Nashorn replacement

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

Could the TH doc Nashorn be replaced by something more useful?
This topic has been already discussed and most people don't use the Nashorn in TH doctrine because for the same price you have a better overall tank hunter as the Jagdpanzer IV.

As the Nashorn is placed on the actual techtree after the PZ IV,something for the Panzer IV would be good, a mass production, a PZ IV elite call-in or 2 PZ IV, like the Canadian Shermans with the Brits...? This doctrine is pretty boring and you can hardly play it on 1vs1, the best tank is the PZ IV, so it could be a little more appealing.

Also, why the 35 ammo mg on tank hunters is so ineffective? Their mg are already useless, but paying 35 you would expect at least some suppression or pinning.

Thx

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3955
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Warhawks97 »

The Tank IV isnt that bad. Commander, vet upgrade and Zimmerit makes it pretty deadly. But for the late game it doesnt provide the necessary offensive power.

Th doc in general became more usefull and interesting since there is a appreciable increased need to choose it after armor doc fuel issue fixing and churchill buff. Getting the early IV/70 to counter early CW churchill is sometimes a live safer.

But in its style not much has changed so far. Mostly sitting in ambushes. The offensive is more RE style with IV/70 with vet that draws enemie fire and next to it 2 hotchkiss and 1-2 inf squads.


It would be nice to see if the Jagdpanther would become more appealing to be used as an offensive weapon instead of ambushing it only and if a Panther G for the late game could be added instead of nashorn.


The 35 ammo are for suppression. Its just an emergency ability against some AT squads probably and not to pin down masses of inf. Thats why it requires also vet 1 i guess.


Generally hull and coaxial MG´s are bullcrap. Bullcrap in game and very chaotic in corsix as well. Last week i did send a detailed list of used hull and coaxial MG´s with their stats and units that use them to the devs. It took me a half day just to find all units, their specific hull/coaxial MG´s and their stats to write them down. But i also added a detailed list of changes that could make them more realistic in behaviour and how to make them at least a little bit usefull. But changes or them arent planned yet.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Replacing it with mass production of IVs is quite insane I would say.. since that the TH doc Pz4s could be upgraded with Zimmerit becoming even more tough!
Also btw the TH doc is generally always superior to the Armor doc specifically during 1v1s.

However that based on this following point from the "initial" list;

#PART 2

5) SE doc BeuteShermans call in should no longer provide a 76 Sherman but only the Firefly.. once unlocked, the 76 one should be normally deployed from the factory just like the Pz4... But definitely for the basic price of a regular US 76 Sherman! Being limited to a single one at a time as it is.


I then probably believe that absolutely nothing would ever fit replacing it EXCEPT the BeuteSherman Firefly... As it was requested several times already to put an end to this random BeuteSherman call in of the SE doc by seperating the 2 Beutes from each other.

But simply I am still not completely sure whether if totally removing the Nash from the TH doc is a correct decision or not, that's why I didn't include such a point.. yet it's maybe an option... Who really knows.

Warhawks97 wrote:It would be nice to see if the Jagdpanther would become more appealing to be used as an offensive weapon instead of ambushing it only and if a Panther G for the late game could be added instead of nashorn.

JP should be better after buffing the Veteran Shot ability range...

Now let's be clear... Adding Panther Gs to TH doc, or moving Combat Engineers to Armor doc.. as well as SP removal, moving the Priest to Inf doc... Or more Jumbos from Inf doc to Armor doc too or EVEN earlier available ALRS and RS to Tiger1s and Pershings or +5 more range generally for any Axis tanks; ALL those previously mentioned certain points.. are sadly out of the question as it obviously seems.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3955
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Warhawks97 »

Tiger1996 wrote:Replacing it with mass production of IVs is quite insane I would say.. since that the TH doc Pz4s could be upgraded with Zimmerit becoming even more tough!


true. I am also not for a massproduction of tank IV´s in Th doc.

However that based on this following point from the "initial" list;

#PART 2

5) SE doc BeuteShermans call in should no longer provide a 76 Sherman but only the Firefly.. once unlocked, the 76 one should be normally deployed from the factory just like the Pz4... But definitely for the basic price of a regular US 76 Sherman! Being limited to a single one at a time as it is.


I then probably believe that absolutely nothing would ever fit replacing it EXCEPT the BeuteSherman Firefly... As it was requested several times already to put an end to this random BeuteSherman call in of the SE doc by seperating the 2 Beutes from each other.

But simply I am still not completely sure whether if totally removing the Nash from the TH doc is a correct decision or not, that's why I didn't include such a point.. yet it's maybe an option... Who really knows.

Warhawks97 wrote:It would be nice to see if the Jagdpanther would become more appealing to be used as an offensive weapon instead of ambushing it only and if a Panther G for the late game could be added instead of nashorn.

JP should be better after buffing the Veteran Shot ability range...

Now let's be clear... Adding Panther Gs to TH doc, or moving Combat Engineers to Armor doc.. as well as SP removal, moving the Priest to Inf doc... Or more Jumbos from Inf doc to Armor doc too or EVEN earlier available ALRS and RS to Tiger1s and Pershings or +5 more range generally for any Axis tanks; ALL those previously mentioned certain points.. are sadly out of the question as it obviously seems.



Nah... even more beutestuff? beuteshermans are good as it is in SE doc and as call in (i mean axis dont build the shermans so making them coming out of factory wouldnt be a "Beute" Tank anymore and instead a "Kopie" oder "Nachbau".


Also they are currently out of the question. But nothing is lasting forever.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 30 Dec 2015, 14:50, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 864
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Sukin-kot (SVT) »

It was 1000 times proposed by lot's of players to replace it with Panther. I have no clue why devs don't want to make this shitty doc more appealing in games by giving it battle tanks in adition this absurd TH's (especially lmao thing facing RAF player: smoke activation, sprint, gammon bomb - bb JP, you cant avoid it because of damn low reverse speed). Besides this, alies got a shitload of buffes during last years, they have superior arty doc, infantry with not worse quality than german one but in much bigger numbers (late game), finally well known nasty emplacements spam. I think the time has come to give some more toys to reich.
Last edited by Sukin-kot (SVT) on 30 Dec 2015, 13:12, edited 2 times in total.

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

Problem is Tank Hunters are ultra vulnerable to infantry. Their MG's, as I pointed out and Warhakws developped, is absolutely, totally, and perfectly useless, it does strictly NOTHING to infantry, and paying 35 ammo don't help, so you are totally exposed to every shit they are throwing at you, as Sukin mentionned. And if your TH are followed by your own infantry you get instantly wiped out by the allied arty, emplacements, and ererything Sukin also said, so leading offensives with TH is very difficult.

I also would like to know why devs don't want a Panther in this doc, it would perfectly fit. I said PZ IV mass production or 2 PZ IV call in because I know no answer is coming from their side, even if requested. Before there was a Tiger call-in and Panthers, so you had to choose between the TH tree or the Tank tree, and you hardly had ressources for both in the same game. It's ok to leave the Tiger out of this doc but a Panther would be really good instead of this useless Nashorn that adds nothing.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3955
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Warhawks97 »

Kasbah wrote:Problem is Tank Hunters are ultra vulnerable to infantry. Their MG's, as I pointed out and Warhakws developped, is absolutely, totally, and perfectly useless, it does strictly NOTHING to infantry, and paying 35 ammo don't help, so you are totally exposed to every shit they are throwing at you, as Sukin mentionned. And if your TH are followed by your own infantry you get instantly wiped out by the allied arty, emplacements, and ererything Sukin also said, so leading offensives with TH is very difficult.

I also would like to know why devs don't want a Panther in this doc, it would perfectly fit. I said PZ IV mass production or 2 PZ IV call in because I know no answer is coming from their side, even if requested. Before there was a Tiger call-in and Panthers, so you had to choose between the TH tree or the Tank tree, and you hardly had ressources for both in the same game. It's ok to leave the Tiger out of this doc but a Panther would be really good instead of this useless Nashorn that adds nothing.



Axis TD´s do need protection against enemie inf. 20 mm vehicles or inf etc. But same goes for allied so far. I still think the main issue currently is also the PE faction design currently. I really love the PE faction design of voch a lot more (flexible and inf cheaper to build but high reinforce cost to prevent being too good in attrition warefare).

In Theory, if you got all the stuff the doc provides it should be easily possible to deal with all. When i took care for my units from right the beginning and able to get a IV/70, AT squad, Hauptsturmführer, SS squad, Assault squad and Gren squad and all with upgrades i managed to deal with every single threat. But that means that you are not allowed to lose a unit or the game has to last long. The standard PE inf can deal with every allied inf, the TH arty with every emplacment (basically walking stuka damage just cost per missile cheaper as stuka). But it takes extremly long to get all that stuff.


The Panther G would definately add extremely more versatility having the necessary late game tool to deal with allied forces better.


@sukin: The axis inf do have still a edge over counterparts by quite a lot. Volks with officer and lmg34 are favourable anytime over brits standard inf squads with lieutenant and volks are nicely spamable.

And saying tehy have generally better arty is also not that true and highly depends on player skills. I´ve been playing with a guy who at that time played BK for just a week with like 10 games played and he did awesome job with his grille against players like loki and erich.

The only real issue i can see here is that PE inf might be overpriced or stats too bad since a Volks squad has a damageouput of a heavy assault squad and in my opinion and experience a Volks squad in combat is preferable over a standard PE Pgren squad.

The emplacment spam.... how to say... the only one that spams so far is inf doc as i said. RE can do either or (effective tank force or emplacments) and others doesnt build so many. But playing inf doc in late game is becoming very hard without these emplacements. Even a number of high veted rangers and rifles dies quickly between panther/gren/luft inf forces/storms. And even a spam of 4 vet 4 ranger squads and 6 other freshly build squads covered by smoke barrages of mortars couldnt get far against Grens/volks with lmgs and sandbags backed by stupa. So they spam emplacments so hard coz there isnt much else to spend res into to get into offensive and to hoold taken ground effectively.


But generally i would vote up for a refreshed PE faction design and a panther G for TH doc instead of Nashorn.

About CPs we would have to look coz if it would take simply the slot of the current Nashorn then Panther G would come right after 4 CP´s iirc. So either some CP swaps required or the stuff below (TD mass prod, gunsight etc) being mirror inverted. So The TD mass prod being switched with ammo upgrade, Nashorn swapped with Gunsight and replaced by Panther G, Zimmerit unlock swapping slot with res trade. The unlock order and CP´s would keep the same just that Panther G would be put below the Jagdpanther unlock. The IV/70 would only lead to Jagdpanther (instead having a sub unlock for Nashorn) and Jagdpanther would have a 1 CP sub unlock for panther G. The Panther G could then be unlocked after 7 CP´s (BK needs 6 for the A).

How about that?

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Warhawks97 wrote:Nah... even more beutestuff? beuteshermans are good as it is in SE doc and as call in (i mean axis dont build the shermans so making them coming out of factory wouldnt be a "Beute" Tank anymore and instead a "Kopie" oder "Nachbau".

I wonder what u mean by saying "even more Beute stuff"? I am afraid u got it all wrong.. the idea is not about 'adding' the Beute Firefly to the TH doc, as it's about 'moving' it... Which means that there will be no more Beute Firefly in SE doc then!

A 'random call in' is never fine in pvp games.. u must always know which specific unit u will be exactly getting... And not to just pray for what u may get.
However that I am also aware that the best option would be to try keeping them both as call in tanks rather than making any of them to be produced from the base factory.. although I don't really care considering how they would be named at the end; I mean that a 'Beute' or even a 'Kopie', it doesn't really matter since we all know that it will be still nothing but just a BeuteSherman after all...

So now, u guys r telling me that the Nashorn doesn't add much over there... Therefore I believe that moving this 'MP only' call in Firefly in replace would be highly recommended as it will be definitely sometimes more useful over a JPz which costs fuel too.. not to mention that this way both the Beutes are then maintained being as call-ins just like Hawks wants, but in 2 different docs for sure.

And btw;
Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:I have no clue why devs don't want to make this shitty doc more appealing in games


Kasbah wrote:I also would like to know why devs don't want a Panther in this doc


This is the answer to ur question:-
About CPs we would have to look coz if it would take simply the slot of the current Nashorn then Panther G would come right after 4 CP´s iirc. So either some CP swaps required or the stuff below (TD mass prod, gunsight etc) being mirror inverted. So The TD mass prod being switched with ammo upgrade, Nashorn swapped with Gunsight and replaced by Panther G, Zimmerit unlock swapping slot with res trade. The unlock order and CP´s would keep the same just that Panther G would be put below the Jagdpanther unlock. The IV/70 would only lead to Jagdpanther (instead having a sub unlock for Nashorn) and Jagdpanther would have a 1 CP sub unlock for panther G. The Panther G could then be unlocked after 7 CP´s (BK needs 6 for the A).

As I believe that this is EXACTLY why Wolf would NEVER ever agree on adding the Panther G.. because it's obviously such a shitload of doctrinal balancing rework, and noway as simple as many believed.
Last edited by Krieger Blitzer on 30 Dec 2015, 16:36, edited 1 time in total.

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

"The only real issue i can see here is that PE inf might be overpriced or stats too bad since a Volks squad has a damageouput of a heavy assault squad and in my opinion and experience a Volks squad in combat is preferable over a standard PE Pgren squad."

Right, it has already been discussed.

"The Panther G would definately add extremely more versatility having the necessary late game tool to deal with allied forces better."

Totally
"But generally i would vote up for a refreshed PE faction design and a panther G for TH doc instead of Nashorn.

Unfortunately, as Tiger said, It is extremely unlikely to see a refreshed PE faction design (I also prefer the vcOH one) and it requires a lot of job. I hope there is an easier way to trade them without too much rework

Yafa
Posts: 105
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 00:26

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Yafa »

Kasbah wrote:Problem is Tank Hunters are ultra vulnerable to infantry.


Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:this absurd TH's (especially lmao thing facing RAF player: smoke activation, sprint, gammon bomb - bb JP, you cant avoid it because of damn low reverse speed). Besides this, alies got a shitload of buffes during last years

mmm
i think the panzer.ive is available in all the panzer elite doctrines ,right?
this one should help then ....
1) ALL Pz.IV.Es should have top turret mounted MGs.. and MG gunner upgrade for 40 ammo plus the suppression ability also for 40 ammo of course.

they would be used like shermans finally <3

keenly awaiting the next patch !

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

In fact the Shermans will be still much better for sure.. cheaper cost as well as higher mobility, not to mention that they have the top gunners by default plus the sand bags upgrade.
As I actually also discussed with MarKr about giving the IVEs armor skirts too like in the older versions of Bk mod... But he somewhat didn't welcome the idea; only god knows why!

Honestly it's also worth to mention that few other decent players btw such as 'Redgaarden' disliked the idea since he generally said:-
Please dont add mg 42 top gunner to any tanks, I strongly hate those things...

However that he apparently didn't give any logical reasons for that...

Yafa
Posts: 105
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 00:26

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Yafa »

by the way let's not forget that shermans do not have such heat anti tank shells .... but yes ,still i agree with you on that panzer.ive needs top gunner and armor skirts at least for the tank hunter doctrine

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

Something should be done to give more diversity to this doc. I've noticed that most players only choose PE for SE (and sometimes Luft) but not much TH. There must be a reason for it. Not to mention playing TH on 1vs1 is really really difficult. It is supposed to be an offensive doc, something to crack the front, but it is not, this is why players prefer to choose German Blitzkrieg for this purpose.

The main battle tank is a PZ IV, which isn't that bad, but in late game you really can not rely on it, it is more expensive than Shermans 76 and no much better. And well, as mentioned, the TH mg's are virtually nonexistent or totally ineffective, so your are very exposed to arty, enemy infantry throwing everything and emplacements.

And then you have a Nashorn which is useless in this doc where you have a Jagdpanzer IV for the same price. I don't know exactly how hard it is to rework it, but a trade for a Panther would really be welcome. Or if not, again, something for the Pz IV, some kind of option to make it better/cheaper...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3955
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Warhawks97 »

Lets be honest, the PE is in mostly used for SE and going straight for Wespes. Just when i know that my opponents gonna take armor or rather armor+RE then its amusing to chose TH doc.

I am actually blaming the entire PE playstle and especially the offensive playstyle which is a mix of "RE tank camp+big arty" but its not really specific. First in the late stage when players managed to get more than just 1-3 offensive units out (assault grens, SS etc) then PE makes some fun in dynamical games. But it takes long and requires skill to keep them all alive for so long combined with high skills in ressource managment.

But besides strong arty PE doesnt provide much else that cant be done by WH. A bunch of cheap grens with stgs allows more aggressive play style as Luftwaffe inf and being usually also better supported as those luft inf. In terms of offensive armor gameplay the WH is simply much better with BK and Terror doc. Assault arty (rocket launchers) is also better in WH faction.

The best and most cost effective elite inf is also in WH faction with stormtroopers.

So early mortar HT´s and quickly capping krads and Arty is currently the only real reason to choose PE atm.


@Tiger: And thats why i think the doc either needs a Panther G or.... idk. A Beutesherman wouldnt make it up. Later on (with res trade) i dont really have fuel issues. That means that i would prefer a tank IV H or J anytime over a call in sherman.

Also that doc has actually elite Tank destroyer (IV/48 and Jagdpanther). I think the doc should keep that quality which would be ruined by adding a sherman. It doesnt fit together. Like a ruined picture. It fits with PE that uses "everything" to slow down or stop the enemie advance. Nashorn, sniper, arty, bunkers, mortars etc. There it makes sense to have a "Beute" unit (Beute means in this case to use captured enemie stuff as last brought up and fielded contingent.

But TH doc needs to keep its Elite status that uses only the finest stuff the germans produced, even if only in very small numbers. And that touch should be maintained at all cost.


Also why does call in means to be sure what is called in? The Bk doc battlegroup is also random. You either get storms with stgs, grens with lmg and volks with MP40 and faust combined with either stug III, stug IV late, Tank IV J or H. But still it consider it as usefull coz you get a tank and a inf squad for sure. So the PE random call in can keep as it is. Even in vcoh inf doc has a 800 MP battlegroup call in that fields always lots of different units randomly.

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

Warhawks97 wrote:Lets be honest, the PE is in mostly used for SE and going straight for Wespes. Just when i know that my opponents gonna take armor or rather armor+RE then its amusing to chose TH doc.


Exactly

Warhawks97 wrote:I am actually blaming the entire PE playstle and especially the offensive playstyle which is a mix of "RE tank camp+big arty" but its not really specific.


Same

Warhawks97 wrote:But besides strong arty PE doesnt provide much else that cant be done by WH.


And early Half tracks. For the rest I totally agree. I think WH is better in almost everything than PE. WH docs are way more complete and consistent. All have good offensive power, which PE hasn't. Even the Defensive is more offensive than any PE's. I mean the best tank in all PE is a Panther A. I feel PE are all support doctrines that practically always need a WH player to lead the offensive.

Warhawks97 wrote:@Tiger: And thats why i think the doc either needs a Panther G or.... idk. A Beutesherman wouldnt make it up. Later on (with res trade) i dont really have fuel issues. That means that i would prefer a tank IV H or J anytime over a call in sherman.


Same. Beutesherman doesn't fit. I say stop recycling units and giving the leftovers or mid units to PE. Beute is not bad but not for this doc. TH definitely need a Panther G in order to become the offensive doc it is supposed to be and give it some diversity

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Also why does call in means to be sure what is called in? The Bk doc battlegroup is also random. You either get storms with stgs, grens with lmg and volks with MP40 and faust combined with either stug III, stug IV late, Tank IV J or H. But still it consider it as usefull coz you get a tank and a inf squad for sure. So the PE random call in can keep as it is. Even in vcoh inf doc has a 800 MP battlegroup call in that fields always lots of different units randomly.

This is a 'battle-group' that u could call over and over again without any restrictions per a time.. and not only a certain call in tank that has limited availability with just a single one at a time on the other hand... I mean that the case is totally different here; imagine if the Jumbo call in of the Armor doc for example would sometimes provide u with either a short barreled 75mm Jumbo or a 76mm long barreled one just randomly, while keeping in mind once again that u can't get a second unless u lose the first!
The comparison at this point then is completely false so far.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3955
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Warhawks97 »

But thats why it is "Beute". You field what you get from your opponent. You have to take what the enemie is leaving behind and make the best of it. You cant be selectively here. You have simply no influence of what is left on the battlefield.

And as it got pointed out there is little sense for a beutesherman. Doesnt matter which of them but both would suck even harder as the normal Tank IV´s you get in that doc. And fuel is not much of an issue and even if the shermans wouldnt make it better.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4052
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

But thats why it is "Beute". You field what you get from your opponent. You have to take what the enemie is leaving behind and make the best of it. You cant be selectively here. You have simply no influence of what is left on the battlefield.

Although that this logic might be quite funny, still it does actually make few sense!
However that it's as I said previously.. simply not in pvp; both Beutes must be seperated in some way.

Replacing the TH doc Nash with the Beute Firefly was just a possible option after all which I represented as an alternative of adding the Panther G since I strongly believe that this won't be achieved...

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

I also doubt Panther will be added but it would be good at least to bring some more discussion about the matters in this post regarding the whole PE faction logic and doctrines.

RommelsAfrikaKorps
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Feb 2016, 01:41

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by RommelsAfrikaKorps »

the only things i would like to be back again is the AVRE range to be the same as it was and the panther to be added to TH as it once was way back.

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

If the Panther is not going to be in this doc, please replace the useless Nashorn by something else. I don't know, some efficency for the TH mg's, at least paying 35 ammo, so enemy squads can not stand half a minute in front of a tank without suffering casualties, or something for the Panzer IV, maybe not mass production, but a price decrease, or Panzer IV call-in like the Canadian Shermans...

User avatar
Eldrak1911
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Jun 2015, 10:44
Location: France, Bourgogne.
Contact:

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Eldrak1911 »

If i refer to WWII Vehicles, it seems that the nashorn had an mg34. Perhaps adding it to it could resolve this
I don't know, some efficency for the TH mg's, at least paying 35 ammo, so enemy squads can not stand half a minute in front of a tank without suffering casualties
?

You know, like for the marder (i don't remember if it is the I or the III that got an mg...
Hey, i'm a bat, man !

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

It would certainly help if this MG had any efficency because, as you know, all MG's in Tank Hunters are virtually non existent. They are there but do almost nothing, even paying 35 ammo.

On the other side, I am not sure people would build the Nashorn having already a Jagdpanzer IV/70 for the same cost, which is overall a better tank hunter...Maybe yes, I don't know. For me it's mostly a problem of MG's

User avatar
Eldrak1911
Posts: 134
Joined: 22 Jun 2015, 10:44
Location: France, Bourgogne.
Contact:

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Eldrak1911 »

It would certainly help if this MG had any efficency because, as you know, all MG's in Tank Hunters are virtually non existent
I almost sure that this is the same for every tank and th ^^

On the other side, I am not sure people would build the Nashorn having already a Jagdpanzer IV/70 for the same cost, which is overall a better tank hunter..
Personnaly, it depends on what kind of gameplay i'm willing to use. If i'm more in a defensive mode, i will use nashorn + a grenadier squad. If i'm more willing to play aggressively, i'll use the IV/70.
Hey, i'm a bat, man !

Kasbah
Posts: 251
Joined: 08 Dec 2014, 12:34

Re: Nashorn replacement

Post by Kasbah »

Eldrak1911 wrote:
It would certainly help if this MG had any efficency because, as you know, all MG's in Tank Hunters are virtually non existent
I almost sure that this is the same for every tank and th ^^

For every TH sure, this is why I wrote it ^^, tanks are slightly better imo. A vetted Tiger or KT can stop enemy infantry, of course they have more Mg's. I remember Mark saying is hard to program the degree of supression an Mg has in a tank (or it is too less or it is too much) but at least the 35 ammo should pin infantry the same way a normal Mg does.

On the other side, I am not sure people would build the Nashorn having already a Jagdpanzer IV/70 for the same cost, which is overall a better tank hunter..
Personnaly, it depends on what kind of gameplay i'm willing to use. If i'm more in a defensive mode, i will use nashorn + a grenadier squad. If i'm more willing to play aggressively, i'll use the IV/70.


Yeah, you are probably right.

Post Reply