Factions Armor Philosophy

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 322
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Redgaarden » 27 Feb 2018, 09:05

- 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.


But none of these tanks should one hit kill Shermans/PZ4 and a mobility nerf should hit them so they can't react to flanks in super speeds. So I mean turret traverse or traverse speeds.
Is my opinion.
And wouldn't SP go up to 90 range with command car? it would even outrange flak88. Seems like armour finally gets a counter to flak 88.

- Comet tank basic range would be 65 as well and 7.5 seconds reload time.

- 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.


I think firefly and comet should have same range. Firefly will get its range increase from the cromwell command tank anyway to outrange panther, 5 range is enough, no need for more.

- 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.


I think jumbo hould have same cannon as rest of shermans. Dont know why it should have more range.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Feb 2018, 10:42

Redgaarden wrote:But none of these tanks should one hit kill Shermans/PZ4 and a mobility nerf should hit them so they can't react to flanks in super speeds. So I mean turret traverse or traverse speeds.
Is my opinion.

They absolutely SHOULD!!!
These massive tanks cost at least as much as 4 Shermans or PanzerIVs, and their reload time would be literally twice as high! Not to mention they are way much later available... And their mobility is already sick enough. Elefant is perhaps the slowest tank in the game.. and with the suggested reload time, the Shermans/Pz4s wouldn't only have much higher rate fire, but these medium tanks would be literally able to drive up-close while they keep shooting at these massive tanks until they park next to them and probably drink some tea as well, meanwhile these massive tanks would have finally finished reloading the next round! :lol: We are talking about approximately 11 or 12 seconds reload time for these super heavies in comparison to 3 or 4 seconds reload time on the other hand for the mediums.
Comparing medium tanks to SUPER heavy tanks shouldn't be even a possible point of argument so far...

Redgaarden wrote:And wouldn't SP go up to 90 range with command car? it would even outrange flak88. Seems like armour finally gets a counter to flak 88.

Yes.. and all other US tanks could benefit from this command car too, including Shermans!
Shermans would be able to fire at a range of 70 (from 60) for a short time... Exactly that's why I didn't suggest to remove any of the ALRS abilities.

Redgaarden wrote:I think firefly and comet should have same range. Firefly will get its range increase from the cromwell command tank anyway to outrange panther, 5 range is enough, no need for more.

You mean both Comet and Firefly at 65 range? Hmm, could be.

Redgaarden wrote:I think jumbo hould have same cannon as rest of shermans. Dont know why it should have more range.

The reason why I suggested 65 range and 6.5 reload time for the Jumbo was that I consider it some sort of a "heavy-medium tank" similar to Panthers... Though, I think if it would have 60 range and 4 to 5 seconds reload time just as the rest of 76 Shermans, then it would be also fine...


Nevertheless, I would like to add to my list from the previous page, regarding Churchills... They would all stay the same.. except the 6pdr Churchill as I believe it should have higher rate of fire, at least 3 to 4 seconds reload time.


And obviously.. these huge ranges would REALLY force players to play on big maps, and ONLY on big maps...
Which is what this mod is primarily aiming for!

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 322
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Redgaarden » 27 Feb 2018, 12:08

They absolutely SHOULD!!!

Tanks shouln't be one hit killed. A sherman should have the same amount of hp as a panther and vice versa, and same calliber guns should also have same amount of dmg.

These massive tanks cost at least as much as 4 Shermans or PanzerIVs,


If cost is a issue, then 3 easy eights costing 1500 manpower and 210 fuel should win over a kt costing 1200 manpower 210 fuel.

Shermans or PanzerIVs, and their reload time would be literally twice as high! Not to mention they are way much later available...


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.


We could also say they dont get the range and keep their reload, I just dont want mediums to be one hit killed by heavies.

And their mobility is already sick enough. Elefant is perhaps the slowest tank in the game.. and with the suggested reload time, the Shermans/Pz4s wouldn't only have much higher rate fire, but these medium tanks would be literally able to drive up-close while they keep shooting at these massive tanks until they park next to them and probably drink some tea as well, meanwhile these massive tanks would have finally finished reloading the next round! :lol: We are talking about approximately 11 or 12 seconds reload time for these super heavies in comparison to 3 or 4 seconds reload time on the other hand for the mediums.


The jagdpanther zooms through the lines at breakneck speeds and is quite unflankable. Elefant is quite slow true, but I didn't mean to say that it should be even worse than it is. And even if the mediums park right next to the heavies and shoot them shitons of times, it would still take like 36 divided by number of tanks. secs to kill the heavy while the heavy only needs 12sec to kill the first tank.

I never really cared about the reload of heavy tanks, all I want is medium tanks not getting one hit killed by everything.

Comparing medium tanks to SUPER heavy tanks shouldn't be even a possible point of argument so far...

Elephant is a heavy tank destroyer, Super pershing is heavy tank, king tiger is a heavy tank, jagdpanther is a medium tank destoryer.
Did you perhaps mean jagdtiger instead of jagdpanther?

And when did I compare them? I didn't say mediums should have same amount of armor, or same calliber guns. I just want them to not be killed in one hit. And by mobility reduction, I only meant the jagdpanther, and maybe SP a tiny bit.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Feb 2018, 13:30

Redgaarden wrote:Tanks shouln't be one hit killed. A sherman should have the same amount of hp as a panther and vice versa, and same calliber guns should also have same amount of dmg.

Red, should the Sherman also have the same cost as the Panther then? :? 150 fuel and 800 MP? :roll:

Redgaarden wrote:If cost is a issue, then 3 easy eights costing 1500 manpower and 210 fuel should win over a kt costing 1200 manpower 210 fuel.

4 Easy Eights (52 fuel each) roughly cost 208 fuel, that's still less fuel than 1 King Tiger... However, imagine 4 Easy Eights with a reload of 4 to 5 seconds and a range of 60 against 1 KT with a reload of 12 seconds and 80 range, I guess the result would be that u can shoot the KT every 2 seconds while it could shoot you back only once after 12 seconds!
KT only chance would be to fight you at long range then, but if you get close.. the KT will be at great disadvantage...
Redgaarden wrote:And even if the mediums park right next to the heavies and shoot them shitons of times, it would still take like 36 divided by number of tanks. secs to kill the heavy while the heavy only needs 12sec to kill the first tank.

Hold on though! Why should Shermans be sent to fight against the King Tiger in the first place and not Pershings??!!

Redgaarden wrote:We could also say they dont get the range and keep their reload, I just dont want mediums to be one hit killed by heavies.

I don't understand.. how is the reload time and range suggestions any related to medium tanks getting one-hit killed by super heavy tanks or not??
The suggestions don't include any damage or penetration changes.. only reload and range change! And I think medium tanks in the game ALREADY get one-hit killed by such super heavy tanks.. or maybe sometimes they even survive a couple of hits... Regardless, the suggestions offer no changes whatsoever in that concern anyway! in fact, the suggestions aim to improve medium tanks by significantly increasing their rate of fire.

Redgaarden wrote:The jagdpanther zooms through the lines at breakneck speeds and is quite unflankable. Elefant is quite slow true, but I didn't mean to say that it should be even worse than it is.

JagdPanther is currently hard to flank not because of the tank movement speed, but because of the broken cone of fire.. the cone of fire is just much wider than the barrel's actual sight radius currently and I even made a topic about this before.. so the cone of fire could be much thinner as it would need to rotate itself more in order to reach the target destination.

Redgaarden wrote:Elephant is a heavy tank destroyer, Super pershing is heavy tank, king tiger is a heavy tank, jagdpanther is a medium tank destoryer.
Did you perhaps mean jagdtiger instead of jagdpanther?

And when did I compare them? I didn't say mediums should have same amount of armor, or same calliber guns. I just want them to not be killed in one hit. And by mobility reduction, I only meant the jagdpanther, and maybe SP a tiny bit.

All the 4 tanks mentioned have same gun caliber, except the JagdTiger but that's why it has the highest reload time... And as I said, mediums will only be improved with these reload time suggestions really! They will be all firing very quickly.. but in return their range would be quite limited compared to heavier tanks... However, that's at the cost of having HUGE reload times for the heavies, after all though.. this obviously does not have anything to do with the matter of getting one-hit killed or not!

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 322
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Redgaarden » 27 Feb 2018, 13:55

I never really cared about the reload of heavy tanks, all I want is medium tanks not getting one hit killed by everything.


What I meant to say that one hit killing and reloading is unrelated. Damage and reloading is obviously related in dps, I just dont think one hit killing should be a big mechanic.

Red, should the Sherman also have the same cost as the Panther then? :? 150 fuel and 800 MP? :roll:


I would think more of a level of 690 manpower due to the worse gun.

4 Easy Eights (52 fuel each) roughly cost 208 fuel, that's still less fuel than 1 King Tiger... However, imagine 4 Easy Eights with a reload of 4 to 5 seconds and a range of 60 against 1 KT with a reload of 12 seconds and 80 range, I guess the result would be that u can shoot the KT every 2 seconds while it could shoot you back only once after 12 seconds!
KT only chance would be to fight you at long range then, but if you get close.. the KT will be at great disadvantage...


Easy eights orignal price is 500 manpwoer 70 fuel, Shermans have a pen chance of like 10% agaisnt kt, 20 sec to pen once doesn't sound too terrifying.

"KT only chance would be to fight you at long range then, but if you get close.. the KT will be at great disadvantage..."
That is what I'm aiming for, Big gun only increases the maximum distance you can egage a target, and big armor only decreases the minmum distance a target can engage you. In a sitation where both can pen each other then it should be a 50%-50% fight but a KT having big shells resulting in slower rate of fire, and big armour resulting in less manuverability, would tip the balance to the shermans favour.

Hold on though! Why should Shermans be sent to fight against the King Tiger in the first place and not Pershings??!!


Because shermans are the best tank 2/3 of the US docs. not much else to send.

I don't understand.. how is the reload time and range suggestions any related to medium tanks getting one-hit killed by super heavy tanks or not??
The suggestions don't include any damage or penetration changes.. only reload and range change! And I think medium tanks in the game ALREADY get one-hit killed by such super heavy tanks.. or maybe sometimes they eben survive a couple of hits... Regardless, the suggestions offer no changes whatsoever in that concern anyway! in fact, the suggestions aim to improve medium tanks by significantly increasing their rate of fire.


This is about armor philosphy, I dont think mediums should die to one hit. And I dont think 2x their firepower is going to change their performace agaisnt heavies since their perofrmance vs heavi is already close to null.
I dont really see how improving their rate of fire helps, if 1: They wont pen. Or 2nd: They wont get a chance to shoot.
Not much improvement in my eyes.

JagdPanther is currently hard to flank not because of the tank movement speed, but because of the broken cone of fire.. the cone of fire is just much wider than the barrel's actual sight radius currently and I even made a topic about this before.. so the cone of fire could be much thinner as it would need to rotate itself more in order to reach the target destination.


Yes, the COF can be a little misleading. I remember lcearly when the JP was immobilized, and it killed my tanks without even moving the gun.

All the 4 tanks mentioned have same gun caliber, except the JagdTiger but that's why it has the highest reload time... And as I said, mediums will only be improved with these reload times suggestions really! They will be all firing very quickly.. but in return their range would be quite limited compared to heavier tanks... However, that's at the cost of having HUGE reload times for the heavies, after all though.. this obviously does not have anything to do with the matter of getting one-hit killed or not!


I never really wanted to compare reload, range and whatnot. I just wanted to make my seperate topic for mediums not getting killed too frequently. And MAYBE I didn't like the fact they are now going to die outside their field of view before even getting a chance to see the big cat.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 242
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Kr0noZ » 27 Feb 2018, 14:38

Hold on though! Why should Shermans be sent to fight against the King Tiger in the first place and not Pershings??!!

Because shermans are the best tank 2/3 of the US docs. not much else to send.


That shouldn't be much of a reason for doing it the dumb way though...
USAAF could simply bomb the thing, and Inf has arty; both have mines and AT-guns.

Maybe throwing tanks at a Problem works against most targets, but it doesn't have to be efficient. There's a reason the US forces tried to avoid that kind of situation and only used brute force if they stumbled into a messy fight by accident.

I do see the point about the medium tanks dying too fast, that's a general issue with BK Mod and goes both ways.
I'd like to see that changed a little as well. However, I'd also like to see tanks get more expensive in all aspects, so focus goes over to Inf and vehicles with tanks being rare but powerful.
Bumping up tank cost in terms of fuel AND manpower, but also giving players more MP income means tanks are a serious investment while infantry is more affordable in comparison and light vehicles are more affordable but also more reasonable; vurrently, they tend to vanish mostly after tanks take over because they simply die too fast. Fewer tanks by extensions means better survivability and therefore better justifyability here.
"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
- Scott Adams

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Feb 2018, 18:30

Redgaarden wrote:Easy eights orignal price is 500 manpwoer 70 fuel, Shermans have a pen chance of like 10% agaisnt kt, 20 sec to pen once doesn't sound too terrifying.

Well, but who would get an Easy Eight for this price? Players would always get E8s only after mass production unlock, being at a cost of 52 fuel.
It's not like Pz.IV.H in TH doc where you are forced to deploy it for the original price of 80 fuel as it doesn't get cheaper.. but the same way in Blitz doc, no one would really deploy the IVH except after the mass production unlock at a price of 55 fuel...

Redgaarden wrote:Yes, the COF can be a little misleading. I remember lcearly when the JP was immobilized, and it killed my tanks without even moving the gun.

Ya, I'm glad we agree about this...
The cone of fire of the Jagd Panther should definitely become more narrow, regardless if it would have more range in return or not.

Kr0noZ wrote:
Hold on though! Why should Shermans be sent to fight against the King Tiger in the first place and not Pershings??!!

Because shermans are the best tank 2/3 of the US docs. not much else to send.


That shouldn't be much of a reason for doing it the dumb way though...
USAAF could simply bomb the thing, and Inf has arty; both have mines and AT-guns.

Exactly!

Though, I really hope if we could see those reload time and range suggestions probably considered at least in a test version... MarKr keeps telling the players to play on big maps.. while I believe these suggestions (viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2554#p24369) perfectly fit to this agenda, as it would eventually FORCE players to play on bigger maps.. while also maintaining better tank warfare realism, yet without breaking the game balance at all. Tank prices could be also then re-evaluated later if they were found to be over-performing... Just a test version for it!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2824
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Feb 2018, 18:53

Oh dude, givng this much range to heavies would make matters just worth.

Also why shall firefly have 70 range just like that? It is in particular the interesting part of that unit that you use it as tag team with command tank and stat mode to become some sort of powerfull combat force.

I see no reason that this unit shall have more range than 60 at default. These longer reload time in combination is what would make things interesting. I dont want brain dead gameplay. Knowlegde, handling and smart thinking as well as ability usage, unit preservation, vet steps and unit combination is what matters then. Removing all the abilties and having simply endless range would destroy everything as it would become just as brain dead gameplay as it is now. And core units or main units such as stugs, shermans, tank IV´s would once again be silly conscripts between the battle of gods. Expensive and heavy would even more be in the focus.


So what i think about it:

Firefly: 8-9 sec reload time and 60 basic range. I mean for which sane reason shall a Firefly outrange a Panther? Srsly, how much shall a firefly cost then? I think the cost shouldnt or wouldnt be higher than 480 MP when basic range is 60. Its exactly the combination of tank commanders, vets, command tank and stat mode which will make the difference between a smart gameplay and combined use of abilties and units and reconassaince.
Comet reload faster. Simply these units are used different and you cant always send a command tank with it. The chance losing it is also higher as it would move arround through generally more dangerous areas. The reload speed however would be arround 7-7,5 sec. But due to its different role to firefly but also bc this unit had a special shortened version of the 17 pdr to fit better into the turret.



Elephant, Nashorn, KT and Jagdpanther would have 70 range at default. Reload times of 10 secs are absurd. Same as 80 range. We would have to increase the zoom out of the game in order to get a battle organized. In reaches from screen corner to screen corner. And the unit would be the ultimate brain dead units bc you can reach targets even when AT guns would placed in front of them. I dont want a stuh like gameplay for tanks
Basic reload times would be approx 8,5 seconds. Again, smart ability usage and veterancy is what would make the unit deadly at the end. Stat mode boosts range to 75, Ambush for Jagdpanther and Nashorn to 80 (here you get it). Jagdpanther would however have just one ambush shot.


Shermans would keep the 60. Idk why it shoud go higher than that for jumbo.


Panthers/Jagdpanzer IV/70 would be at approx 7,6 seconds as well as Tigers arround that. At first i wouldnt change anything else. The Panther has 7 secs already and doesnt seem to underperform. The smart use of the ability would make things up for it. I wouldnt mind that in case of extrem balance issues the range would go up at 65 standard max.
At this point i would also suggest that tiger would have a static mode. Smiliar to his big brother, the KT, and thus working as a fortress against incoming tanks. And yes, with good reconassaince you can get into stat mode before the incoming hostile force has spotted your tank. At this time the stat mode can already be disabled again and unit can move to prevent the coming arty. This is something you always forget when talking about stat mode. you can activate it so that in the moment of contact and combat the ability can be deactivated again. Thats how i use most of the time all stat modes.
And perhaps the Blitzkrieg ability from BK doc would finally become a tool that really decides between winning or losing. Now you can always count on better reload speed for your tank IV´s and tigers when facing shermans. Now abilties like exactly those would get a lot more attention. A vet tiger (perhaps in the then available stat mode) combined with Blitzkrieg ability would shoot twice as fast as normal shermans. Imagine now 70 range with a halfed reload speed due to the Blitzkrieg ability and that for tall tanks.
+ people perhaps would start thinking about using Tigers in conjunction with cheap stugs which reload speeds would be lower than 6 seconds. Ever taken this into acc before throwing insane numbers arround?

Also that axis are the "better ambushers" is an interesting feature that fits so well in their philosophy i would say. So ambush for axis remains at + 10 range at least.


Pershings and jacks would keep as they are in terms of range. Pershing with approx 8,9 sec reload and jacks keeps at 7. Pershing also get double shot ability with vet, can use command vehicle to boost the range as well. Jacks A needs + 5 range from ambush (with command vehicle can boost anyway to 70 then). The B has the stat mode already and can also boost with command vehicle. So it can also reach incredible 70 range already.


Idk why you want to put these units always so in focus and why you want them to be less relying on abilties and stuff. This is what at the end makes BK and games in general interesting. And not which player has a better controle of a single unit. That way you could just was well play a boxing simulator.


And as you talked about stuhs... you know that i think that they should be as cheap as a stug III, 60 range and the same abilties as the stug III has. including stat mode, smoke, trench in at vet 1 or 2, boosts to nearby infantry.


Ultimately, @Tiger very specific:
I dont get your fears at all. Does it seem for you that Pershing has no chance vs two Tank IV´s? bc there the situation is already that two mediums have 4-5 sec reload time against 7 for the pershing. And the pen chance for tank IV vs Pershing is approx what 76 has vs tiger, even less vs Panther...................................................................... Following your logic the heavies would have no chance at all.
And idk why you want heavies as no brainers. Staying safe at a point, like a ship that fires cruise missiles and drive away and killing everything. And 10 secs reload is absolute bullshit and unneccessary.

And you are making the mistake to say "Jumbo= heavy tank= more range bla bla bla". Why? Its a special purpose tank designed to get over defenses. The bad thing is that this thing is better in tank to tank combat than in crushing defenses.

I want more weapon based logic and factions and units having their own philosophy with strenght and weaknesses. But you throw everything away. With fireflies suddenly outranging panthers, Super pershing outranging even the 88 guns, heavy tanks that can just stand there, farting and making kills without any risk of taking fire, not even from AT guns..... It all seems like creating even more no brainers. For you units could have 60 secs relaod time as long as you dont have to get into the dangerzone, right? And thats the huge mistake that would ruin all fun. There wouldnt be attacks anymore, just stupid skirmish games where heavies fight heavies.... soft forward maneuvers and imediate retreat after shooting. I guess this is what heavy armored tanks have been designed for. Having thick armor in order not to take a shot at all......

And what you also did is to compare e8 with mass prod cost..... idk, how many times we have said that this is bullshit? We are talking about tanks of factions in general. Inf and AB cant make them cheaper. Mass prod is not meant to be something that is required for a unit to be usefull. A Hetzer or Jagdpanther is cost effective with basic cost, so why shermans should not?!


Kr0noZ wrote:
Hold on though! Why should Shermans be sent to fight against the King Tiger in the first place and not Pershings??!!

Because shermans are the best tank 2/3 of the US docs. not much else to send.


That shouldn't be much of a reason for doing it the dumb way though...
USAAF could simply bomb the thing, and Inf has arty; both have mines and AT-guns.

Maybe throwing tanks at a Problem works against most targets, but it doesn't have to be efficient. There's a reason the US forces tried to avoid that kind of situation and only used brute force if they stumbled into a messy fight by accident.

I do see the point about the medium tanks dying too fast, that's a general issue with BK Mod and goes both ways.
I'd like to see that changed a little as well. However, I'd also like to see tanks get more expensive in all aspects, so focus goes over to Inf and vehicles with tanks being rare but powerful.
Bumping up tank cost in terms of fuel AND manpower, but also giving players more MP income means tanks are a serious investment while infantry is more affordable in comparison and light vehicles are more affordable but also more reasonable; vurrently, they tend to vanish mostly after tanks take over because they simply die too fast. Fewer tanks by extensions means better survivability and therefore better justifyability here.



oh, yes, and axis Tank IV´s have 4 sec reload time bc they all have so much arty available to kill any tank already. Luftwaffe as only doc without powerfull arty has Panthers, schrecks, faust, Panther, Hetzer and still the hetzer fires in 6 seconds and thus faster than a sherman. :roll:

i agree with your second part though and thats what i am aiming for. But before doing this shermans must be effective enough. And this reload speed is one thing to make it happen. Any increase of better pen or range seems not to fit for US. So i am trying to have each factions with individual advantages for their tanks despite being cheap only. And thats where we are now i think. I really need to get you on discord for some talks.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Feb 2018, 20:15

Warhawks97 wrote:Also why shall firefly have 70 range just like that? It is in particular the interesting part of that unit that you use it as tag team with command tank and stat mode to become some sort of powerfull combat force.

I think it's very clear why I suggested 70 range for it, in case of no more static position ability that boosts range and reload... Otherwise there would be noway to fight against Pz.IVs with a 7 seconds reload time for the Firefly.

Warhawks97 wrote:I want more weapon based logic and factions and units having their own philosophy with strenght and weaknesses. But you throw everything away. With fireflies suddenly outranging panthers, Super pershing outranging even the 88 guns, heavy tanks that can just stand there, farting and making kills without any risk of taking fire

My reload time suggestions were more aimed on forcing players to play on bigger maps than anything else really, and by the way the Firefly currently in the game already out-ranges the Panther with static position!!
Though... I still don't get the gist of your suggestions at all.. to me it sounds like u just want to make medium tanks more superior against heavier tanks! If u think my suggestions are ruining everything due to insane range numbers for heavy tanks (but also insane reload times btw in order to compensate, which is also more realistic because bigger shells mean more reload time and therefore more range too) then I wonder how ur suggestions are any different!! I mean if it's not fun to you seeing heavy tanks actually doing what they are designed for (which is ranged combat) then would it be more fun to you with dozens of medium tanks running around and out-gunning heavies on the other hand??!!
I can't get how is this anymore rewarding.. it even contradicts logic! If heavies should not fight against heavies, then how should it ever be??!!
For me it just looks like you would actually want to remove heavies completely from the game and make it all about mediums vs mediums...

Warhawks97 wrote:It all seems like creating even more no brainers. For you units could have 60 secs relaod time as long as you dont have to get into the dangerzone, right? And thats the huge mistake that would ruin all fun. There wouldnt be attacks anymore, just stupid skirmish games where heavies fight heavies.... soft forward maneuvers and imediate retreat after shooting. I guess this is what heavy armored tanks have been designed for. Having thick armor in order not to take a shot at all......

With superior range u get the chance to shoot first as heavies, however.. with a reload time and mobility disadvantage against superior medium tank numbers.. ur heavy armor would be definitely exposed to enemy fire at closer ranges! So, of course heavy tanks would still take shots, even more than ever before, because according to my suggestions.. medium tanks would be able to shoot almost 3 times as fast, only need to get closer.

Warhawks97 wrote:reload times of 10 secs are absurd. Same as 80 range. We would have to increase the zoom out of the game in order to get a battle organized. In reaches from screen corner to screen corner.

And btw I don't think the camera zoom would have to be increased at all.. it's not like you can't clearly capture the Stuh with 80 range shooting its target in ur screen currently!

Warhawks97 wrote:At this point i would also suggest that tiger would have a static mode. Smiliar to his big brother, the KT

Static mode takes a while to activate and de-activate.. stop for a moment and ur Tiger most of the times is dead either to arty or airplanes.


Without conducting an entirely new reload time and combat range principle, then in this case... I just don't agree with touching any reload times, specifically for Tiger1 or Panthers and Fireflys.. because it's not worth it! Everything could just stay as it is then.
Warhawks97 wrote:Elephant, Nashorn, KT and Jagdpanther would have 70 range at default.

Though, 7 seconds reload time for both the Elefant and JagdPanther with 70 basic range also for both.. seems like that's the only thing we both agree.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 322
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Redgaarden » 27 Feb 2018, 21:27

For me it just looks like you would actually want to remove heavies completely from the game and make it all about mediums vs mediums...


well. People have been complaining alot about heavy tanks. I for one dont like them, Atleast not how they function atm. Late game usually boils down to eihter
1: can I kill the heavy tank before it kills me?
2: can I kill their heavy tank before it kill me?
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Feb 2018, 21:45

Well, I like heavy tanks on the other hand... I think that's the source of the disagreement actually! I personally think that heavy tanks can be deadly for sure but at the same time they can be easily taken out with very simple tricks.. for example I probably can't count how many times I have seen Panthers, Elephant and Tigers being easily hunted with Hellcats, Achilles or Fireflys.. either frontally, from ambush or even in the most classical method which is by flanking with 2 tanks, and often without even losing any of them!

I just wonder... For example if we imagine one Tiger1 with 9 seconds reload time and 70 range against two 76 Shermans with 3 to 4 seconds reload time and 60 range.. do you REALLY think the Tiger1 has enough armor to stand against them if they get to an engagement below 60 range? I highly doubt... Actually the Tiger1 would be smashed to pieces in such a short time with quick firing HVAP rounds!

User avatar
seha
Posts: 142
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby seha » 28 Feb 2018, 08:50

if they think 80 range is too much, it can be 75 for super big cats.

so tiger, if we divide all tanks to 4 different categories, your suggestion list can be like this in short......

1st category, medium tanks
3 - 4 seconds reload time max and 60 range:
all shermans (jumbo too) and all panzer4, all axis tanks with L48 guns, churchills, hellcat, achilles wolverine etc.
and if any tank has ambush, it will take +5 range (both axis and allies)

2nd category, advanced medium tanks, 7 second reload and 65 range:
comet, firefly, panther and L70 tanks
and if any has ambush, they get +5 range too.

3rd category, heavy tanks:
70 range and 9 second reload
tigers, pershing, jakson etc
if any has ambush, they get +5 range

4th category, super heavy tanks
above 10 sec reload and 75 range
if any tank has ambush, again +5 range:
super pershing, king tiger, jagd panther, jagd tiger, elefant, etc

note: no more static position or rapid shot abilities for any tanks, and american tanks still get +10 range with command car, british tanks still get +5 range with command tank too.


now my opinion about the suggestions:
why not to try it.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 28 Feb 2018, 09:20

seha wrote:if they think 80 range is too much, it can be 75 for super big cats.

so tiger, if we divide all tanks to 4 different categories, your suggestion list can be like this in short......

1st category, medium tanks
3 - 4 seconds reload time max and 60 range:
all shermans (jumbo too) and all panzer4, all axis tanks with L48 guns, churchills, hellcat, achilles wolverine etc.
and if any tank has ambush, it will take +5 range (both axis and allies)

2nd category, advanced medium tanks, 7 second reload and 65 range:
comet, firefly, panther and L70 tanks
and if any has ambush, they get +5 range too.

3rd category, heavy tanks:
70 range and 9 second reload
tigers, pershing, jakson etc
if any has ambush, they get +5 range

4th category, super heavy tanks
above 10 sec reload and 75 range
if any tank has ambush, again +5 range:
super pershing, king tiger, jagd panther, jagd tiger, elefant, etc

Yes! 75 range is also fine... And I like how you divided all tanks in the game shortly into 4 categories.. very simple and clear!

That's what I have been trying to tell Hawks the whole time... If he is really willing to change any reload times, then it's either that we do a complete re-work like this one which is based on a clear principle, or that we don't touch anything at all.. because then there would be no sense to keep tweaking reload times or ranges for certain individual tanks selectively here and there based on nothing or without a clear vision.

seha wrote:note: no more static position or rapid shot abilities for any tanks, and american tanks still get +10 range with command car, british tanks still get +5 range with command tank too.

Yup, I could also add to this that accurate long range shot abilities would all stay as well...

Tor
Posts: 191
Joined: 24 Feb 2015, 22:19
Location: Saint-Peterburg

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tor » 28 Feb 2018, 13:31

Why range difference should be 5? 1-2 much better.
And panther (achilles) should have same or better range than tiger 1.
AP ammo should have low damage, and bad accuracy at long range.

And its mind blowing, but probably tiger-1 have better armor than Panther.
In longe range 100%, because enemy see mostly turret, and tiger-1 have much better turret armor.
And overall most hits actually hit turret.

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 242
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Kr0noZ » 28 Feb 2018, 14:29

Why range difference should be 5? 1-2 much better.

You mostly wouldn't even notice that. The time it takes to cross a difference of 1-2 units isn't even enough time for the aiming to complete;
A difference of 5 is much better because it means that by the time the "lower ranged" tank gets to aim, the "longer ranged" tank is already able to fire so it makes an actual difference to firefights.

And panther (achilles) should have same or better range than tiger 1.

Not really. The 88mm gun had high range due to more propellant being used, while the Panthers gun had higher projectile velocities, making them almost equal in range (both have been used to destroy targets at up to 2000m, although typical engagement ranges were much lower).

AP ammo should have low damage, and bad accuracy at long range.

I can get behind the lower damage, seeing how most AP rounds dropped the explosive filler in favour of a hardened penetrator core.
The only dedicated kinetic energy AP shot with lousy accuracy however was the british 17pdr APDS round, due to being basically a modern KE round except they hadn't figured out the fin stabilization used nowadays. This led to long range accuracy being somewhat poor, and the much higher velocities commonly led inexperienced gunners to misjudge the trajectories (these rounds were much faster and therefore followed a flatter path to the target).

And its mind blowing, but probably tiger-1 have better armor than Panther.
In longe range 100%, because enemy see mostly turret, and tiger-1 have much better turret armor.
And overall most hits actually hit turret.

Actually no. That's not how that works. The relevant thing is not pure plate thickness, which was indeed better for the Tiger I;
It mostly depends on the slope angles for effective armor thickness as well as the fact that sloped armor increases the chances of shells bouncing due to bad hit angles (so the tip of the shell can't bite into the armor and the shell glances off). This is partly negated when fired upon with a high-caliber round due to an effect called "overmatching", but since most allied tanks have some form of 75mm or 76mm gun, that doesn't apply. Now, a Pershing is a different story because the 90mm gun would actually benefit from overmatching, but that is only relevant for one doctrine and all of 2 vehicles...
"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
- Scott Adams

Tor
Posts: 191
Joined: 24 Feb 2015, 22:19
Location: Saint-Peterburg

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tor » 28 Feb 2018, 16:18

Kr0noZ wrote:
Why range difference should be 5? 1-2 much better.

1)You mostly wouldn't even notice that. The time it takes to cross a difference of 1-2 units isn't even enough time for the aiming to complete;
A difference of 5 is much better because it means that by the time the "lower ranged" tank gets to aim, the "longer ranged" tank is already able to fire so it makes an actual difference to firefights.

And panther (achilles) should have same or better range than tiger 1.

2)Not really. The 88mm gun had high range due to more propellant being used, while the Panthers gun had higher projectile velocities, making them almost equal in range (both have been used to destroy targets at up to 2000m, although typical engagement ranges were much lower).

And its mind blowing, but probably tiger-1 have better armor than Panther.
In longe range 100%, because enemy see mostly turret, and tiger-1 have much better turret armor.
And overall most hits actually hit turret.

3)Actually no. That's not how that works. The relevant thing is not pure plate thickness, which was indeed better for the Tiger I;
It mostly depends on the slope angles for effective armor thickness as well as the fact that sloped armor increases the chances of shells bouncing due to bad hit angles (so the tip of the shell can't bite into the armor and the shell glances off). This is partly negated when fired upon with a high-caliber round due to an effect called "overmatching", but since most allied tanks have some form of 75mm or 76mm gun, that doesn't apply. Now, a Pershing is a different story because the 90mm gun would actually benefit from overmatching, but that is only relevant for one doctrine and all of 2 vehicles...


1) Yes, but they want 4 different category, 15 difference bettween bad medium tank and KT, what we have now? 10 or 5?
2) I think velocity much better than calibre and weight, if they equel its +-ok, but worse... why?
3) Xray in warthunder have alot interesting things, tiger-1 turret frontal armor, have double armor and 200mm plates, not everythere, but this much better than any panther.
And i read, that in eastearn front, most hits actualy hit turret, so turret armor more important than body armor, especially at long range.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 28 Feb 2018, 18:10

Tor wrote:1) Yes, but they want 4 different category, 15 difference bettween bad medium tank and KT, what we have now? 10 or 5?

Currently in the game for example let's compare quickly between the range and reload difference of 4th category tank and 1st category;
The range difference between the KT (70 range) and a 76 Sherman (60 range) is only 10 range difference.
HOWEVER, the KT also reloads faster or at least same reload speed!!!
Sherman reloads in about 7 seconds but KT reloads only in 6 seconds.

Now, with the suggestions:
1st category tank (76 Sherman) range will stay 60 BUT the reload will be only 3 to 4 seconds.
4th category tank (King Tiger) range will be 75 which means now the range difference will be 15 (5 more than currently) BUT, the KT takes at least 11 seconds to reload... So, the KT will be no longer reloading as quickly or as fast as a Sherman.. but the Sherman will reload 4 times faster.. in return, the KT will have 15 range difference and not only 10 range difference.. you see what I mean?
This might be even a big buff to ALL medium tanks in case they get to fight in 60 range, however.. the bigger tanks will get some range advantage.

Tor wrote:2) I think velocity much better than calibre and weight, if they equel its +-ok, but worse... why?

Panthers, Firefly, Comets will only have 5 less range than Tiger1, Pershing and Jackson. HOWEVER... Panthers, Firefly, Comets will reload FASTER.

Tor wrote:3) Xray in warthunder have alot interesting things, tiger-1 turret frontal armor, have double armor and 200mm plates, not everythere, but this much better than any panther.
And i read, that in eastearn front, most hits actualy hit turret, so turret armor more important than body armor, especially at long range.

Kr0noZ explained everything very well, and by the way... Not all Panthers have same turret; Panther.A and Panther.D have the same turret (but Panther.A turret rotate faster of course) HOWEVER, the Panther.G turret armor is MUCH stronger than other Panthers.. don't forget that! ;)

Tor
Posts: 191
Joined: 24 Feb 2015, 22:19
Location: Saint-Peterburg

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tor » 28 Feb 2018, 19:01

But with better velocity much easier to hit at long range... especially if target moving, actually really interesting theme to think.
For my its clear, panther better at long range... tiger should have much more damage in same time.
And panther g armor litle litle litle better than other.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 392
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Jalis » 28 Feb 2018, 19:07

Tor wrote:2) I think velocity much better than calibre and weight, if they equel its +-ok, but worse... why?


Better for what ? long rang combat ? not really.

For exemple I agree with Kronoz you can put 75L70 and 88L56 in the same category. But I have doubt about the propellant explanation. 88 shell is simply heavier, and heavier shell loose less energy.

overall 75L70 88L56 17pdr and US 90 mm are rather in the same class. Only at coh the 90 mm have been seriously nerfed due to calculation on an inadequate shell type. BK have correct some mistakes, add some others. Strangly for the US 90 mm the mistake was not corrected, but was extended to the 76 mm (that was about correct at Vcoh)

You have only one gun that can not compare to others at bk, it is the jagdtiger 128 mm. Its reload time, if based on historical fact would be much more longer than others. It wasn't not a single piece cartridge. Propellant and shell were loaded separately. The shell itself was 28 KG, compare to 7 kg for the 75 mm, and I even dont speak about inner explosive charge. Summary taking a hit from such shell would be a one shot. Dmg are a bit low imo at bk for this shell.

I heard about a Sherman shot through an house by a jagdtiger. I never found source, but it dont seems me so incredible.

To stay in the subject, on my side I made category by guns, not by tanks. 50 to 76, then 75l70 88L56 17 pdr and US 90 and last category the 88L71. I was uncertain for the 128 mm and final put it in the middle category for range. However for PVP balance I can understand use of tank instead, but it seems very strange a jumbo 76 would have more range than a m4a3 76 ... with the same gun.

@tiger1966 ; armour for panther was much strong ; I would be more nuanced. the Tiger E for exemple was produced up to early 1944. It had usually a high quality RHA armour. Panther G is a late war production Tank. German steel and armour at that time were ... I will say ; very unequal in quality to stay diplomatic. Cause were shortage on about every strategic raw + skilled worker enlisted in the army and replaced by slave workers. It is just for the anecdote ; of course in game vehicles are always considered as flawless.

For info this is the result when you send at war a late war panzer made of arguable quality steel. Point damage have been done by a Sherman 75.

weld broken and armour cracked. It is a personal photo that can be use freely.
Attachments
jpz4a.jpg
It is a JPZ IV A with 75L70 gun
german_steel.jpg

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 28 Feb 2018, 19:20

Tor wrote:For my its clear, panther better at long range... tiger should have much more damage in same time.

Currently in BK Mod Tiger1 has more range than Panther! (Accurate Long Shot ability) so the Tiger1 is better at long range, Panther has more accuracy while moving on the other hand.
So generally, the suggestions will not change how the Tiger1 is superior at long range already.. but the Panther will have better reload in return.


Bottom line is;
I am very interested to AT LEAST try out these reload time and range changes which are based on a CLEAR principle as they are divided into certain categories based on gun caliber with unified reload and range for each category! A test version for these changes would be the best way to try this.
The principle is very simple, it does stick to a very simple equation too! Which is:
- Bigger shell = bigger range = bigger reload.
- Smaller shell = smaller range = smaller reload.

This way no one can complain anymore why the 76 Sherman for example has MORE reload time than Pz.IV although it's in the same tier!
Also at the same time, players will be somewhat forced to play on bigger maps... Which is what this mod is aiming for at the end.

Tor
Posts: 191
Joined: 24 Feb 2015, 22:19
Location: Saint-Peterburg

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tor » 28 Feb 2018, 20:54

780 metres per second and 930... and better armor penetration by panther gun.
I know what bigger shell lose less energy, but its + for big gun only if this guns have same speed.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2824
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Feb 2018, 23:04

Tiger1996 wrote:I think it's very clear why I suggested 70 range for it, in case of no more static position ability that boosts range and reload... Otherwise there would be noway to fight against Pz.IVs with a 7 seconds reload time for the Firefly.


Wow. Guess you use Bottle opener to open a can right? Thats what i mean. You shall make your correct pick. But BK is far away from that. Especially axis. Take as sample Panther or their AT guns. Panther against everything, medium or heavy pak, doesnt matter, both kill tanks and vehicles.
Thats what i would love to change. What if two stugs are better in some situations to counter shermans than a tiger or panther? Does it make ring ring in your head now?

I feel that the firefly is not the best pick to counter Panzer IV. Simply bc the tank IV already loads faster. Thats why i am saying all time: Use Panzer IV and stugs vs brits, Panther vs US.
So basically i wouldnt change much on the current situation. Instead i would enforce certain things in this particular matter.
Perhaps churchills, M10, 6 pounder AT gun, cromwell or comet will be the better choice to counter many tank IV´s while firefly with command tank and perhaps stat mode will be the weapon of choice when you want to keep a panther at distance? Or simply use your firefly in conjunction with better reconassaince. You see two or three Tank IV´s coming and know their attack route? Put a firefly or a pair of them there, stat mode and command tank and your enemie will take the first shots and losses before he could notice where it came from. Perhaps you also use something that grapped tank IV´s attention and made them turning the turrets? But the other way arround: go head on with firefly on tank IV´s and you die in 1 vs 1. But your 70 range standard range for firefly would absolutely ruin all that smart pre-combat thinking. Thats what i call "The small difference".
You play, if even, chess. I play chess in which every figure can get very particular boosts. And a boosted conscript can at the end beat a unboosted tower.

In reality, the Firefly was the best tool for the brits to counter tigers and Panthers. But in common combat situations vs stugs or tank IV´s the US 76 proved to be overall more effective simply bc they could fire faster, havent got the gunner blinded after shooting and could follow their tracers.

Hope you got me now.

Warhawks97 wrote:My reload time suggestions were more aimed on forcing players to play on bigger maps than anything else really, and by the way the Firefly currently in the game already out-ranges the Panther with static position!!


See? smart usage of abilities to gain upper hand. Range boost for firefly just bc makes it to be just another brain dead unit. Simply got firefly and world will be better for you. We dont care for other units anymore.

Though... I still don't get the gist of your suggestions at all.. to me it sounds like u just want to make medium tanks more superior against heavier tanks! If u think my suggestions are ruining everything due to insane range numbers for heavy tanks (but also insane reload times btw in order to compensate, which is also more realistic because bigger shells mean more reload time and therefore more range too) then I wonder how ur suggestions are any different!! I mean if it's not fun to you seeing heavy tanks actually doing what they are designed for (which is ranged combat) then would it be more fun to you with dozens of medium tanks running around and out-gunning heavies on the other hand??!!
I can't get how is this anymore rewarding.. it even contradicts logic! If heavies should not fight against heavies, then how should it ever be??!!
For me it just looks like you would actually want to remove heavies completely from the game and make it all about mediums vs mediums...


More superior? lol. Redgaarden is absolutely right.
Dude, what you see in 90% of all late games? Big tanks and anti big tanks units or big tanks to counter big. In late game there is no reason to take a stug over panther. Simply bc stug has the rof of a panther with much worse armor, pen and damage.
Its about picking the right tools for the right moment. I want mediums lasting longer than just 10 mins during mid game before heavy take over the show entirely.

Also, pure weight of shell means nothing. Guns sights, flight characteristics etc need to be taken into acc. There were many small calibre guns with longer ranger than heavier guns that used less proppelant in relation. The max shooting range of a 76 sherman (or basically most tanks) was higher than that of 105 mm howitzers (from US and axis).
So you got a very wrong logic here.
And heavies designed for ranged combat? I will ask the M4A3E2 Jumbo sherman with 75 mm. Idk how i can explain him that he is designed for long range combat :lol:

Dude, Axis wanted super tanks. So they have made them heavy with canons made for ranged combat. Thats why its called "factionas armor philosophy" and not "calibre based philosophy".

The firefly shell was lighter than the 90 mm, however the Pershing was claimed to shoot faster. In average appox 6 rpm for firefly vs 8 for Pershings.
Loaders space and ammo storage is also important if you didnt know that. Perhaps even more than pure shell weight.

With superior range u get the chance to shoot first as heavies, however.. with a reload time and mobility disadvantage against superior medium tank numbers.. ur heavy armor would be definitely exposed to enemy fire at closer ranges! So, of course heavy tanks would still take shots, even more than ever before, because according to my suggestions.. medium tanks would be able to shoot almost 3 times as fast, only need to get closer.


Reconassaince is what makes you fire first but well... Heavies have better view most of the time so that alone is an advantage when it comes to getting into a better initial situation. Shooting range and who fires first at which range has to do a lot with spotting range etc rather than who has the bigger gun (which still just allows you to fire what you can see...think of the Wox games). So basically if we keep the ranges the heavier will fire usually first. People use them more carefully, esspecially in conjunction with reconassaince, and in case you prepare for an incoming attack you can bring them into stat mode or ambush well ahead of the attack. And then you do what you want: Make the first shot and kill shots before mediums can effectively give counter. Which would mostly bounce anyway.
I dont get why the heavies should automatically have range advantge, during defense as well as offense. In defense they have: stat mode or ambush. But in offense would just lead the sense of "launching an attack" ad absurdum. Heavies would only stay behind a wall of conscripts and snipe arround. But i guess you already know that heavies are meant to to take the lead in attacks (exception jagdpanther or elephant which were supposed to support infantry assaults from afar by killing tanks that pose threats to infantry. Thats why i want them having their 70 basic range) and not to skirmish from the second or even third line.
However, 65 range for tiger and Panther would still seem to be acceptable. That way you could still use Td´s and AT guns (or command unit boosts, stat modes) to protect your tanks from them without creating the silly situation i just described.

Warhawks97 wrote:And btw I don't think the camera zoom would have to be increased at all.. it's not like you can't clearly capture the Stuh with 80 range shooting its target in ur screen currently!


And i hate it. How often did i say it already?


Static mode takes a while to activate and de-activate.. stop for a moment and ur Tiger most of the times is dead either to arty or airplanes.


You never listen, or? Find your mistake. The answer is already given many times.


Without conducting an entirely new reload time and combat range principle, then in this case... I just don't agree with touching any reload times, specifically for Tiger1 or Panthers and Fireflys.. because it's not worth it! Everything could just stay as it is then.
Though, 7 seconds reload time for both the Elefant and JagdPanther with 70 basic range also for both.. seems like that's the only thing we both agree.


Basic i was thinking of approx 7-7,8 for elephant and 8,1 for Jagdpanther. Stat modes and ambushes (as well as the very likely used tank commander) will reduce it. As i just mentioned them, the heavies will most likely be boosted by a Tank commander, but by far not every medium can be upgraded with them. So in 1 vs many situations the reload time difference wont be that much, esspecially ambush and stat modes will ultimately even it out to some point.

And i never said 3 sec for mediums. I was at 5 seconds. The fastest reload of a 76 sherman was 2 seconds with very experienced loader that was holding the second shot already in his hands. 5-5.5 seems much closer for average crews where the loader has sufficient space and shells nicely available. 3 secs is what you get with vets and stuff.


Tiger1996 wrote:
Bottom line is;
I am very interested to AT LEAST try out these reload time and range changes which are based on a CLEAR principle as they are divided into certain categories based on gun caliber with unified reload and range for each category! A test version for these changes would be the best way to try this.
The principle is very simple, it does stick to a very simple equation too! Which is:
- Bigger shell = bigger range = bigger reload.
- Smaller shell = smaller range = smaller reload.


And these are just wrong.

See my example Pershing and firefly. Loaders space, ammo storage, gunsight, enemie armor, pen power and what many other factors.

I want tanks having a philosophy based on what the factions considered to be important for tanks or certain tanks and their supposed roles.


Tiger1996 wrote:

Now, with the suggestions:
1st category tank (76 Sherman) range will stay 60 BUT the reload will be only 3 to 4 seconds.
4th category tank (King Tiger) range will be 75 which means now the range difference will be 15 (5 more than currently) BUT, the KT takes at least 11 seconds to reload... So, the KT will be no longer reloading as quickly or as fast as a Sherman.. but the Sherman will reload 4 times faster.. in return, the KT will have 15 range difference and not only 10 range difference.. you see what I mean?
This might be even a big buff to ALL medium tanks in case they get to fight in 60 range, however.. the bigger tanks will get some range advantage.


Just why.... Why 11 seconds? Holly shit. Why? Its not a round that consists of the shot and cartrigde. Its not a stuh. 8,5-9 seconds are absolutely enough. Tank commander, vet steps and stat mode and you are as quick as a basic mediums. You cant put a TC in all mediums, but all heavies will likely get one. Same as just a few mediums will be vet while heavies will be taken a lot more care. Heavies gain boosts by vets, better one than mediums. They get modes, ranged shots and what else with vet.

These super range basic ranges are crap. See above. You find many gameplay reasons there.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 28 Feb 2018, 23:17, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 392
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Jalis » 01 Mar 2018, 01:40

Tor wrote:780 metres per second and 930... and better armor penetration by panther gun.
I know what bigger shell lose less energy, but its + for big gun only if this guns have same speed.


Panther have Better penetration over tiger at usual combat range. Nevertheless at 2000 m both gun gun have similar penetration with common pzgr39. and with pzgr40 the 88l56 could be even a bit better. In your opinion what would be the result at very unusual combat range such as 3000 m ?

Remember here, proposition is to extend a bit extreme range distance, so, imo the 88L56 deserve to be in the same category than the 75L70.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3639
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby Tiger1996 » 01 Mar 2018, 02:05

Well, when I get into a discussion with Hawks.. it's often heated of course, but usually we get to a point where we just both agree together on a few certain things at last.. nonetheless, I believe this time each one of us, is just sticking firmly to what he personally believes... I mean that Hawks is really sticking to his very own point of view regarding this matter as far as I can see! And actually me too, as I am also sticking to my viewpoint here.. therefore, I think there is no point to go any further with the discussion this way as it's apparently going no where ^^
Specifically that each one of us, has already expressed his ideas clearly enough I guess...
Though, as I already mentioned before; I'd wish if we could have some sort of a permanent testing version for the game where we could be able to try out all these different ideas around, all of them! The ones by me.. but also all the other ideas by everyone else... With everything being done under the eyes of developers so that they could also evaluate the whole thing.. and who knows, this "might" be happening rather soon! Hopefully at least.
As I believe it's actually rather a shame to see all these handful number of interesting ideas just dying right where they have started without even having a chance of being tested to say the least.. this would also dramatically improve the progress of how the MOD develops itself.
Basically a very old game that is still thriving of life!

kwok
Posts: 1248
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Factions Armor Philosophy

Postby kwok » 01 Mar 2018, 02:37

lol. my mod has some of these ideas. more than 7 seconds reload time is something you do NOT want... especially at the speed tanks move. again, realism coming into places that actually break immersion than improve it. remember tank turret traverse speeds at "historical" values?


Return to “General - CoH1 / BKMOD1”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest