Tank cannons philosophy

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
Post Reply
User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4236
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Greetings everyone.. many players been complaining for years about the range brackets, accuracy & pen chances being very odd from 1 tank to another in Bk Mod even with tanks carrying the same gun. Also, players are often told by the devs to play on "bigger maps" while i honestly think the shooting ranges in BK MOD are in fact not big enough to enforce this claim. Definitely the ranges are bigger than the vanilla CoH, but not big enough to force players to play on bigger maps only. Not to mention.. it's so weird how we need to balance AT guns with long tear-down times while on the other hand allowing tanks to have 200% accuarcy when aiming at such relatively small targets!!! in other mods, such as Europe at War... ALL tanks do have a standard range of 75 or 80 but with very precise accuracy & pen tables.


Thus, briefly... i was thinking about these following ideas.. they might be drastically changing the way how Bk Mod is played.. but i believe it will make it much more balanced & realistic.

- Remove all long range abilities (ALRS & STATIC MODE, etc) camo will stay but will not provide extra range.
- Reduce tank guns accuracy against mobile AT guns from 200% to 50% only.
- increase ALL the AT gun ranges to 80 range, from 75 (with less accuracy at far distance).
- Decrease tear-down times of AT guns back to normal values.. specifically keeping in mind armored cars has received faster turret rotations back once again.
- ALL tanks with AP rounds will have range increased to 75, with much less accuracy at further distances... However, the range of HE rounds & tank MGs will remain untouched (same as now).
- Adjust accuracy values & range brackets of AT guns & tank cannons accordingly (very important).

This way.. tanks with AP rounds will not snipe AT guns anymore, and most tanks will have fair realistic chances of penning or missing each others at long or close distances.. what does everybody think?

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3397
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by MarKr »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 18:30
many players been complaining for years about the range brackets, accuracy & pen chances being very odd from 1 tank to another in Bk Mod even with tanks carrying the same gun.
This has mostly been changed and corrected with weapon standardization updates - 75mm L48, 75mm L70, 17 pounders, 76mm guns - all have been standardized in terms of penetration and damage.
Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 18:30
players are often told by the devs to play on "bigger maps" while i honestly think the shooting ranges in BK MOD are in fact not big enough to enforce this claim.
I honestly don't believe we've ever said that playing big maps would help with tank performance. "Play bigger maps" was suggested to people who complained that "arty is OP" or that "camping is impossible to beat" or "air docs are OP" and many other things that can be solved by playing bigger maps and so having more space to maneuver around arty, having more ways to attack rather than two choke-points, giving more time to AA units to shoot down planes, so on so forth.
Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 18:30
it's so weird how we need to balance AT guns with long tear-down times
Tear-down times were introduced because some people couldn't stop abusing the reload glitch. I would argue that 17 pounders shooting every 3 seconds isn't all tha much fun either (at least for the players facing the 17pounders).
Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 18:30
allowing tanks to have 200% accuarcy when aiming at such relatively small targets!!!
This is not true. Tanks don't have 200% accuracy against AT guns.

Overall, I don't see much sense in it. You want the tanks to have more range but less accuracy, so it will be possible to shoot at greater distances but you'll also miss a lot more often, thus being preferable to still wait with shooting until you get closer (presumably to the current range). Furthermore, tanks have standard vision range 60 so they would have significantly more gun range than vision. We're not adding more vision to tanks as it would pretty much make them scouting units...
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4300
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Warhawks97 »

I would be down for it but the work is huge and takes long to have everything set correctly. And vehicles will be constantly threatened to get sniped from a far distance. The accuracy at the maxium range would be to rather low, esspecially against vehicles.

MarKr wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 19:29
This has mostly been changed and corrected with weapon standardization updates - 75mm L48, 75mm L70, 17 pounders, 76mm guns - all have been standardized in terms of penetration and damage.

not really. Even though pen values in the tt might look the same, different range brackets still give some units a better chance to pen at range x than another with same gun.

Also there is still stuff like Tigers with 90% accuracy at max range, KT/JP with just 75% and then Nashorn with 100% accuracy.

And the 76 guns are also different depending on where it is mounted on.

And AT guns have usually range brackets that are better or different from those tanks use.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 20 Jan 2021, 19:48, edited 2 times in total.

Diablo
Posts: 150
Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 22:40

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Diablo »

Just thought what if the AT gun teardown times would match their firerate.. small 37mm gets a quick tear down and large 17 pounders (or god help us 88mm PaKs) take a relatively long time to become mobile.
An i believe reload abusing wouldn't be possible as the teardown time equals the actual cooldown.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3397
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by MarKr »

@Hawks: That's why I said "have been standardized in terms of PENETRATION and DAMAGE". I didn't say a thing about ranges or accuracy. Accuracy was kept higher usually for open-top tank destroyers. AT guns are usually the only exceptions in basic range and thus also penetration but the penetration was kept to compensate for the lack of mobility. Anyway, for AT guns the penetration is better, but not really all THAT much compared to the same guns mounted on tanks.

@Diablo: Teardown times are usually only about 1 second longer than reload times. Will it really make so much difference if the teardown time is 6.5 or 5.48 seconds? If the first shot misses, the enemy vehicle can get behind you in both cases and they the AT gun is most likely lost.
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2267
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by kwok »

I personally see some merit to the ideas listed here... but that's from a personal standpoint from playing a game that takes this concept to the extreme even in scale (the game is steel division 2 and i highly highly recommend you guys try it).

BUT, from the year of just dealing with the community and lessons learned I have to say implementing this concept in general is a LOT and HUGE. it starts to ask the question is it worth doing... i think in the lines of markr: not directly saying no but giving every conservative reason why we shouldn't because such a huge base change to the game will have uncountable impacts. lessons learned from doctrine reworks which tried to basically change nothing on unit performance just doctrine structure already took more than a year to get to where it is today (which is still no where near balanced). i can already think of 10 other things that will need to be considered.

examples:
what about units that get advnatage via range bonuses? like nashorns, jacksons, etc. would they get 90 range as standard?
what about tanks that benefit from short range? how much harder will it be for shermans to flank tanks and get into distance where penetration matters?
what about map space in general? the point of playing bigger maps was so single units didn't lock down the entire critical point making defense more of a "skill" than a "build order". opening ranges just negates the reason to play a bigger map when 1 king tiger or 1 pershing just camps the whole map (yes i know it's only 10 range but conceptually increase in range means play bigger maps. is it really the case that the ranges are too small for bigger maps now?)
what about light vehicles and light tanks? would their ranges be extended too? 28mm car for example?
i mean my list doesn't stop here... i can keep going.

i'm personally not against but i'm very very very very cautious. it's not a risk i'd be willing to take yet with an established community because i'd honestly think this is even more grand in concept than doctrine reworks. doctrine reworks kept game mechanics as untouched as possible and focused on game flow/capability/balance. this is like... game mechanic expectations...

@diablo
yeah that was almost exactly how teardown times was calculated. what markr said, we literally took the reload+aim time as a factor to teardown time. there's some old notes on it somewhere, i had them and might even have dev internal notes on it if i'm allowed to share the message thread. in a way, we also wanted the placement of AT guns to be strategic with forethought/planning/skill in defense rather than a reactionary free turret to stop tanks. so there's a slight "punishment" time added to teardown. put the AT gun in a good spot to begin with then be rewarded. haha players complain about how AT guns might be bad now... in steel division 2 AT gun placement is even harder. moving at guns is basically just not possible in that game because they go so slow and ranges in general are crazy far (typically 2000m gun ranges for tanks/at guns. 300m for infantry, for reference the ratio between vcoh inf ranges and bk tank ranges isn't even close to the disparity between unit ranges in sd2)... unless theyre spammed up in a line, theyre almost never on the front lines like players tend to use them in bk. they act as true ambush units, breakthrough stoppers, flank protection as they were historically.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4236
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

MarKr wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 19:29
This is not true. Tanks don't have 200% accuracy against AT guns.
Maybe not 200% but i'm pretty sure the value is pretty high.. there is nothing easier than hitting an AT gun using tanks, regardless of range or how big of a caliber the AT gun actually is... Which i think is very wrong (even if these ideas were never implemented) as i think AT guns should be harder to hit using tanks, not completely impossible to hit.. but definitely much harder than now.
MarKr wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 19:29
Overall, I don't see much sense in it. You want the tanks to have more range but less accuracy, so it will be possible to shoot at greater distances but you'll also miss a lot more often, thus being preferable to still wait with shooting until you get closer (presumably to the current range). Furthermore, tanks have standard vision range 60 so they would have significantly more gun range than vision. We're not adding more vision to tanks as it would pretty much make them scouting units...
That's the thing.. in Europe at War MOD, tanks have much bigger gun range than their view range; which adds more depth to the game-play as tanks are never used individually but with supporting units around them for scouting, etc. So the idea is exactly THIS!! it's to give tanks bigger gun range but less view range.. without touching HE rounds though, not to hurt infantry game-play.

i was even going to add that tank commanders should no longer provide extra view range for tanks, in order to keep them blind without spotters to compensate for their bigger gun range.. but then i remembered that tank commanders are limited anyways and the gun range would be still bigger than the view bonus they provide, not to mention the accuracy would be low.. which brings me to your first point; as it's true that the accuracy would be significantly lower, but with more gun range implemented.. it gives a lot more room for TTs and range brackets to be adjusted accordingly along with accuracy values so that it feels much more realistic than now, which means the RNG factor would be also lower. Also, the accuracy could be higher with command vehicles around.. making them more useful.

kwok wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 21:01
examples:
what about units that get advnatage via range bonuses? like nashorns, jacksons, etc. would they get 90 range as standard?
what about tanks that benefit from short range? how much harder will it be for shermans to flank tanks and get into distance where penetration matters?
what about map space in general? the point of playing bigger maps was so single units didn't lock down the entire critical point making defense more of a "skill" than a "build order". opening ranges just negates the reason to play a bigger map when 1 king tiger or 1 pershing just camps the whole map (yes i know it's only 10 range but conceptually increase in range means play bigger maps. is it really the case that the ranges are too small for bigger maps now?)
what about light vehicles and light tanks? would their ranges be extended too? 28mm car for example?
i mean my list doesn't stop here... i can keep going.
Ya, it will be much work done indeed, which surely questions whether or not it's THAT much worthy of an idea at all.
However; i just thought to bring this idea to the table... Since i have seen it working very well in Europe at War MOD, and i mean.. really well.
Tank game-play in Europe at War MOD is just MUCH better as of the current state.

As to react on some of your examples though:
- i mentioned that camo will no longer provide range boost, and possibly.. no bonuses at all anymore...
Given how the standard range would be huge, it would be already of a big advantage surprising enemies from ambush alone.

- it won't be too much harder for tanks that benefit from short range, they would still have the number superiority to their side.

- remember that ONLY the AP ranges would be increased, requiring vision support by other units to be used effectively as well.. but even then the accuracy would be low enough not to allow any big units from camping the whole map.

- Light vehicles will not be touched.. with only few exceptions, which can be discussed per unit.

========================================

Generally speaking, i'm not insisting on this idea anyhow.. but i just thought it could be something worth thinking about one way or another.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2267
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by kwok »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 22:44
MarKr wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 19:29
This is not true. Tanks don't have 200% accuracy against AT guns.
Maybe not 200% but i'm pretty sure the value is pretty high.. there is nothing easier than hitting an AT gun using tanks, regardless of range or how big of a caliber the AT gun actually is... Which i think is very wrong (even if these ideas were never implemented) as i think AT guns should be harder to hit using tanks, not completely impossible to hit.. but definitely much harder than now.
He might be on to something. It's definitely not 200% but I checked the modifiers for most guns against team weapons, the modifier is set to 1. So when you have tanks like panthers or even stugs with accuracy at long range at 90%, it is a very high chance to just right click and blow up the AT guns. I've seen this and have done it myself unconsciously. In retrospect, it is kind of a weird thing to do... "oh no AT! what should I do to counter it? I guess ill attack it with a tank and kill it."
Perhaps we can apply similar modifiers done against infantry with AP rounds? Maybe standardize to .5 or less? I notice there are cases where infantry are also easily sniped out especially with other modifiers stacking on the existing accruacy settings. Is .5 a good standard for infantry/team weapon AP shot modifiers?


Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 22:44
Generally speaking, i'm not insisting on this idea anyhow.. but i just thought it could be something worth thinking about one way or another.
Sure, it's something to think about. Like I said, I PERSONALLY like the concept carrying from games like steel division. But, definitely something not looking at now. I think RE doc is our next target...
Haha an idea like this might end up being another year long beta cycle.... not looking to do THAT again any time soon...

I'll try EaW with you some time though just to see what might be interesting to incorporate to BK.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3397
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by MarKr »

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 22:44
Maybe not 200% but i'm pretty sure the value is pretty high.. there is nothing easier than hitting an AT gun using tanks, regardless of range or how big of a caliber the AT gun actually is... Which i think is very wrong (even if these ideas were never implemented) as i think AT guns should be harder to hit using tanks, not completely impossible to hit.. but definitely much harder than now.
Most tank guns have accuracy modifier against AT guns either x1 which normal, unmodified accuracy so usually 75% chance to hit at max range and not moving OR x0.5 which would make it around 37% chance to hit and even at closest range it is just 50%. How that makes it "nothing easier than hitting an AT gun using tanks" is beyong me.

AT guns usually have guaranteed hit chance against other AT guns but that obviously wasn't the point here.
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2267
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by kwok »

MarKr wrote:
21 Jan 2021, 00:10
Krieger Blitzer wrote:
20 Jan 2021, 22:44
Maybe not 200% but i'm pretty sure the value is pretty high.. there is nothing easier than hitting an AT gun using tanks, regardless of range or how big of a caliber the AT gun actually is... Which i think is very wrong (even if these ideas were never implemented) as i think AT guns should be harder to hit using tanks, not completely impossible to hit.. but definitely much harder than now.
Most tank guns have accuracy modifier against AT guns either x1 which normal, unmodified accuracy so usually 75% chance to hit at max range and not moving OR x0.5 which would make it around 37% chance to hit and even at closest range it is just 50%. How that makes it "nothing easier than hitting an AT gun using tanks" is beyong me.

AT guns usually have guaranteed hit chance against other AT guns but that obviously wasn't the point here.
I think it's the fact that it's a flat 75% and then with aim time of basically zero, they can walk up, stop, and shoot before the AT gun even gets a shot off.

I mean... it might also mean that maybe all tanks should get a slight aim time like their AT gun counter parts.....

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4236
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

Ya, the AT guns are SO easily sniped by tanks.. rarely missing AT guns, if ever at all. Hitting an AT gun using a tank is easier than hitting the Elefant...
2 shots, dead... Head to head with a tank.

i think tanks should suffer accuracy against AT guns (at least with AP rounds, HE rounds untouched) and Shrecks/Zookas vs AT guns also untouched.
AT gun 100% hit chance vs AT gun is also stupid... AT guns generally should be hard to hit, except with handheld AT weapons and infantry or arty.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2267
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by kwok »

But by how much? Gotta put a number in there.

What about aim time? If anything, I think the fact that the aim time is the bigger cause for it than accuracy. Why would a moving tank be able to aim and shoot faster than a static AT gun watching a tank come forward?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4300
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Warhawks97 »

Guys, the AT gun thing is a thing.

Just as a side note: The best weapon to counter AT guns is to use medium AT guns. They have xw modifier. Light and heavy AT guns suck vs other AT guns.


Also keep in mind that AT guns can survive one or two hits. So being hardet to hit would also mean that they would die by a hit and not tanking like 3 hits easily.

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4236
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

kwok wrote:
21 Jan 2021, 01:07
But by how much? Gotta put a number in there.

What about aim time? If anything, I think the fact that the aim time is the bigger cause for it than accuracy. Why would a moving tank be able to aim and shoot faster than a static AT gun watching a tank come forward?
Nah, the aim time for tanks is currently fine i guess.. adding more aim time would result in various ability delays before becoming active, not to mention the awkward situations where tanks would stop and aim until enemy moves out of range.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2267
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by kwok »

Wouldn't affect abilities. It's pure on the AP weapon itself. but yeah, the aimtime WOULD reset if an enemy moves out of range.

I mean that begs the question of why would AT guns need aim time then? because in the situation where AT guns get aim time (especialyl in older patches) the vehicle would literally be able to drive up and shoot HE shots to kill the AT gun. this was something i debated long long ago on why i think teardown time is BETTER than aim time because at least the goddamn AT gun would shoot.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by mofetagalactica »

I like how tanks behave in that mod, so im pretty ok with this idea, but implementing something like that with bk current doctrinal habilities( and maybe even changing some of it) its gonna take a good amount of work.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 550
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by CGarr »

Personally I wouldn't be against a gun range increase for tanks similar to EaW mod, but there's a pretty big catch that I think was left out. In EaW, tanks are much cheaper and come out much sooner. There are officer call-ins that bring a medium tank and multiple HT's with upgraded inf for like 1000 MP or less. This allows mediums with less range to be fielded in large enough numbers to ensure that heavies aren't an instant win button. Additionally, unlike in BK, you don't have to jump through the hoops of spending 50 muni every engagement on every one of your medium tanks to have a fair chance at penning a heavy the same way you do in BK. Most tanks in EaW can reliably pen eachother, the KT is probably the only exception to that rule. 76mm guns and similar sized axis guns are still a very significant threat even against late game armor with no extra investment, and 90mm guns consistently pen pretty much everything without having to activate special shells (again haven't tried against a KT). Similarly, 88mm's and long 75mm's pen with no issue. Additionally, all tanks do enough damage upon penning to 1-2 hit their targets in EaW, another thing BK would need for this to work well.

Firerate is generally the bigger issue, as it is not hard to swarm someone with 8+ tanks in EaW and you need to be prepared for that. For this reason, AT guns are extremely potent in EaW, and even medium-sized ones like the 57mm and 50mm are a threat to heavies. They have similarly long range, and generally 1-2 shot all targets, with only the medium AT guns needing special shells to damage heavy tanks. Additionally, they also fire extremely fast when compared to their BK counterparts, and can move while in camo. AT inf also have increased ranged, good pen against all targets, and high damage.

The determining factor in EaW games is generally a players ability to make fast, concentrated pushes and out-micro their opponent in terms of being able to pay attention to more parts of the map at once, or successfully fending off concentrated pushes. In BK, this definitely doesn't feel like the case, as you can often get completely screwed by one good unit even with good positioning on your part. You are generally forced to get a similarly expensive unit to counter theirs, leading to a pricing structure based pretty much entirely around unit strength. This type of pricing structure isn't necessarily bad, but it's a lot harder to balance than a system that attributes more value to unit versatility. You can get some extremely strong units in EaW for quite cheap, but they're heavily specialized and often very fragile. More versatile units like tanks cost more, even if they are similar in strength or weaker than those cheap specialists. This even applies to heavies, their price isn't sky high because their main contribution to a unit-comp is their range and resilience against some of the smaller guns on the battlefield (short 75mm's, 50mm's, etc). They aren't hard to kill if you have an AT specialist unit in range, but they generally stay well out of range of anything that isn't packing an equally massive gun. A range advantage is really good, but it's not nearly as much of a headache to counter, as you can often use the terrain to negate that advantage.

Contrast this with BK, where a heavy has similar range to other tanks, but is way better in pretty much every respect. A BK heavy can often only be killed by absurd levels of indirect fire, cheesy abilities like HEAT or the 37mm nuclear football, or something with an equally big gun. Using anything else against a heavy in BK is a massive gamble, as your chances of successfully killing it are quite low, but the heavy can pretty much instantly kill your unit. AT inf (excluding panzershrecks, which actually have reasonable pen) are generally not well rewarded for flanking a heavy, as the heavy will often just turn it's front armor towards them before the second volley can even fire. Even AT guns are a gamble in BK, as you are screwed if you get bad RNG with the first shot because it's performance heavily relies on the stupid ambush modifiers. Ambush should be a bonus, not a necessity.

My point in saying all this is that while I am not opposed to EaW-style tank combat, converting BK to that style of tank combat would require a ton of changes to every type of unit. I don't know if the devs would be willing to put in that much work for something that could be pretty polarizing, even if it is objectively more balanced than the mess we have now. Personally, I actually strongly prefer this approach over BK's, it isn't a race to get the biggest tank possible in EaW because the only real advantage those big tanks bring is long range and more 1-shots. Heavies are also much easier to get in EaW because they aren't as strong. They are treated like a normal unit instead of mighty tracked gods of the battlefield. This allows them to be a more common sight, which I personally find far more interesting from a gameplay perspective than the super-unit approach, as you can take advantage of all the interesting abilities unique to these units without having to skimp on everything else in terms of micro and resource investment. You're not completely screwed if you lose a heavy the same way you are in BK, you will still have multiple cheaper tools that can reliably kill anything the enemy player throws at you.

Necessities for this style of combat to work would include:
1. High base pen on pretty much every gun 50mm or bigger that isn't mean to be firing mainly HE.
2. Most tanks having about 70 range and decent accuracy in that range. Heavy guns (88mm, bigger Axis 75mm's, 90mm, 17 pdr) would have a range advantage of 20 or more over whatever that standard range is, for this example they'd have 90+ range.
3. HE range would be 50mm or lower for everything but the heavy assault gun tanks (Stuh, stupa, 105mm sherman).
4. Non-HE accuracy against AT guns with tanks would have to be really low at any range greater than 50.
5. Medium/heavy AT gun range would match the longest range tank gun the opposing side can field. AP would be free and unlocked through teching rather than individual investment, and the firerate would be far higher.
6. Ambush would only give accuracy buffs for tanks. Every other buff that ambush gives tanks currently would instead just be added to the base performance. Same for AT guns and AT inf.
7. AT inf would need to be able to 2 shot pretty much everything short of heavies and superheavies. The latter 2 groups would take 4 shots to kill.
8. AT weapons would probably need to be limited to 2 per squad, with non-elite squads (excluding AT specialists) only being able to carry 1.
9. Pretty much every tank, vehicle, and AT unit would need a new price. Tank and vehicle prices would generally be lowered, especially heavies.
10. A lot of tanks could become 0 CP or cost less total CP to get, as they would not longer equate to massive powerspikes due to the increased prevalence of reliable counters.

There's probably more, these are the ones I can think of currently. This is definitely a massive overhaul, so it's probably not going to happen unless an equally large chunk of the community pushes for it, and I seriously doubt they will.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 4300
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank cannons philosophy

Post by Warhawks97 »

From what i saw of EaW everything is different. A lot remained from vcoh (like where to build which unit) and build and tec costs. Also unit costs remain similiar to in vcoh, however a rifle squad are apparently 9 men there. The unit cost are a lot different in to some degree better as in bk.
Like why do i pay 360 MP for grens and 350 MP for and HMG but just 270 for an AT gun? Inf and inf support weapons are cheap which is cool. The 50 mm AT gun costs 310 MP and can ambush but has no AP. Like in vcoh. On top of that it moves a lot slower but shoots faster.

The tank costs are similiar as in BK, at least for US. 420 and 60 fuel for a 76 sherman for example and normal sherman 410/40. However a Jumbo costs only 450/80. Its as you say a specialized unit and thus cheap but effective in tanking enemie fire i guess.
But then again stugs are cheap with 340//50. But idk how good they are so... As it seems no ambush or AP rounds or anything. Tank IV costs also just 400/65 and Panther 600/85.
Also a lot of tanks are considered standard tanks without any CP requirment such 76 shermans, Tank IV H, Panthers and so on. Only special units like Jacks, Priest, Tigers and so on require CP´s.

Tank MG´s (also Top mounts) seem to be much weaker as well and AP rounds do not really exist at all.

Artillery can also fire for much lower cost.


Also Heavy AT guns are only available on mechanized Platforms or as emplacment (in certain doctrines) which i think isnt that bad. These guns weigth over 1 ton (pak 40) and even 4-5 tons (76 mm and 17 pdr or 88).


That just to mention a handfull of differences.


Its simply a different mod that has its pros and cons. What i dont like is the vet system being apparently still like in vcoh.


The few things that are good in EaW:

1. Inf and inf support weapons are cheap (mortars, HMG´s).
2. The standard Tanks for Axis is not the weird F2 version but instead the H. But in return its not a "Medium Tiger Tank" and 57 mm AT guns have good chances to get through. But with 400/65 its cheaper than a 76 sherman. Also Panther being more a Cheaper Standard Tank instead of a late game Elite Tank doesnt seem wrong to me. In BK its sad that it is a unit that is treated like an super Elite Tank and too many games are being won just because of Panthers and its stats rather than player skill.
3. Heavy AT guns are available only on Mechanized units like Geschützwagen (Marder) and basically M10/Stug. Others only exist as emplaced versions as it seems
4. The unit distribution in buildings. In Particular WH is more appealing to me. Having two Tank factories (one for heavies, one for mediums) is just weird. Neither US, nor CW has it although they have their own heavy stuff.
I Like how the third building is called "Sturm Armory" and has Rocket Launchers, Geschützwagen, Stugs, Pumas. Its simply heavy equipment designed for the assault. Meanwhile the Tank factory builds Tanks like Tank IV H, AA Tanks, Panther, KT.
5. Every Sherman and TD has white phosphoreus rounds. Thats great. It was widely used on US Tanks and gave them a nice tactical option on the field.



Adding longer Tank ranges probably wouldnt require such a massive tank cost overhaul since the cost seem to be quite similiar. Exception are Tank IV H and Jumbo from what i saw.


The fact that medium AT guns can harm heavies is probably a remnant from vcoh bc AT guns seem to be left untouched in terms of cost and abilties.


Increasing gun ranges sounds great and would probably help to adjust ranges better (Brackets, Accuracy, Pen). But the great question would still remain: Who benefits by how much of it?


I mean as of right now we have tanks with 70 basic range and 80 when going stationary and somehow we got it working i would say.

Post Reply