Weapons; Axis vs Axis\Allies vs Allies.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I have noticed that if u ever grab or probably capture an Allies weapon such as the 37mm AT gun for example.. or actually an Axis weapon on the other hand such as the 50mm Pak again just as an example; it would be usually acting so weirdly... While greatly over performing sometimes but simply underestimated also through other times.

Like when to see an Axis 50mm Pak often one hitting a full HP Tiger Ace, or an Allies 37mm AT gun somehow dealing damage frontally to a Jumbo!!!
So what's going on I wonder???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu7YGWDMvJg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVYl_gXshuA

[Warhawks97]

generally axis weapons in allied hands get nerfed. mainly schreck becomes massively weaker in allied hands. In fact the schreck pen vs tank IV isnt better as a zook vs tank IV and even worse as an M6A3C zook. Only damage keeps.

Also the 50 mm axis pak is very strong against axis tanks. But an axis Pak 40 gets weaker in allied hands.


pretty weird stuff.

[kwok]

Strategically speaking, stolen goods is better than homemade.

[Butterkeks]

Strategically speaking, stolen goods is better than homemade.

Or actually not...

But an axis Pak 40 gets weaker in allied hands.

But yeah, this seems really pretty weird. What if axis capture allies weapons? (Yeah... as if somebody would do that... )

[kwok]

Why wouldn't stealing your opponent's be better than spending your own resources to make the same thing? If you make your own, then you spend your own effort. When you steal another's you save your own effort and deprive your opponent of the stolen good. I'll steal almost anything if the amount spent to stealing is less than the stolen good itself.

[Butterkeks]

Well it depends.

I could steal a Pak40, which is worse when allies stole it. Or I build my own 76mm which is then better.

Of course you spend more MP. Way more MP. But if the stolen good fails in the wrong moment, my whole defense line will break.
That's just a way to high risk for me

That's why I would not steal a pak40.But I would always steal Schrecks, Mg42, Mg34, Stg44 and Mp40.

[kwok]

Why would stealing a pak40 stop you from building a 76? Unless you're pressed for manpower and time so much that have to choose reinforcing a squad that was used to steal the pak40 and building a 76. But in that case, that's a scenario where opportunity cost (which counts as a cost) exceeds benefit.
But, anyways, even still it's not a fair example of what I'm trying to say. I'm saying stealing your enemy's nickel (5) is better than taking from your own wallet. But, in your example it's a choice between stealing your enemy's nickel or taking a dime (10) from your own wallet.
The situation I think of is building a 37mm AT gun vs stealing a Pak40. I'll take the Pak40 because the two are functionally the same (even if they have number differences, chances are they both one-shot bikes/jeeps, two-shot larger cars, and cannot pen tanks reliably).

But, I think the topic here is saying that the two are NOT functionally the same when ideally they should be. My suggestion to this is it should be stolen on principle rather than gambling for the abnormalities.

[Butterkeks]

Why would stealing a pak40 stop you from building a 76?

It doesn't prevent me. I'm just saying that I don't have to build a 76mm once I stole a Pak40. But as the Pak40 get's worse when allies are holding it, I'd prefer to invest that MP in a 76mm than saving it and getting a pak for free.
So talking about opportunity costs, I have the choice between saving 330 MP or saving that MP, but having a worse Pak. As I'd prefer to have a more reliable Pak, the opportunity costs of stealing the pak40 is just too high for me.

But yeah, this is just how I would do it, this is different from person to person.

The situation I think of is building a 37mm AT gun vs stealing a Pak40. I'll take the Pak40 because the two are functionally the same (even if they have number differences, chances are they both one-shot bikes/jeeps, two-shot larger cars, and cannot pen tanks reliably).

Thats a bit an extreme example

[Warhawks97]

I gotta make an example.

The Pak 40 is better (not seldomly twice better) vs shermans, jumbo, pershings etc as the 76 gun is in hands of axis. So you would think that the Pak 40 is always superior against every enemie armor. But suddenly in hands of allied the US76 pak is better against axis armor as a pak 40 in allied hands. And same goes for schrecks. The schreck in axis hands is very good in penetrating any kind of armor but in allied hands it becomes worth as the M6A3C regarding penetration. Regarding paks you could think it vice versa. But the allied paks keep more similiar regarding penetration when in axis hands as axis in allied hands. The 76 gun is vs tiger a bit better as vs pershing. The Pak 40 is massively better vs pershing as vs Tiger. vs Stug the 76 is more than 100% better as pak 40 which suddenly becomes as worse as 57 mm pak. Whereas the 76 in allied hands are pretty equal vs shermans as the pak 40 is. The 76 in allied hands becomes also much better vs churchills as the pak 40 even.

so the penetration with "stolen things" doesnt really work properly. But generally axis can go well with allied weapons. Next sample is jumbo: The axis are better with US 76 gun vs jumbo as with pak 40.


So the point is: Most of the time a weapon is better just because its used by axis. Even allied weapons not seldomly get better in axis hands whereas axis weapons usually suffer a lot in allied hands.

So hows that possible? Superior axis Genetic soldiers again?


I think allied in axis hands get their more realistic penetration power while in allied hands they get weaker as the axis one. Regarding the 76 gun it had better penetration as axis pak 40 but in game thats only the case when axis use them. Apparently allieds arent smart enough to use their own weapons at maximum efficency because they are all dumb farmboys. (i havent checked brits yet)

This is what is weird actually (and which almost pisses me again).

[Butterkeks]

Did you check that in corsix hawks?
Or are you "just" assuming it, or tried it out?

Well if we not look at gameplay/balance this would in fact make a bit sense. As the Wehrmacht always suffered a lot from material shortage, it was common practice to use captured allied weapons against them (Hotchkiss is a good ingame example). Especially on the Eastern Front the Wehrmacht used a lot of russian tanks, paks and howitzers.
Whereas allied soldiers didn't do this so often. In most cases, if the chief had nothing against it, allies would swap their small arms with their german counterparts as they were indeed mostly better. But the "bigger" guns or tanks weren't used that often.
So you could say that the Axis are more "trained" to use the enemy equipment whereas allies were not. So yeah, it makes a bit of sense.
But as mentioned, only if we do not look at gameplay/balance.

[Warhawks97]

First a mate told me that like one or two years ago. I made some tests and also tested in normal pvp conditions. And right now i checked it for myself.

so you mean axis can handle US 76 mm SOO much better as the US guys coz they wre "used" to use captured weapons? oO

[kwok]

Oh wait. Which is the Pak40? Is it the big one from the t2 building or the HQ?

[Warhawks97]

Oh wait. Which is the Pak40? Is it the big one from the t2 building or the HQ?

yes, the biggest axis standard pak in all docs (75 mm) (def doc has also a 88 mm pak 43).

Pak 36 is 37 mm.
Pak 38 is 50 mm.
pak 40 is 75 mm.

[Butterkeks]

so you mean axis can handle US 76 mm SOO much better as the US guys coz they wre "used" to use captured weapons? oO

Wait, 76mm captured by Axis get's better as when it's crewed with Allied soldiers?
What?

[Warhawks97]

so you mean axis can handle US 76 mm SOO much better as the US guys coz they wre "used" to use captured weapons? oO

Wait, 76mm captured by Axis get's better as when it's crewed with Allied soldiers?
What?

more or less.

How to explain... The US 76 gets quite effective in hands of axis. Better actually against everything except pershing. But the Pk40 in allied hand is just as good as a 57 mm. But when the pak 40 isnt better than the 57 mm why is it then so effective in axis hands against most allied armor? The other way arround would be: When US 76 is that much better as pak 40 (in axis hands) why so worse in US hands?

Sample:

the US 76 in axis hands is a way better vs jumbo as Pak 40. The jumbo is with armor actually just as good as tiger as it is slopped (if not better as Tiger). That would mean that US 76 would be as good or better vs Tiger as against Jumbo. But when used vs tiger then its just as good as axis pk 40 is against a jumbo.

Or against a churchill MK VII (152 mm armor!!) the 76 mm is much better as it is against a Tiger! But how can it be?

I think the US pak gets in axis hands just as effective as it would/should be but in allied hands it drops below it capabilities.

Pretty weird all that.

I wont give a gurantee on that but thats how it seems.

[Butterkeks]

Well in that case I misunderstood you^^

Yeah this seems pretty weird.

[ShadowIchigo]

generally axis weapons in allied hands get nerfed. mainly schreck becomes massively weaker in allied hands. In fact the schreck pen vs tank IV isnt better as a zook vs tank IV and even worse as an M6A3C zook. Only damage keeps.

Also the 50 mm axis pak is very strong against axis tanks. But an axis Pak 40 gets weaker in allied hands.


pretty weird stuff.

Just a thought; i think this has to do with the stats of axis weapons vs axis units being different vs axis weapons vs allied units and same thing with allied weapons vs allied units. Did u manage to check this in corsix Oli?

[ShadowIchigo]

so you mean axis can handle US 76 mm SOO much better as the US guys coz they wre "used" to use captured weapons? oO

Wait, 76mm captured by Axis get's better as when it's crewed with Allied soldiers?
What?

Lol i think someone^ is gonna start focusing on stealing allied at now ;)