US armored play like heavy German tank docs when you could just buff US medium tanks/ tank destroyers to make them less reliant on heavy tanks.

Tank you so much. The Problem is, as you pointed out, that US medium Tanks were shit since the very first days of BK and thus Pershings and later SP became a vital part in the US armor doc gameplay.
I remember when SP got added they said that US needs this tank in order to handle axis tanks and late armor.
But no one ever fixed the medium Tanks and the TD´s or only partially (eg 90 mm got better over years, still could be a bit better).
And thats were the actual problem lies. The Medium Tank stage is lost because you cant compete with the german mediums in the mid game.
And when this stage is lost to axis mediums its no surprise that the heavies later are simply the last nails in the coffin.


And if US TD´s would do what they are intended for; Countering tanks instead being killed by those, another issue would be solved.
So its a medium tank issue and TD´s cost inefficency that makes Pershings and Super Pershings to be the last hope for US to fight their way back into the game.

And thus many today complain about the high CP cost of Pershings. I say: Fix US mediums and TD´s and german heavies wouldnt be such a problem.



Countering German heavy tanks can be challenging and usually is cost inefficient for US, there a lot of more realistic and better ways to balance tanks (not saying all or any suggestions should be implemented):

1. Buff 90 mm accuracy; target tests demonstrated that the 90 mm gun was actually more accurate than the 17 pounder, even 76 mm was more accurate.

yes

2. Buff 76 mm penetration; it is absolutely horrible and makes 76 mm Shermans pointless other than just cannon fodder when they can barely kill a Panzer IV without outnumbering it. Frontally, the 76 mm could easily pen anything up to a Tiger I and even the turret front of a Panther. Currently, they can barely even penetrate the rear armor of the King Tiger or Jadgtiger which makes flanking pointless as well, which is bad from both a balance and realism perspective.

yes, however rear armor is complicate since you can trigger a rear hit even when shooting slightly angled from the font. So in order to prevent a sherman frontally penning a JT, their rear armor is strong. However, Panthers and Tigers can get penetrated quite well by 76 shermans.

3. Decrease aim time for gyroscopically stabilized tanks like Easy Eight, which allowed gunners to keep sight continuously on a target even while moving without need to readjust aim after stopping.

Accuracy is also a prob. The US Gyro tanks do lose less accuracy on the move, but due to the fact that most other tanks (eg panther) have much higher base accuracy the advantage of losing less accuracy does not result in having a better accuracy while moving.


Aim times are also set more or less to zero for most or all tanks already.

4. Increase rate of fire of Shermans; from the documents I've read, the average rate of fire was about 20 rounds a minute mainly due to ergonomics.

i know what document you refer to.
I suggested it back then when tanks have gotten their reload times re-adjusted.

[Diablo]

yes, however rear armor is complicate since you can trigger a rear hit even when shooting slightly angled from the font. So in order to prevent a sherman frontally penning a JT, their rear armor is strong. However, Panthers and Tigers can get penetrated quite well by 76 shermans.

Maybe we could improve the rear pen chance only for "near" distance, so that a clever flanking maneuver actually allows for juicy hits.

[Warhawks97]

yes, however rear armor is complicate since you can trigger a rear hit even when shooting slightly angled from the font. So in order to prevent a sherman frontally penning a JT, their rear armor is strong. However, Panthers and Tigers can get penetrated quite well by 76 shermans.

Maybe we could improve the rear pen chance only for "near" distance, so that a clever flanking maneuver actually allows for juicy hits.

Ok, things get complicate.

First you have the gun itself that has 4 range brackets: short/medium/long/distant. There you set how much pen the gun loses.

Then there is the target table were you set the base penetration chance which then is multiplied by each range bracket modifier. The rear pen is also just a modifier within the TT which modifies the values again.

Bottom line is: Increasing rear pen from close range would also mean to buff overall pen chance since you can only adjust the pen at each range only within the gun itself which would also affect everything, inlcluding the pen vs all other units in the game.


It would be nice if a gun could have set the pen chance at each range against each target within the target table instead within the gun itself.