MarKr wrote: ↑
09 Apr 2021, 10:30
Funny how you brought up an example with Achilles while this unit already has the accuracy settings higher than most tanks and it is actually very close to what Hawks suggested above.
It just proves what I said above:
MarKr wrote: ↑
08 Apr 2021, 12:24
Is it really going to make a noticeable difference if Shermans get at max range 85% instead of 75%. People will always remember better the missed shots and will always tell you that their tanks "miss all the time" or that they "miss more often than they hit" or they get "sniped through smoke all the time".
So unless we set the accuracy to what kwok said (Star Craft style), there will always be these "it happened to me once" experiences.
It is not just the accuracy stats that have an impact on how accurate a gun is at any range, but also the brackets.
The 17 pdr has indeed better stats than jacks and persh. Here the main complain is the damage and penetration that is often failing to penetrate and kill a Panther even when firing from ambush. These are to most players more "noticable" when they see a couple of bounces in a row. A Miss is always regarded as bad luck (which simply isnt).
For the 17 pdr it would also be nice to have the range brackets changed from 10/25/40/55 to something like 15/30/45/60 and accuracy set to 1.2/1/0.9/0.85.
Take a look at the normal 17 pdr AT gun range brackets that are 20/40/55/70. Accuracy is 1/0.9/0.85/0.85 while pen drop at each bracket remains the same for tank and AT version.
If we now take a target as example this means that the accuracy at a target being 40 range away is 90% for the AT gun but 85% for the Tank mounted version. The penetration is even a bigger issue. While the Tank mounted version has a 0.71 long range pen modifier applied, the AT gun still uses the better medium range 0.86 modifier.
This translates into pen chances against a Panther at a distant of 40 range away of 69% for the AT gun version, but only 57% for the Tank mounted 17 pdr. And also better accuracy for the AT gun.
For the most part now i tend to use Halftracks with anti tank guns over infantry versions. My Halftrack versions ended up getting killed by the tanks with many more shots bouncing off from targets like tank IV´s and shermans. Then i saw an enemie using a 6 pdr gun and killing three of my Tank IV F2´s in a row (which i thought i could overrun) with just one shot bouncing off. Meanwhile my 57 mm HT always cheated on me (or betrayed me) even against Panzer III´s.
And when i started playing def doc more often and using both, the HT mobile pak 40 and the normal pak 40 being build by the 28 mm HT in the field, the AT gun had far less issues dealing with tanks than my HT´s did which in many cases just failed to stop a single enemie tank.
And i think the reason for these huge performance differences are the range brackets.
And all that is true for accuracy as well. I never seen anyone complaining about a Nashorn failing in a cruical moment. The reason is that it has 100% accuracy at any range. But in every single game in which people used Jacksons, there was at least one cruical moment in the game where the tank just failed despite being in a situation where it just shouldnt fail to hit a tank as large as a Tiger. And People then just rage-quiting, esspecially when two such moments happen in one game.
If the tank had a 90% or even 95% chance (or higher depending on target) to hit a target being just 40 range away and as big as a tiger, such stupid moments would just not happen this often.
You also have to take into account various other factors that can cause a snowball effect. A High base value often benefits from modifiers a lot more. Thats true for pen and accuracy. A 5% accuracy boost on a 75% base accuracy value ends up to be 78,75%. On a 90% base accuracy its 94.5%. So the higher value ends up being effectively boosted even more.
If we get back to our 17 pdr vs Panther example: When we add AP rounds for the AT gun and firefly against a Panther being 40 range away, the 17 pdr pen goes from 68,8% to 108% pen chance. The Firefly with its worse penetration modifier applied, still has only a 89% chance to pen.
If we assume the Panther is 60 range away, then the Tank mounted 17 pdrs have a 74.1% chance to penetrate while the AT gun version still has a 89% chance to penetrate.
This is just to illustrate how severe the impact of range brackets alone can be on the game.
I dont even want to start with the 76 mm AT gun. Its basically a completely different gun when compared to Tank mounted versions.
The last thing are debuffs. When adding Prop doc debuffs on Tanks whose base accuracy is just 75% the prop doc ability+ Tiger debuffs can result in situations where half of all shots fired from a jacks will fail to hit the Tiger. Even when those will get a base 90% accuracy at range, the debuffs will still have a decent impact on it, but the chances to still hit something at least would be greatly better.
Another thing are accuracy stats of certain AT guns. Like why has the 17 pdr a 85% chance to hit a target even at max range, but pak 40 and 76 mm AT gun are as low as 65%. Even when mounted on Halftracks and Geschützwagen which already have worse range brackets than the normal AT version, the accuracy is simply piss poor with 65% at distant range.
That may have caused me to almost lose a game when my opponent drove his 76 sherman against perfectly placed and hidden pak 40 which failed to hit and then got subsequently killed by the Sherman. My mates had to rush help in order to close the breach as soon after more shermans arrived to exploit the leak caused by shitty accuracy stats.