Factions Armor Philosophy

[Warhawks97]

This is a continuation of the debattes we had about armor and in Particular US one.

This is not aimed at certain doctrines or at least just partially.
Its about the understanding of the role and doctinal ideology of armor in each faction respectively.

I will simply start with what i think the current is the current factional doctrine of armor.
I will not make a difference between PE and WH. Both are one country/nation and so is their intention.

The reason i open this is bc that i couldnt find any kind of focus. With that i mean that one faction focuses on mobility, another on ranged combat, others on superior armor and so on, others on faster shooting and so on. The Issue is that esspecially Axis have literally everything. They have powerfull ranged combat, armor, mobility but also extremely high rate of fire, esspecially for many of the tanks with heavy guns.

On the other hand british focus a lot more on firepower and partly mobility and deadly ambushes.

And US only focus is on cheap cost which is simply the worst. Units need strong points and weak points. Being cheap shouldnt and can never be the only advantage. Not even for the T34 which also received massive upgrades and changes to be victorious at the end.

So i just go ahead nation by nation

Currently:


Axis Tank Doctrine:
Pretty much as it was in the later stages of the war (end 42-45).

1. Strong armor protection
2. Firepower at range. First shot, first kill mentality.
3. Expensive per unit (usually)
4. high rate of fire
5. Deadly ranged ambushes
6. Mobility is also often in their favour, esspecially panther type tanks and hetzer
7. Often self depending or little support only needed


So they pretty much have everything and as only drawback the cost mostly.

CW:

British are also quite realistic with a few additional advantages

1. Effective ranged guns
2. Diversity
3. Capabilites spread over many units
4. Medium to low cost
5. Lacking armor (some say churchill but at the end its just the crocc that has really the armor for late games)
6. Working in groups to be successfull
7. Capabilties to place several shots in a short time into the target. EG comet double shot, ambushes, firefly with stat mode, commander and command tank.



US:

1. Cheap (discussable)
2. Mobility (recent patch)
3. Lower maintanance cost with supply yard (however fuel upkeep is till not superior to axis)



I think my point has become obvious already. What i am searching for is something where i can say: "This is a unique US style".


So without making it too long i want to discuss a change so that all factions can say from their armor that it has a certain intention. Their own way to be successfull.


How it could be:

Axis:

Advantages
1. Superior ranged combat
- Better accuracy (right now accuracy is pretty much standadized with little different between factions)
- High penetration
2. Armor protection
- At that time the game is supposed to take place axis emphasized a lot on (superior) protection. Thats reflected when you see Tiger, Panther and so on.
- Can stand and absorb shots from many gun types.
3. Deadly ambushes
- Two shots from ambush
- powerfull ambush boosts
- High range
4. Several strong aspects often combined in a single unit (Panther types as best example)




Drawbacks
However, these things come with possible drawbacks
5. Expensive units
- Quality has its price
6. Long reload times
- Accuracy and penetration power at distance is usually possible by using massive guns and massive rounds with a huge charge. The compartment can thus become crampy sometimes and reloading quite exhausting.
7. Low mobility with exception of a few units.
8. Less units on the field usually


Changes required:
Axis would lose their extrem high (standard) rate of fire. Esspecially those of Jagdpanther, Elephants, Panther etc would go up. From between 7-9 seconds. However, static modes, certain abilites (Panther) and simply veterancy steps would reduce these. So Veterancy would become more important as well as the usage of abilties in the right moment (right now you dont need them bc you shoot faster anyway). But also to keep your enemie at distance as you wont be able to rely on rof. Like as it is now when you got tank IV or Jagdpanther: "Oh, that sherman is close!", "Dont worry rookie, we will make the next shot before he can fire again."



CW:
Advantages:

1. Able to create deadly ambushes with 17 pdr.
- M10
2. Low to medium cost
- That would mean that firefly cost would drop
3. Good penetration power of tanks with 17 pdr and thus able to harm the enemie at range. Though Not as good in ranged combat as axis.
- They wont have the accuracy of german tanks. It can be improved though by vets, commander and command tank.
- Command tank can greatly improve the ranged engagments.

Neutral:
4. Capabilties spread different units. Perhaps a unit combines firepower and mobility like M10 or Comet but never firepower, armor and mobility at once.

Drawbacks:
5. Only tanks with low mobility have good armor.
6. Coordination required
- Tank actions must be well planned and coordinated with other tanks to bring all capabilties at once on the field
7. No quick and powerfull breakthrough strikes.
8. Tanks that have the powerfull 17 pdr fitted will also need time to reload and are vulnerable
- Its laborious to reload.
- Esspecially the Firefly had long reload times due to the gun that reached far back into the fighting compartment, complicate ammo storage and heavy shells.
- Their armor is nothing they can rely on.
- The reload time would be arround 7-9 seconds (for firefly).


Changes:

Not much to change except that 17 pdrs take some time to reload. Esspecially the Firefly. The comet would be a bit faster. Just as for axis it becomes mandatory to use abilites at the right time and perhaps in conjunction with the command tank.
The huge advantage is or would be that armor would be slightly easier to replace. The cost for all 17 pdr tanks would be between 400 and 500 MP. But they will have hard times to engage targets one on one. So skill and unit knowledge is required.

US:
Advantages:

1. High mobility generally
2. Low to medium build cost
3. High rate of fire
4. Maintanance
- Supply yard
- abilties
4. Effective armor protection against medium calibre anti tank guns but poor against heavier, more common, basic axis weaponary.

Neutral:
5. Special purpose tanks
- Besides a generally standardised layout there are also a few special tanks for special tasks. Those are either well armored (jumbo) or equiped with a powerfull gun.

Drawbacks:
6. Bad in one on one engagments.
- The tanks are usually unsuited for one on one engagments with advanced axis tank models
7. Weak armor
- They wont withstand shots from axis tanks well and very long
8. Weak in ranged combat
- They have not the accuracy and penetration power of most axis tanks.
- However, more powerfull guns are available in limited numbers.


Changes required:

As first shermans wouldnt remain as cheap as now. They would be cheaper but not cheap. At least basic cost of standard and 76 sherman would go up by a bit. The cost reduction in armor doc would perhaps be slightly less massive.
The american armor doctrine focused on user friendliness, less exhausting working conditions and a balance between firepower without making working conditions too hard for the crew and enable them to maintain a combat efficiency over time. In BK we could use a similiar principle as we did with rifle squads. Not made for long standing ranged combat but effective when closing in and shelling the enemie with many shots rather than single powerfull or accurate shots.
So as soon as a axis tank got too close he would not only fear to be penetrated but also would get shelled by many shots by quick shooting tanks.
A superior rate of fire is also necessary as the tanks close in. So they shoot more shots during the move which might fail and that needs to be compensated.
The reload speed of shermans would be approx 4.8-5,6 seconds. Just as usefull orientation: Axis tank IV or Jagdpanthers reload in 4,5 - 5.5 seconds standard currently. (faster with vet, ambush etc).
Furthermore the armor protection against medium AT needs to be improved. Approx to the level of current tank IV H/J to allied 57 mm AT, if not better.
Closing in maneuvers are pointless when every axis tank is accompanied by light cheap AT that kills shermans too easily.
Also changes on the emergency self repairs. Nobody uses them for good reasons. They require vet 2 (hard to achieve without armor doc), cost a lot and tank is disabled for approx 40 seconds. So they are easy targets during this time. The fact that the ability exists shows that there was some attention behind it. And which other if not superior field maintanance? Requirments should be vet 1 and cost 35 ammo. So perhaps this ability will really contribute to something.



I tried to keep this as short as possible.

[Krieger Blitzer]

So, in short.. you are basically suggesting that Axis tanks should have less rate of fire but higher range, and US tanks should have same range as now but higher rate of fire... I don't disagree, however; I think a lot of re-balancing of individual units would be then required.
It could be worth to try this out in a test version or something!

[Warhawks97]

In short i am thinking about making it similiar as rifle squads work.

Despite of that it seems more logical that the guys that must get closer shoot faster since they have to compensate for the first shots that bounced.
And thats how US armor doctrine worked. The denied 17pdr bc it was too unhandy and slow to reload.

I am not directly requesting a simple range increase (despite that the units i am talking about usually have range advantage already). Rather that penetatrion and accuracy are at their favour.

And finally i went through vcoh files and figured out that the reload times have simply been taken from there. But those cant be taken serious since M10 for example deals 25% more damage than a 76 sherman and also having better pen stats. Or Panther having more range than a tiger and firefly more than a panther. So i wonder why the old devs reworked everything in terms of pen and range while keeping the reload speeds.

So the design philosophy of US armor should be focused on mobility, maintanace and shelling the enemie with many shots.


I also searched for other datas and historical accounts. I figured that the actual reload speeds have literally been reversed. The panther was in average listed with over 8 seconds. Similiar to tiger. Shermans were accounted with 5,9 seconds. Extremely experienced loaders holding the next shell ready could be as fast as 2 seconds (the first 2 or 3 shots) in a sherman tank.

[Jalis]

a classical 75 mm for a Sherman was about 20 lbs, 76 mm like the m62 was 25 lbs but was fairly longer for encumbrance. Pzgr 39 in use by kwk 40 were similar to the 76 mm USA counterpart. 88 mm for kwk 36 and 75 mm for kwk 42 were both around 32 lbs, 17 pdr 35 lbs. It is however nothing compared to the big 88x882r.

With the 128 mm we are on an other world. Propellant and shell were loaded separately like on navy guns.

Point elefant had a 6 men crews instead of 5. The sixth man was a second loader.

Nevertheless, the Americans are imperialist and Zionist bastards, so I think they deserve to be punished. If the United States is weak, unpleasant and dull to play, in the game, they deserve it, for their countless faults and sins.

[Redgaarden]

well, a german tank could engage with its rear armour first and still win 85% of the time. My complaint is that getting close range or rear shot usually doesn't reward anything.

[sami bosal]

i think this mod focuses on historical realism. so historically German were more advanced in tanking and fire power than us and brits.Germans were first punished by ussr so they focused all of their resources and tactics to defeat ussr block.

so we are talking about coh 1 and ussr is not present in this game. so we assume that German are only against us and brits.in this game usa relies on spaming of cheap and Somewhat mobile units. brits do less spawming but they have some premium units. pe is a specialist devision of German. their docs are specialist in their roles. whr are more mixed type. they have every type of units. they have mobile units, premium units and specialist units.but more expensive. so player first sees his resources then decides a unit to deploy.

my assumptions may be wrong but i think if dev touched one unit then whole mod would require to be retouched.
(sory for bad English)

[Redgaarden]

well, USSR had more advanced tanks than germans in 1941. And I wouldn't say that germans had the most advanced tanks, nothing compareable to the discrepancy in 1941.

Despite of that it seems more logical that the guys that must get closer shoot faster since they have to compensate for the first shots that bounced.
And thats how US armor doctrine worked. The denied 17pdr bc it was too unhandy and slow to reload.

Tank Destroyer companies even rejected the 90mm since it was not needed. Because the 76mm did all it needed to do.

in this game usa relies on spaming of cheap and Somewhat mobile units.

Mobility only counts when dodging click to kill abilities. Mobility seldomly helps much in combat, since you can't stop axis from shooting first and killing you in 1 hit.
USA gets nerfed more than what it gains from its "upgrades" since the sherman is balanced after how good it is after all its upgrades. And they have a tendancy of getting killed in 1 hit, even if the tank costs 700 manpower.
So USA relies on click to kill abilities and pershings to deal with axis tanks. Getting sherman 76 in ab/inf doc is quite a rarity. And jagdpanther that costs 1000 manpower can easily kill 1660 manpower worth of heavy tanks without beating a sweat.

[sami bosal]

i said gers were more advanced than usa and brits, not from ussr how put a good punishment on gers.

and about shermans, if you have tendency to balance (like me) then this mod no longer remains a realistic mod if we put a normal sherman in front of pz 4.
76s and e8's are a good duel of pv 4s and stugs. tiger's dual can be m26 and kt's m26e1.but axis one's are more expensive though

[Redgaarden]

Sherman are far supperior than pz4 realistically, Sherman has: better armor, better sights, better engine, grenade lanchers, +- 3 parts system, better gun control, stabilizer.
The pz 4 was a bad tank in 1939 compaered to pz3, stug and even the R35, the pz4 was a bad tank in 1941 compared to T34, the pz4 was a bad tank in 1944 compared to M4A3E8.

Edit: oh wait, what do you classify as normal sherman? 75? Then I might give a slight edge to the pz4.

[Jalis]

Even without HVSS the M4A3 76 mm we have in game was a superior to the Pz4H. In a few domaine the pz4h had an edge but overall it was outclassed by the m4a3 76 mm. I already tried to make this clear but I was confronted to a stubborn hysteric resistance.

It was not necessary, imo, to nerf so badly the m4a3 to made it inferior to the Pz4h, especially it is the top tank for 2/3 of USA doctrine. Anyway Axis would have retake command for the best tank in upper tiers.

Despite it became outdated at time coh take place, the PZ4 H (or even late G) were still efficient tanks and a foe that could not be overlooked.
Like most tank it was however underpowered due to successive weight addition all along its duty, without having new engine or major chassis redesigning.

it is 10 years it is like that, and I m not sure it will change one day, except perhaps in Warhawk dream because he never let down it seems

[Warhawks97]

That german were advanced is correct. However they couldnt field it in large numbers.

Also their tank models became outdated as soon as in end 42 (The stugs and Tank IV´s had excessive weight adds. The Tank IV was 3 tons above its maximum of 22 tons) with the panther being the only superior tank that got fielded in sufficient numbers. They were still dangerous had had the firepower to be threat to every common tank on the western front. But they were not superior to 76 shermans as it is in BK right now.

They were advanced in engine engineering and the tracks. Even too advanced actually so that it was almost impossible to repair them on the field.


However they had a very different doctrine in tank warfare since 42. During the war they focused more and more on armor protection and ranged combat. The drawback was that their barrels had to get replaced more frequently as well as increased reload times as shells got heavier. The weight of the shell was not the only factor for reload speed. Its also about how much space there was for the loader and how ammo was stored. Here the Firefly was probably one of the worst tanks. In this regard the US found that the advantages in penetration power couldnt make up the disadvantages (long reload, exhausting which is bad during long combats, muzzle flash and the changes in the supply chain).



We dont have to make all axis tanks take long to reload and all US shooting fast. Just this could be a general direction and faction specific design of armored warfare.


The Tank IV can for example keep a short reload time for example. But tanks like Panther, Tiger, Jagdpanther, IV/70, Firefly, Pershing (Super Pershing in particular) would get a clear disadvantage when it comes to rate of fire. Those focus more on ranged combat (which still doesnt mean pershing should pen Jagdtiger from afar but in relation to it the rate of fire would be higher afterall).

There can, however, be some exceptions like the elephant which had enough space and an extra crew member. The reload speed wouldnt be superior to that of a sherman but in relation to tanks with a similiar gun it would fire faster.


@Redgaarden: What you say is true. Mobility doesnt help when it cant prevent from being simply shot first. Yes, the 76 sherman shouldnt have much of a need to close in on tank IV´s. They would meet each other in one on one on a equal level, just that the shermans have the egde in mobility. In return the cost differences would be minimal.

But esspecially because flanking is barely rewarded or an option the shermans need compensation. The so often praised quanity of shermans doesnt help when two of them will fire the same ammount of shells during a period as a single Tank IV or jagdpanther. A single Jagdpanther with vet and stat mode can fire as fast as two shermans.
And thats problematic since quantity has less often high vet units as the factions based on few units which logically gain more often higher vet rates. The pure focus on quanity just makes the matter worse.

That the 76 made its job is true as well except against panther and similiar tanks frontal armor. But for the general encounters it really did.


So perhaps what i am actually looking for in terms of relaod times:

Sherman approx 4,5-5 seconds (really, the shell was light and the was a lot of space in the combat room for the loader)
76 Sherman tank IV with long barrel and stugs: 5,3-6 seconds
Panther, Firefly, Jacksons, Tiger, Jagdpanzer IV/70 and IV/A: approx 7,2 - 8,5 seconds. Anyone has seen the combat room of them? Keep in mind that these units have abilties to lower the reload speed such as stat modes (firefly and jacks B), Quick shots (Panther/Pershing: double shot, later 3 shots with just 2-3 seconds between the shots for the panther) or ambush (Jacks A).
Elephant: approx 7-8,5 seconds
Pershing, Jagdpanther, KT: 8,5-9,5 seconds.
SP: 10,5 seconds
JT: 12 -14 seconds

Mobility only counts when dodging click to kill abilities. Mobility seldomly helps much in combat, since you can't stop axis from shooting first and killing you in 1 hit.

Thats bc of the shitty damage boost AP gives to axis and CW. With that boost even a Tank IV becomes a potential oneshot killer without even the need of the "lucky shot". The simple max damage is enough to oneshot shermans. Only E8 has 0.2 HP remaining when being upgraded by sandbags.

That needs to be removed as well if closing in and flanking should be rewarding.

[Redgaarden]

Quick shots (Panther/Pershing: double shot, later 3 shots with just 2-3 seconds between the shots for the panther)

I think it can shoot over 10 rapid fire shots with the ability. Dont know why it's called double shots. Dont know if there is difference between triple shot and double shot. This is what I tested with Blitzkrieg Panther.

Thats bc of the shitty damage boost AP gives to axis and CW. With that boost even a Tank IV becomes a potential oneshot killer without even the need of the "lucky shot". The simple max damage is enough to oneshot shermans. Only E8 has 0.2 HP remaining when being upgraded by sandbags.

That needs to be removed as well if closing in and flanking should be rewarding.

Agreed. I do not approve of the one hit kill mechanic. This just becomes worse when combined with camo bonus too.

[Krieger Blitzer]

76 Sherman tank IV with long barrel and stugs: 5,3-6 seconds
Panther, Firefly, Jacksons, Tiger, Jagdpanzer IV/70 and IV/A: approx 7,2 - 8,5 seconds.

Fine with me... However; tanks such as Tiger1 and Pershing would then have to get a range advantage, either more basic range (from 60 to 70 or even 75 basic range for example) or abilities such as accurate long shot being available without veterancy! You imagine my point? Otherwise, these tanks would have no chance in a 1 to 1 combat against medium tanks such as Shermans and PzIVs obviously.

[Warhawks97]

76 Sherman tank IV with long barrel and stugs: 5,3-6 seconds
Panther, Firefly, Jacksons, Tiger, Jagdpanzer IV/70 and IV/A: approx 7,2 - 8,5 seconds.

Fine with me... However; tanks such as Tiger1 and Pershing would then have to get a range advantage, either more basic range (from 60 to 70 or even 75 basic range for example) or abilities such as accurate long shot being available without veterancy! You imagine my point? Otherwise, these tanks would have no chance in a 1 to 1 combat against medium tanks such as Shermans and PzIVs obviously.

I wouldnt say they are out of chances. Basically you need to bounce just one shot to be the winner at the end. Also these units have enough damage potential to oneshot any medium tank exception Panther against easy eight. Except when AP keeps boosting damage the panther will oneshot any medium tank most likely.

So that fear is a bit exaggerated. However i have made tests by my own with 65 range for tiger and panther and so on. It doesnt seem to be much but these 5 range can make a huge difference already. Esspecially when these 5 make the difference between being able to shoot without receiving counter shots or not. 70 range would be too much. That way many Allied TD couldnt defend the frontline since these units would decimate the front without any chance to counter it and thus little skill again required in using the heavies. And deploying AT guns so that they can actually protect something would become almost impossible. You would have to put MG´s and AT guns on a spot and line which again would make it too easy to crush defenses with a single nebelwerfer.
In my test i basically boosted basic range by 5 for every unit from tiger upwards. It was quite interesting but thats something i would suggest when we have first tested the reload time reworks. If issues then occure these suggestions can be taken into acc. But really, 70 range would be far too much, esspecially for units like panthers. I tested it many times with cost changes here and there but at the end i couldnt get it balanced. Even 65 range for this kind of unit was already a huge buff.

But my aim for these units is that they have ups and downs as well. Simply sitting there and shooting without risk that shots will be fired back is not my intention. Veterancy, good handling and right use of abilties shall be put into focus. But as i said, i am not denying anything.
But glad you are ok so far with such reload times.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Basically you need to bounce just one shot to be the winner at the end.

Well, but if you fail to bounce (which is extremely likely due to this high rate of fire of the opponent medium tanks) then u would be basically doomed.. not to mention that in most cases, it will not be a 1 to 1 scenario but at least 1 vs 2 or even 1 vs 3 because medium tanks are always much more affordable than individual heavy tanks... At this point heavy tanks would be simply smashed frontally without any fear, or even flanked since they are out-numbered with also a reload time disadvantage! And I guess this is something no one wants to see happening, not to mention that Shermans in particular can absorb more hits with over-repair and sandbags.. therefore I would say a range of 70 for such heavy tanks would be more than justified in my opinion.. so, just to clarify my point of view here;
I am OK with the reload time suggestions, BUT ONLY if there is a clear range advantage for heavier tanks.

[Warhawks97]

have you ever tested 65 range? For panthers and stuff? have you? That is already a massive advantage even if it looks tiny. 70 would just enforce the already offensive camp scenario and sniping tank after tank and AT guns wouldnt be able to provide sufficient cover.

Thing right now is that when you outnumber your enemie as US you still wont get more shots out than your single opponent which also has armor and gun power in his favour.

On top with these heavies getting vet you gain nice boosts due to abilties.

Keep also in mind that the cost gap between shermans and panther wouldnt be as huge as now. So two shermans costing same or more than a panther would still need to be afraid of any too direct confrontation. Why would it be unfair when 2-3 shermans that cost more than a panther would win at the end?

If you want, download my stuff from google drive and test it with your mates. You gonna see how powerfull these heavies are afterall. Just do it before throwing out such fears.

[Jalis]

[Krieger Blitzer]

have you ever tested 65 range? For panthers and stuff? have you?

Oh yes, I have!
And exactly that's why I've always believed that the Elefant tank currently in Bk Mod is nothing but a helpless turtle.. the tank has 65 range now, but if u put 1 Elefant vs 1 Hellcat, the Elefant 90% of the times will lose.. the Hellcat simply keeps flanking freely while shooting in such a high rate of fire. And that's just 1 Hellcat... So, based on this;
I can safely say that the result would be just the same when u dramatically decrease the rate of fire of other heavy tanks while also at the same time increasing the rate of fire of medium tanks! This way it's actually a double buff to medium tanks, all at once.

So, if one Tiger1 for example would have 8 to 9 seconds reload time (and about 7.5 seconds at Vet.4) against at least two Shermans with a reload of 4 to 5 seconds (but 2 to 3 seconds at Vet.4), then there is no other way to balance it out without giving heavy tanks such as the Tiger1 a superior range in return, which is at least 70 in order to compensate with the huge reload time, and in case of a similar reload to the Elefant.. then it would have at least a range of 85 same to Flak 88s I would say! These are just logical consequences to your reload time suggestions.

And btw.. that's how M8 Scotts, Stuh and Stupa currently work... The equation is simple; long reload MEANS long range!
So, accordingly to ur reload time suggestions.. heavy tanks would have to work the same way.

@Jalis
Hahaha.. nice pic
Though, it's definitely not this sort of "versus" mentality... I guess me and Hawks are just having a friendly discussion here

[Jalis]

have you ever tested 65 range? For panthers and stuff? have you? That is already a massive advantage even if it looks tiny.

I play with that for years now, but iirc you already know that. Roughly range is normal up to 76 mm, +5 for 75L70 17pdr 88l56 and 90 mm, +10 for 88L71.

Result is, as tiny seems the advantage, consequence is a major edge +5/+10 categorie (mostly axis) simply because it becomes about everytime the first shooter. Roughly opponent arrive at range to retaliate with half or a third of its hit points and could seriously think about withdraw rather engage combat. When I say withdraw it is if a crit have not disabled tracks or engine.

It is result you have to adjust in pvp condition.

@Tiger ; it is a long time I wanted to make such kind of picture. Aside the wink, cartoonish choice for the pictures is a second hint to display it must be take on the parodic / caricature way.

[Warhawks97]

i think i was unclear. What about firefly when reload time would greatly increase? also 70 range at default?

The point currently, making hypothetical assumption that two mediums (shermans) face a heavy one. Right now, when both sides fire at the same time without anyone moving is that either both mediums bounce and get in return oneshoted. In that case you would bounce twice while the heavy makes two shots as well due to reload time.

Perhaps one medium pens but the heavy has enough HP. So the situation is already favouring heavies (axis heavies). Even with reload increase for shermans with longer reload on some heavies (Panther btw already has 7 seconds) would make an engagment more favoured towards the heavy.

Now assume the range of crazy 70 for every axis tank bigger than tank IV. The whished boost for the mediums would get nullified bc these 10 range literally equal the 2 seconds reload time.


You have just made the worst example assuming that a elephant makes his lone journey and driven by a super idiot. A single 20 mm gun would shred the Hellact.

The elephant is a whole different thing and i think we discussed this part already. In this case as well as for jagpanther we already said that a range of basic 70 would be approriate, just as the KT already has. In return for longer reload time.



But this topic is whole more than just that. Its about factions individual strenght and weaknesses in armored warfare. And in order to compensate the weak ranged performence of 76 shermans, which unlike tank IV is the max tier tank in 2/3 of US doctrines, a rate of fire increase seems necessary to keep competetive, usefull, specific and making closing in maneuvers more rewarding. The principle would be similiar as it is for US infantry gameplay.

Tanks that have equiped powerfull guns with good penetrations at range do simply not need such high rate of fires. The lone fact that you can shoot effectively from a distance is already a huge advantage bc you can quickly get into a safe zone after firing. The rate of fire is not mandatory to be deadly. Shoot, reverse, take your time and get into range when reload is done. If it takes 5 or 7-8 seconds doesnt change much. But it is a huge factor when you want to successfully attack them with a bunch of mediums fitting weak guns.

70 range is an option for Jagdpanther, elephant and KT but not for tiger and panther. If those would get 70 as well we cold just as well leave everything as it is. It would make things even worse, even if shermans would get a 3 second reload time.


btw, the tiger wouldnt be higher than 8 seconds. Somewhere between 7 and 8 actually.

[sami bosal]

so basically you are saying that if 2 shermans couldn't kill a tiger then at least keep it busy a longer time so it could be killed by some other unit.

[Krieger Blitzer]

What about firefly when reload time would greatly increase? also 70 range at default?

Yes!
If you would REALLY want to conduct a true reloading times re-work while also forcing players to play on bigger maps, by also making it more realistic, then here is what I was thinking: (keeping in mind that MAX veterancy should decrease these reload times by MAX 2 seconds for ALL tanks)

- Firefly about 7 seconds reload time (no more static position) and 70 range, Panthers would have 65 range and about 7.5 seconds reload time...
So, the Firefly will have +5 range advantage since it wouldn't have higher rate of fire advantage anymore and the armor is weak.. the command Cromwell would also boost the range by +5 more, being 75 total range for the Firefly.. but no further reload time bonus from the command tank.

- Comet tank basic range would be 65 as well and 7.5 seconds reload time...
Rapid Shot abilities would then have to be ALL removed by the way.

- 76 Jumbo would be the only 76 Sherman with around 6.5 seconds reload time and 65 basic range. All other 76 Shermans would have 4 to 5 seconds reload time and 60 range same as now... Pz4s, Stugs, Hetzers, and basically all L/48 75mm guns would be the same as regular 76 Shermans or E8s.

- Though, the Hetzer, Stug4 and JagdPanzer L/48 would only have +5 more range from ambush; being 65 total, which means no more 75 range when ambushed. Hellcats, Achilles and Wolverines already have 60 range and 65 from ambush with also similar rate of fire, so they will stay as they are.

- Tiger1, Pershing and Jackson B1, all would have 70 range and about 9 seconds reload time.. no more static position for the B1 Jackson.
ALRS ability for the Tiger1 would not be removed or modified, however the flank speed ability would then have to be removed to prevent the Tiger1 from escaping quickly after sniping...

- Elefant, Super Pershing, King Tiger, and JagdPanther all should have a range of 80 with a reload time ABOVE 10 seconds... JagdTiger would have the same range but with a reload time of 15 seconds or so. JagdPanther however, should no longer gain anymore range when ambushed.. both the range as well as the rate of fire would have no further bonuses from the ambush ability.

- Jackson with M10 chassis, and JagdPanzer L/70 would have a range of 65 and +5 from ambush.. becoming 70 range.
Jackson with M10 chassis reload would be 9 seconds same as Jackson B1, and JagdPanzer L/70 reload would be 7.5 seconds same as Panther!
So, the difference between Jackson with M10 chassis and Jackson B1 is that Jackson with M10 chassis would have 70 range only when ambushed.
The B1 on the other hand would have 70 range straight away...

Paks and AT guns untouched, but heavier tanks should suffer some more accuracy disadvantages when targeting spotted AT guns with AP rounds...
I mean AT guns should be then harder to hit by these heavy tanks.

Any tanks I didn't mention anything about.. are to remain as they are.


NOW this is what u could call an actual reload times well-thought rework, my friend.. which might be worth testing!

[sami bosal]

What about firefly when reload time would greatly increase? also 70 range at default?

Yes!
If you would REALLY want to conduct a true reloading times re-work while also forcing players to play on bigger maps, by also making it more realistic, then here is what I was thinking: (keeping in mind that MAX veterancy should decrease these reload times by MAX 2 seconds for ALL tanks)

- Firefly about 7 seconds reload time (no more static position) and 70 range, Panthers would have 65 range and about 7.5 seconds reload time...
So, the Firefly will have +5 range advantage since it wouldn't have higher rate of fire advantage anymore and the armor is weak.. the command Cromwell would also boost the range by +5 more, being 75 total range for the Firefly.. but no further reload time bonus from the command tank.

- Comet tank basic range would be 65 as well and 7.5 seconds reload time...
Rapid Shot abilities would then have to be ALL removed by the way.

- 76 Jumbo would be the only 76 Sherman with around 6.5 seconds reload time and 65 basic range. All other 76 Shermans would have 4 to 5 seconds reload time and 60 range same as now... Pz4s, Stugs, Hetzers, and basically all L/48 75mm guns would be the same as regular 76 Shermans or E8s.

- Though, the Hetzer, Stug4 and JagdPanzer L/48 would only have +5 more range from ambush; being 65 total, which means no more 75 range when ambushed. Hellcats, Achilles and Wolverines already have 60 range and 65 from ambush with also similar rate of fire, so they will stay as they are.

- Tiger1, Pershing and Jackson B1, all would have 70 range and about 9 seconds reload time.. no more static position for the B1 Jackson.
ALRS ability for the Tiger1 would not be removed or modified, however the flank speed ability would then have to be removed to prevent the Tiger1 from escaping quickly after sniping...

- Elefant, Super Pershing, King Tiger, and JagdPanther all should have a range of 80 with a reload time ABOVE 10 seconds... JagdTiger would have the same range but with a reload time of 15 seconds or so. JagdPanther however, should no longer gain anymore range when ambushed.. both the range as well as the rate of fire would have no further bonuses from the ambush ability.

- Jackson with M10 chassis, and JagdPanzer L/70 would have a range of 65 and +5 from ambush.. becoming 70 range.
Jackson with M10 chassis reload would be 9 seconds same as Jackson B1, and JagdPanzer L/70 reload would be 7.5 seconds same as Panther!
So, the difference between Jackson with M10 chassis and Jackson B1 is that Jackson with M10 chassis would have 70 range only when ambushed.
The B1 on the other hand would have 70 range straight away...

Paks and AT guns untouched, but heavier tanks should suffer some more accuracy disadvantages when targeting spotted AT guns with AP rounds...
I mean AT guns should be then harder to hit by these heavy tanks.

Any tanks I didn't mention anything about.. are to remain as they are.


NOW this is what u could call an actual reload times well-thought rework, my friend.. which might be worth testing!

worth said

[Jalis]

only major one not mentioned is the nashorn ; same gun than the jpanther but far more vulnerable.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Yup, totally forgot about the Nashorn in my list.. thx for reminding me about it!

I think the Nashorn could be the same way as Jakcson B1 and Jackson with M10 chassis.. in my list, I suggested that both Jacksons will have 9 seconds reload time same as Tiger1 and Pershing... Nonetheless, as I also said; the B1 would have 70 range by default.. again same as Tiger1 and Pershing, and of course no more static position ability for the B1 as I already stated before.. but the other Jackson with M10 chassis as I mentioned would have 65 basic range and then 70 range but only when ambushed.

So, the Nashorn could work the same way but just as relation to JagdPanther... I said that JagdPanther will have 80 range and above 10 seconds reload.
Nashorn could have 75 basic range and then 80 only when ambushed, with around 10 seconds reload time too.


And btw, regarding flank speed abilities... I think all tanks which currently have this ability can keep it.. except 2 tanks:
Tiger1 because it's a heavy tank as I already mentioned before, but also.. the 95mm Cromwell should lose the ability too because it's an arty unit.