Say, is anyone bugged that this is sounding like the argument with the King Tiger?
I mean, sure, the Pershing could use a bit of help, but at the same time, isn't it a unit that definitely works well as part of a group rather than on its own? To me the role of the Pershing is to aggressively keep a safe zone for your army against enemy tanks with a gun that's more effective than the 76mm, but is it a good idea to rely solely on it, like people wanted to do with the King Tiger?
If it's getting destroyed by enemy handheld AT weapons, should there be a unit effective against them that can protect the Pershing or should the Pershing be able to protect itself from infantry and become a supreme multirole tank?
Some people want a cheaper King Tiger because there's a few doctrine abilities that can counter it. People want a cheaper Pershing because it can't counter infantry. Granted, the Pershing's problems are more prevalent, to the point it might really need a bit of an armor buff, but... when talking of the problem of both tanks, are we talking of the tank as a single unit, or the tank as a unit that works in a combined arms situation?
Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
So what is the Pershing's role? My suggestions are putting it into a more versatile, multi-purpose role. That's what i think would be cool for the doc. What i would like. My opinion. But even if someone disagree, only other role i can think of is AT. That's what it is now basically, powerful 90mm cannon. Problem is that it costs 830/160. In comparison, Panther G costs 850/150, A 770/140 and finally D 680/110. Most close to Pershing is D version. No top MG makes it inferior to other panthers in AI role, yet still much better than Pershing, better armor and better mobility. And it's so much cheaper.
Armacalic:
Handheld AT is just most common, since axis has so much of it usually. Pershing can be destroyed by countless ways. Any AT cannon starting from 75mm l/48 which most of axis vehicle possess, rocket arty (plenty for axis), standard arty, planes, stielgranate, you name it....
Of course that if you send ANY tank without a support, you can expect bad things to happen. But Pershing has close to zero AI capabilities. If you sit volksgrens behind a green cover, they won't die until 90mm does headshot every single member one after one with AP shell.
Armacalic:
Handheld AT is just most common, since axis has so much of it usually. Pershing can be destroyed by countless ways. Any AT cannon starting from 75mm l/48 which most of axis vehicle possess, rocket arty (plenty for axis), standard arty, planes, stielgranate, you name it....
Of course that if you send ANY tank without a support, you can expect bad things to happen. But Pershing has close to zero AI capabilities. If you sit volksgrens behind a green cover, they won't die until 90mm does headshot every single member one after one with AP shell.
"Only by admitting what we are can we get what we want"
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
I was not able to read the last 4 points so i will answer to what i have read till now:
Jumbo:
I wouldnt make Jumbo cheaper. As the axis L/48 standardisation is probably coming up the Jumbo might become more resistant to certain enemie guns (more resistant against pak 40, Marder III, Geschützwagen and maybe Panzer IV H/J). It might be that the current Hetzer stats against pershings will be used for all L/48 gun. So in this regard the jumbo might become more usefull to break through axis standard defenses and maybe also swapped with calli, we will see. So i wouldnt make suggestions on jumbo prices atm.
Luft Pios:
The Luft pios are also not sure yet. Maybe there will be a unit being build after choosing Luft doc and one drop ability after unlock. Maybe they become a call in. In case they can be build in buildings or being a call in instead of airdrop the cost might got down by a lot.
PE mortar HT:
I wouldnt add smoke to the PE mortar HT. I know they lack the ability but meanwhile the PE mortar HT is the cheapest, earliest available one that would have three abilties of which one is even the flame round. Would be kinda too much for that price tag to add smoke here.
Tank Traps:
I wouldnt mind making tank traps cheaper and i would also not mind making them with less HP. We shouldnt compare doctrinal roadblock with CP unlock with normal tank traps. I would rather add some small MP cost for the roadblocks. They blocking any movment (not just tanks and vehicles) but also require two satchels if i am not mistaken.
105 sherman:
The sherman, being the worst SPG, could be placed at arround 480 MP and 55 fuel. This costting less MP as wespe but more fuel as those. But it simply is far the worst spg in every aspect.
88 barrage
88 barrage is currently where? 40 or 45 ammo? thats ok. Again the cost depend on calibre and thus on the damage being dealed. We cant put the cost a high as those of a 105 barrage. And when the weapon is more versatile than a normal howitzer than their build cost need to stay higher, not their barrage cost.
HMG 42 vs jeeps:
Not just the HMG 42 is bad vs jeep.
The jeep and schwimm are both way too durable. The Schwimm (and jeeps) takes way more damage from allied HMG as from axis HMG. The schwimm rapes any US inf behind cover from distance, jeep does not, jeep usually wins vs schwimm taking less damage from those.
Both need fixing i would say. Both taking way too less damage from inf with rifles.
Aces:
About aces i would say their greatest pro is the fact they dont cost fuel and the payed MP do include a vet commander (vet commander boosts are just as important, if not more, as the normal tank vets). I mean a normal persh with commander cost 1170 MP and lots of fuel. A ace is just 280 MP more expensive and cost not fuel at all. For Axis the ace afterall has vet commander and vet 1.
Thing with aces is, that players do not really need to maintain a controle about important fuel points or anything. As MP income never vanishs completely its possible to just sit in base and wait for the MP. And then, in case they get too much boosts (vet) it also becomes a kind of no-brainer. No skill required to keep controle over points or at least only up to the time you have reached max tier. Also no skill required to get vets.
Especially in teamfights its not that hard then to have one player that just sits there on his ass untill able to call an ace. In my first clan we also had such an "ace guy". He never did anything except leaving us alone in mid game calling the ace as finisher. It was successfull as teamstrategy, even too successfull to win a game with such a tactic where one guy does nothing smart except waiting for ace (Tiger, church, persh).
So personally i do think aces to have advantages simply as they cost no fuel and as they have vets already at default. I wouldnt mind removing storms from it if you want but dont forget they spawn instantly with stg if i am correct and are generally much cheaper as getting them in a normal way. But even if they would be removed i wouldnt make the ace cheaper as 1550 MP.
Pershing:
Talking about pershings in general i also see them as worst unit available in armor doc. A bunch of shermans supported by TD´s always perform better as singlr Pershings. If they are alone you can kill them both with some AT inf in a single rush. I am used to have two TH doc AT squads (or WH squads+ storm squad) with faust to frontal rush and kill two pershings that had no support.
Also they dont really perform better i as shermans vs Tigers lmao. In a normal fight vs tiger in comparable vet the pershing gonna lose usually unless its extremly lucky.
If both use basic rounds the Persh loses for sure.
I always did better with 76 shermans and TD´s. The reason is you have more so you got more guns shooting the tiger, the cost are shared over many units and those can (in a group of like 3) defend and survive enemie infantry attacks better.
I gave up early using pershings. Besides their armor value isnt that much better as those of jacksons. Nobody would ever belive that the persh had actually a pretty thick frontal armor if he would see that tank in BK.
But i think the largest part of the community would clearly prefer better performing pershings in exchange for a removed SP.
Pershings role:
And yes, the Pershings works only when being grouped up with shermans/scotts. Alone (or even two of them) without any support they are just easy "happy meal" for axis inf. Only pershings cant do a shit. What they can is, as armacalic pointed out, to keep up a "save zone" arround your forces. They shouldnt start any engagment with an axis tank by its own. They just join the battle and finish axis tanks off or prevent that those easily rush through allied lines. But in any case the player should make sure that the pershings makes the first good shot before the axis tank does.
What i would actually expect from a pershing is to be a mix of Jacks firepower with armor that is.... better as it is now but not as good vs Jumbo. Thing is its hard to say how good their armor is, mainly due to the many random performences of axis L/48 guns.
So maybe the Persh would get kind of automatic buff with L/48 readjustments.
The Jumbo 76 would be a well armored tank that stands any gunfire from L/48 guns very well, able to beat mediums and some efficency vs infantry. The Persh more a tank that is very resistant to L/48 gunfire but also some tiger gunfire combined with a capable 90 mm gun. Though its armor and weaponary shouldnt provide a protection against infantry like Panther or other axis armor does. Means you get good armor and good anti tank gun but bad anti infantry performence. For the price tag i would say its justified since we can it compare with Panther D so far.
Also its not that armor doc is anyhow bad vs axis inf. I would even say that armor doc is the best doc to counter axis inf. So the Persh doesnt need any superior performence vs infantry and could simply be a tank that can be used more aggressively vs axis late game tanks (unlike the TD´s which are more passively waiting in ambushes.
Jumbo:
I wouldnt make Jumbo cheaper. As the axis L/48 standardisation is probably coming up the Jumbo might become more resistant to certain enemie guns (more resistant against pak 40, Marder III, Geschützwagen and maybe Panzer IV H/J). It might be that the current Hetzer stats against pershings will be used for all L/48 gun. So in this regard the jumbo might become more usefull to break through axis standard defenses and maybe also swapped with calli, we will see. So i wouldnt make suggestions on jumbo prices atm.
Luft Pios:
The Luft pios are also not sure yet. Maybe there will be a unit being build after choosing Luft doc and one drop ability after unlock. Maybe they become a call in. In case they can be build in buildings or being a call in instead of airdrop the cost might got down by a lot.
PE mortar HT:
I wouldnt add smoke to the PE mortar HT. I know they lack the ability but meanwhile the PE mortar HT is the cheapest, earliest available one that would have three abilties of which one is even the flame round. Would be kinda too much for that price tag to add smoke here.
Tank Traps:
I wouldnt mind making tank traps cheaper and i would also not mind making them with less HP. We shouldnt compare doctrinal roadblock with CP unlock with normal tank traps. I would rather add some small MP cost for the roadblocks. They blocking any movment (not just tanks and vehicles) but also require two satchels if i am not mistaken.
105 sherman:
The sherman, being the worst SPG, could be placed at arround 480 MP and 55 fuel. This costting less MP as wespe but more fuel as those. But it simply is far the worst spg in every aspect.
88 barrage
88 barrage is currently where? 40 or 45 ammo? thats ok. Again the cost depend on calibre and thus on the damage being dealed. We cant put the cost a high as those of a 105 barrage. And when the weapon is more versatile than a normal howitzer than their build cost need to stay higher, not their barrage cost.
HMG 42 vs jeeps:
Not just the HMG 42 is bad vs jeep.
The jeep and schwimm are both way too durable. The Schwimm (and jeeps) takes way more damage from allied HMG as from axis HMG. The schwimm rapes any US inf behind cover from distance, jeep does not, jeep usually wins vs schwimm taking less damage from those.
Both need fixing i would say. Both taking way too less damage from inf with rifles.
Aces:
About aces i would say their greatest pro is the fact they dont cost fuel and the payed MP do include a vet commander (vet commander boosts are just as important, if not more, as the normal tank vets). I mean a normal persh with commander cost 1170 MP and lots of fuel. A ace is just 280 MP more expensive and cost not fuel at all. For Axis the ace afterall has vet commander and vet 1.
Thing with aces is, that players do not really need to maintain a controle about important fuel points or anything. As MP income never vanishs completely its possible to just sit in base and wait for the MP. And then, in case they get too much boosts (vet) it also becomes a kind of no-brainer. No skill required to keep controle over points or at least only up to the time you have reached max tier. Also no skill required to get vets.
Especially in teamfights its not that hard then to have one player that just sits there on his ass untill able to call an ace. In my first clan we also had such an "ace guy". He never did anything except leaving us alone in mid game calling the ace as finisher. It was successfull as teamstrategy, even too successfull to win a game with such a tactic where one guy does nothing smart except waiting for ace (Tiger, church, persh).
So personally i do think aces to have advantages simply as they cost no fuel and as they have vets already at default. I wouldnt mind removing storms from it if you want but dont forget they spawn instantly with stg if i am correct and are generally much cheaper as getting them in a normal way. But even if they would be removed i wouldnt make the ace cheaper as 1550 MP.
Pershing:
Talking about pershings in general i also see them as worst unit available in armor doc. A bunch of shermans supported by TD´s always perform better as singlr Pershings. If they are alone you can kill them both with some AT inf in a single rush. I am used to have two TH doc AT squads (or WH squads+ storm squad) with faust to frontal rush and kill two pershings that had no support.
Also they dont really perform better i as shermans vs Tigers lmao. In a normal fight vs tiger in comparable vet the pershing gonna lose usually unless its extremly lucky.
If both use basic rounds the Persh loses for sure.
I always did better with 76 shermans and TD´s. The reason is you have more so you got more guns shooting the tiger, the cost are shared over many units and those can (in a group of like 3) defend and survive enemie infantry attacks better.
I gave up early using pershings. Besides their armor value isnt that much better as those of jacksons. Nobody would ever belive that the persh had actually a pretty thick frontal armor if he would see that tank in BK.
But i think the largest part of the community would clearly prefer better performing pershings in exchange for a removed SP.
Pershings role:
And yes, the Pershings works only when being grouped up with shermans/scotts. Alone (or even two of them) without any support they are just easy "happy meal" for axis inf. Only pershings cant do a shit. What they can is, as armacalic pointed out, to keep up a "save zone" arround your forces. They shouldnt start any engagment with an axis tank by its own. They just join the battle and finish axis tanks off or prevent that those easily rush through allied lines. But in any case the player should make sure that the pershings makes the first good shot before the axis tank does.
What i would actually expect from a pershing is to be a mix of Jacks firepower with armor that is.... better as it is now but not as good vs Jumbo. Thing is its hard to say how good their armor is, mainly due to the many random performences of axis L/48 guns.
So maybe the Persh would get kind of automatic buff with L/48 readjustments.
The Jumbo 76 would be a well armored tank that stands any gunfire from L/48 guns very well, able to beat mediums and some efficency vs infantry. The Persh more a tank that is very resistant to L/48 gunfire but also some tiger gunfire combined with a capable 90 mm gun. Though its armor and weaponary shouldnt provide a protection against infantry like Panther or other axis armor does. Means you get good armor and good anti tank gun but bad anti infantry performence. For the price tag i would say its justified since we can it compare with Panther D so far.
Also its not that armor doc is anyhow bad vs axis inf. I would even say that armor doc is the best doc to counter axis inf. So the Persh doesnt need any superior performence vs infantry and could simply be a tank that can be used more aggressively vs axis late game tanks (unlike the TD´s which are more passively waiting in ambushes.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Warhawks97 wrote:For the price tag i would say its justified since we can it compare with Panther D so far.
What do you mean? Panther D costs 680/110, Pershing 830/160, that's roughly 45% more fuel. It even costs 10 more fuel than Panther G.
Currently, Pershing can have a role similar to Firefly, stick around in the second line a protect other forces against aggressive big cats, waiting for them to waste shot on inf and then rushing forward and hope it doesn't miss, of course only if other forces took care of axis schreck inf. It has but one flaw compared to FIrefly, it costs twice the fuel and 50% more MP....
"Only by admitting what we are can we get what we want"
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Sure, but we shouldnt make things equal.
You have to consider that armor doc gets pretty cheap shermans unlike luft where Panther D is placed.
Also factions mean to be different. As US you can get large armies without suffering any larger MP income reduction.
For the Axis the Panther is one of the most important units. So it somehow need a better cost efficency as Persh. And while you can have an ammount of shermans arround the income keeps pretty high when supply yard is upgraded. Its the skill of US player not to lose too much in early-mid game, to upgrade supply yard and getting even more units.
So if we would say the Persh would bounce approx the ammount of axis 75 mm L/48 guns as Panther bounces US 76 mm shots while having at the same time a gun that deals enough damage to oneshot any axis medium tank + the cheap shermans arround the persh and the advantage of the supply yard then i would say the persh do not have to be the "allied panther" with same cost and performence. For the armor doc it would be enough if the pershing would bounce like 80% of axis 75 mm L/48 rounds thus allowing to hunt and finish axis heavier tanks (and medium Panthers) more effectively as TD´s and fireflies which die quickly to 50 mm rounds.
To keep inf at distant you have scotts and shermans arround due to their cheap cost and supply yard.
So it really dont have to be the allied Panther. Unlike the Panther the Persh isnt and shouldnt be the armor docs core unit. So better armor+ its current decent gun should be enough i think even when costing more as a Panther.
And, just in case, you can get them replaced by allied war machinery.
You have to consider that armor doc gets pretty cheap shermans unlike luft where Panther D is placed.
Also factions mean to be different. As US you can get large armies without suffering any larger MP income reduction.
For the Axis the Panther is one of the most important units. So it somehow need a better cost efficency as Persh. And while you can have an ammount of shermans arround the income keeps pretty high when supply yard is upgraded. Its the skill of US player not to lose too much in early-mid game, to upgrade supply yard and getting even more units.
So if we would say the Persh would bounce approx the ammount of axis 75 mm L/48 guns as Panther bounces US 76 mm shots while having at the same time a gun that deals enough damage to oneshot any axis medium tank + the cheap shermans arround the persh and the advantage of the supply yard then i would say the persh do not have to be the "allied panther" with same cost and performence. For the armor doc it would be enough if the pershing would bounce like 80% of axis 75 mm L/48 rounds thus allowing to hunt and finish axis heavier tanks (and medium Panthers) more effectively as TD´s and fireflies which die quickly to 50 mm rounds.
To keep inf at distant you have scotts and shermans arround due to their cheap cost and supply yard.
So it really dont have to be the allied Panther. Unlike the Panther the Persh isnt and shouldnt be the armor docs core unit. So better armor+ its current decent gun should be enough i think even when costing more as a Panther.
And, just in case, you can get them replaced by allied war machinery.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
I think that the Pershing should be buffed somehow, namely with increased armor (in reality it had 102mm frontal armor, the same as the Jumbo), and increased anti-infantry capability. For this, we can look at the Super Pershing, which is actually REALLY good vs infantry, almost as good as the 76 Jumbo. The majority of this is due to the Super Pershing having a top 50 cal. However, I noticed that the Super Pershing's two 30 cal MGs are different from the 30 cal MGs of all other allied tanks. The Super Pershing's 30 cals have a different firing sound and do a lot more damage.
Since there is no model of a normal Pershing with a 50 cal on it, the best we can do is to increase the effectiveness of its MGs. Or we could give it an extremely deadly (and accurate) HE round or even timed HE mode. Otherwise, it's not really worth its cost of 830/160 when compared to other US tanks and its axis counterparts.
The bottom line for the current Pershing is that it is more expensive and loses to most of the tanks that it was designed to destroy.
Let's compare heavy tanks and see, based on price, who should probably win given equal settings.
Pershing vs Tiger E from Terror Doc? The Tiger actually costs more, at 950/165, so this Tiger should probably win.
Pershing vs Tiger E "Late Version" from Blitzkrieg doc? This Tiger also costs more, at 975/170. I would give this fight to the Tiger.
Pershing vs Koenigstiger? Koenigs costs much more, easy victory.
Pershing vs Jagdpanther? The JP is a tank destroyer, so yes, it wins.
Pershing vs Jagdtiger? Same as above.
Pershing vs Elefant? Same as above.
Pershing vs Panther G from Terror? This Panther costs 850/150, but the Pershing should probably win.
Pershing vs Panther A from Blitz? This one costs 770/140, Pershing costs more so it should definitely win.
Pershing vs Panther D from Luftwaffe? Same as above, though this Panther only costs 680/110!
Currently, the Pershing will likely lose against every tank I just mentioned, but if we change it so that it wins vs Panthers, it still actually shows that the Pershing probably can't do much more. I guess this just highlights the role of the Super Pershing, as that is one tank that truly strikes fear into the heart of Axis players, and can penetrate every axis tank I think. I know the SP usually wins a 1v1 vs the Koenigstiger, even to the point where my Koenigs shells have bounced off of an SP, and the SP's single shot did half damage.
Since there is no model of a normal Pershing with a 50 cal on it, the best we can do is to increase the effectiveness of its MGs. Or we could give it an extremely deadly (and accurate) HE round or even timed HE mode. Otherwise, it's not really worth its cost of 830/160 when compared to other US tanks and its axis counterparts.
The bottom line for the current Pershing is that it is more expensive and loses to most of the tanks that it was designed to destroy.
Let's compare heavy tanks and see, based on price, who should probably win given equal settings.
Pershing vs Tiger E from Terror Doc? The Tiger actually costs more, at 950/165, so this Tiger should probably win.
Pershing vs Tiger E "Late Version" from Blitzkrieg doc? This Tiger also costs more, at 975/170. I would give this fight to the Tiger.
Pershing vs Koenigstiger? Koenigs costs much more, easy victory.
Pershing vs Jagdpanther? The JP is a tank destroyer, so yes, it wins.
Pershing vs Jagdtiger? Same as above.
Pershing vs Elefant? Same as above.
Pershing vs Panther G from Terror? This Panther costs 850/150, but the Pershing should probably win.
Pershing vs Panther A from Blitz? This one costs 770/140, Pershing costs more so it should definitely win.
Pershing vs Panther D from Luftwaffe? Same as above, though this Panther only costs 680/110!
Currently, the Pershing will likely lose against every tank I just mentioned, but if we change it so that it wins vs Panthers, it still actually shows that the Pershing probably can't do much more. I guess this just highlights the role of the Super Pershing, as that is one tank that truly strikes fear into the heart of Axis players, and can penetrate every axis tank I think. I know the SP usually wins a 1v1 vs the Koenigstiger, even to the point where my Koenigs shells have bounced off of an SP, and the SP's single shot did half damage.
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
I agree that the SP is so far the only tank that can scare axis heavy tanks (i mean offensively engaging those).
Anyway, as i said we shouldnt make things equal. Nobody gets tanks as cheap as the shermans+ having the late game supply yard advantage which enables you to keep lots of TD´s in reserve by also having shermans.
So that has to keep in mind. Also cost of units depend on the time they become available in a game.
And again, the Pershing should not become a panther equvivalent and it should not become the core unit, not even in the very late game.
But if you buff armor, gun, anti inf power and making it powerfull enough to to easily stand Panthers in 1 vs 1, if not making it superior, what would be the reason to get shermans in late game? The purpose of supply yard (which is exactly there to field more units at the same time) if you play with just one or two tanks? The factions would become way to equal.
I dont want to question that persh is currently crap and causes more losses as victories but we really dont need an alli panther.
Also the MG sound is different? doesnt matter, the coaxial MG´s are worse and i couldnt find a single one (except those of PE skdfz 222 with 20 mm) that performs significantly better as the average. It might be that it uses some kind of CW coaxial (just like the stuart) which might be slightly better as the US one (if we compare all the crap coaxial weapons, then the US coaxial and hull are still by far the crapiest of all coaxial and hulls in game). I made a list of actually all coaxial and hull MG´s used in game a few weeks ago. Just i didnt check the coaxial and hull of doctrinal call in tanks. But still there is no real difference between coaxial MG´s and i doubt it uses an axis coaxial.
So, reflecting its supposed role in armor doc and allied forces in general, it could become good enough if the armor would be more effective. As an allied (and in particular US) late game there is simply no need to make it also super deadly vs inf or to give it the price tag of a Panther.
With its current cost i would be absolutely fine to be able to use pershings more aggressively to chase them even when they might be backed by some average paks and stuff. And that would make pershings significantly different from normal jacks and fireflies.
But as i said, we dont need an allied panther.
I mean i do see pershings being covered by shermans (that become more and more) but i hardly see panthers being backed by several stubby HE tanks and other tanks or vehicles.
Anyway, as i said we shouldnt make things equal. Nobody gets tanks as cheap as the shermans+ having the late game supply yard advantage which enables you to keep lots of TD´s in reserve by also having shermans.
So that has to keep in mind. Also cost of units depend on the time they become available in a game.
And again, the Pershing should not become a panther equvivalent and it should not become the core unit, not even in the very late game.
But if you buff armor, gun, anti inf power and making it powerfull enough to to easily stand Panthers in 1 vs 1, if not making it superior, what would be the reason to get shermans in late game? The purpose of supply yard (which is exactly there to field more units at the same time) if you play with just one or two tanks? The factions would become way to equal.
I dont want to question that persh is currently crap and causes more losses as victories but we really dont need an alli panther.
Also the MG sound is different? doesnt matter, the coaxial MG´s are worse and i couldnt find a single one (except those of PE skdfz 222 with 20 mm) that performs significantly better as the average. It might be that it uses some kind of CW coaxial (just like the stuart) which might be slightly better as the US one (if we compare all the crap coaxial weapons, then the US coaxial and hull are still by far the crapiest of all coaxial and hulls in game). I made a list of actually all coaxial and hull MG´s used in game a few weeks ago. Just i didnt check the coaxial and hull of doctrinal call in tanks. But still there is no real difference between coaxial MG´s and i doubt it uses an axis coaxial.
So, reflecting its supposed role in armor doc and allied forces in general, it could become good enough if the armor would be more effective. As an allied (and in particular US) late game there is simply no need to make it also super deadly vs inf or to give it the price tag of a Panther.
With its current cost i would be absolutely fine to be able to use pershings more aggressively to chase them even when they might be backed by some average paks and stuff. And that would make pershings significantly different from normal jacks and fireflies.
But as i said, we dont need an allied panther.
I mean i do see pershings being covered by shermans (that become more and more) but i hardly see panthers being backed by several stubby HE tanks and other tanks or vehicles.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 21 Jan 2016, 22:28, edited 1 time in total.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
The term you are looking for is assymetry, which I think is often forgotten.
And you make really important mentions to flows of the game Warhawks. I think Warhawks and to a limited extent sukin are the only ones, if not the best ones, who really take this into account when making balance suggestions. I might not agree with warhawk's suggestions, but I definitely am with him on what his idea is the "current state" of the game.
And you make really important mentions to flows of the game Warhawks. I think Warhawks and to a limited extent sukin are the only ones, if not the best ones, who really take this into account when making balance suggestions. I might not agree with warhawk's suggestions, but I definitely am with him on what his idea is the "current state" of the game.
Last edited by kwok on 21 Jan 2016, 22:05, edited 1 time in total.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
i think warhawk can just jump so freely now because tiger is not here anymore
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Yes because clearly he was limited to just two walls of text when tiger was around instead of three. Is it worth insisting that the forum is just warhawks vs tiger? Or do people value their own opinions so little that they need to create bipartisanship to give themselves confidence?
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
-
Sukin-kot (SVT)
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
- Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
About Pershings Hawks is absolutely right, you made the same mistake as so many other players - comparing just a few units with each other. It is true that Panthers usually are lonely on the field, when Pershs are backed with TD's Quad Cals, HE tanks and other stuff. So... when you are discussing about balance, think in scale, never forget to take side things into account, such as supply yard, Command Car (with which btw Pershing can kick ass of panthers and tigers relatively easy) and etc.
Oh yeah, we all miss his ''I want this changes!!!!!! Want them!!!! For nonsense reasons which only myself can appreciate, but I WANT THEM. What? It wont be implemented because there are no valid reasons given? Im soooooooooooo dissapointed!!!!!''
Yafa wrote:i think warhawk can just jump so freely now because tiger is not here anymore
Oh yeah, we all miss his ''I want this changes!!!!!! Want them!!!! For nonsense reasons which only myself can appreciate, but I WANT THEM. What? It wont be implemented because there are no valid reasons given? Im soooooooooooo dissapointed!!!!!''
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Yafa wrote:i think warhawk can just jump so freely now because tiger is not here anymore
Tiger1996 only decided not to interfere in the game balance , but this does not mean that he will not support the mod anymore with his donations etc
he will be still in contact with the developers too-this is what he told me.
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Seriously? He's gone?
Well, half of the bible in the forum now
Well, half of the bible in the forum now
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
So did we reach any sort of consensus on the ideas presented in the 10 pages of this topic?
-
Sukin-kot (SVT)
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
- Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
I wanted to rise a question about American quad cal. cost, from my point it's way too cheap for its performance, in fact this unit performs like Wirbelwind, even better if we will summarize all its pros: high speed, suppress and kills infantry very fast, also shreds PE trucks like they are paper and using annoying bug can kill all German light vehicles ( normally vehicles can't shoot to each other from meele distance but Quad cal can, so you can "stick" to Puma for example and blow it in few bursts, puma won't be able to reply). So, in order to justify its crazy effectiveness ( consider this truck as twice cheaper Wirbelwind being available much earlier, just instead higher HP you get fast speed, which is even better as for me ) quad cal. shall cost 400 mp and 40 fuel (like stubby puma). Price might be reduced after tank depot upgrade. What do you think?
I also don't like 57mm truck carrier and reward sdkfz with pak40 so much, why the hell they have pak range by default? No even ambush required. So ridiculous to see how tanks like Panzer 4 and jumbo are getting out ranged by this crap which costs nothing. They are very fast as well, so players can always keep them untouchable.
I also don't like 57mm truck carrier and reward sdkfz with pak40 so much, why the hell they have pak range by default? No even ambush required. So ridiculous to see how tanks like Panzer 4 and jumbo are getting out ranged by this crap which costs nothing. They are very fast as well, so players can always keep them untouchable.
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
400 is way too much. Even for quad cal 50. I prefer the Puma with 20 mm kwk anytime over the quad. It also can suppress inf, kills inf very fast but also shreds HT´s very fast. It also survives pak hits better and can bounce off greyhound and stuart shells quite often. And the Puma is costing less fuel as the quad.
For example i couldnt say whats better, greyhound or quad. For me its very much depending which unit i prefer. Greyhound and and puma can be used more aggressively, the M16 usually sticks arround inf. The M16 has also the "issue" that all HT´s have, they instantly get crit engine hit as the engine is in front. Mostly the first 37 mm pak hit destroyes the engine.
As for the US the quad makes up for the bad infantry performence at distant range.
The stubby Puma cost 350 MP and is better against several ground forces as the quad.
For vehicles i would say that everything above 350 MP is too high and should be lowered. Coz If they get too expensive the game will slow down as nobody will ever again risk his units in some crazy moves which do make the game finally interesting.
The quad cal 50 isnt too good vs vehicles, the quad 20 mm is just horrible bad against them. Devs told that they will take a look for the quad 20 mm.
So two things i would do regarding this:
1. Make quad 20 mm much better vs vehicles.
2. Add a minimum range for the M16. Its atm the only vehicle that can fire from "melee" distance (0-5 range).
For example i couldnt say whats better, greyhound or quad. For me its very much depending which unit i prefer. Greyhound and and puma can be used more aggressively, the M16 usually sticks arround inf. The M16 has also the "issue" that all HT´s have, they instantly get crit engine hit as the engine is in front. Mostly the first 37 mm pak hit destroyes the engine.
As for the US the quad makes up for the bad infantry performence at distant range.
The stubby Puma cost 350 MP and is better against several ground forces as the quad.
For vehicles i would say that everything above 350 MP is too high and should be lowered. Coz If they get too expensive the game will slow down as nobody will ever again risk his units in some crazy moves which do make the game finally interesting.
The quad cal 50 isnt too good vs vehicles, the quad 20 mm is just horrible bad against them. Devs told that they will take a look for the quad 20 mm.
So two things i would do regarding this:
1. Make quad 20 mm much better vs vehicles.
2. Add a minimum range for the M16. Its atm the only vehicle that can fire from "melee" distance (0-5 range).
Build more AA Walderschmidt
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
@Sukin:
About Quad .50cal HT: We can add some minimal attack range so that it could be no longer used as you described. I think Wolf will have no problem with that though I don't know what his opinion will be about cost change.
About AT gun HTs: I think they have greater range because they are meant to take out tanks and these tanks can usually take them out with a single shot. If they had same range they would be much less usefull - especially the T48 it cannot one-shot medium tanks but tanks can one-shot HTs. Maybe the range could be reduced so that these HTs have bigger range than tanks but lower than AT guns.
About Quad .50cal HT: We can add some minimal attack range so that it could be no longer used as you described. I think Wolf will have no problem with that though I don't know what his opinion will be about cost change.
About AT gun HTs: I think they have greater range because they are meant to take out tanks and these tanks can usually take them out with a single shot. If they had same range they would be much less usefull - especially the T48 it cannot one-shot medium tanks but tanks can one-shot HTs. Maybe the range could be reduced so that these HTs have bigger range than tanks but lower than AT guns.
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
MarKr wrote:@Sukin:
About Quad .50cal HT: We can add some minimal attack range so that it could be no longer used as you described. I think Wolf will have no problem with that though I don't know what his opinion will be about cost change.
About AT gun HTs: I think they have greater range because they are meant to take out tanks and these tanks can usually take them out with a single shot. If they had same range they would be much less usefull - especially the T48 it cannot one-shot medium tanks but tanks can one-shot HTs. Maybe the range could be reduced so that these HTs have bigger range than tanks but lower than AT guns.
about AT HT´s i do actually agree with sukin. I mean they cant oneshot mediums but those can oneshot HT? Well, in return the HT´s can ambush everywhere making two shots. And they are very flexible and their MP cost lower as those of normal paks. Its true that they are currently being used pretty offensively.
Edit:
Ok, i checked it. As it seems the Axis WH 75 mm HT (Sdkfz 251/22) has 65 range, the allis M3 Halftrack t48 with 57mm AT gun has 75 range. The ambush seem to provide no further range boosts.
I would suggest dropping their ranges to 60 while ambush provides a +5 range boost.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 24 Jan 2016, 20:28, edited 1 time in total.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
-
Eldrak1911
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 22 Jun 2015, 10:44
- Location: France, Bourgogne.
- Contact:
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
@ Sukin, about the sdkz reward with 75mm pak, you're speaking about the Werhmacht HT, or about the PE Armored Car ? Because, if you're speaking about the HT, it gets one shot by every medium tank, the ambush is necessary. And iirc, it can not ambush everywhere, only near tree or cover. So, that ht is fine as it is now.
BUT, if you're talking about the Armored Car, that can take two shot from a sherman (75mm), something could be done, since it does not have the ability to hide itself, only the quikfiring mode. Its range could be a bit dropped, and the quickfiring replaced by a cammo. It would be faire imo, tanks would not be outranged by it, and the Car could still have a chance.
Now, i would like to talk about something else :
I completly disagree with that. For a simple reason, Pzr IV E are, all of them, infantry killer. Their HE Round are deadly for any infantry, plus the quickfiring mode. They don't need Top Gunner, neither than suppression abilty.
Generaly, when i use a pzr IV, i use it in addition of 1/2 JgPzr IV/70 (with PE), and one or two Armored Recon Car. First, the Pzr IV deal with the base AA Gun (Quad 50, bofor), then the Armored cars and the JgPzr are entering the battle. Infantry is getting killed by both the Pzr IV and The Armored Car, and every armored threats by the IV/70, and it's fine.
So, no top gunner, and no suppression for pzr IV, they are fine as they are now.
BUT, if you're talking about the Armored Car, that can take two shot from a sherman (75mm), something could be done, since it does not have the ability to hide itself, only the quikfiring mode. Its range could be a bit dropped, and the quickfiring replaced by a cammo. It would be faire imo, tanks would not be outranged by it, and the Car could still have a chance.
Now, i would like to talk about something else :
#PART 6
1) ALL Pz.IV.Es should have top turret mounted MGs.. and MG gunner upgrade for 40 ammo plus the suppression ability also for 40 ammo of course.
I completly disagree with that. For a simple reason, Pzr IV E are, all of them, infantry killer. Their HE Round are deadly for any infantry, plus the quickfiring mode. They don't need Top Gunner, neither than suppression abilty.
Generaly, when i use a pzr IV, i use it in addition of 1/2 JgPzr IV/70 (with PE), and one or two Armored Recon Car. First, the Pzr IV deal with the base AA Gun (Quad 50, bofor), then the Armored cars and the JgPzr are entering the battle. Infantry is getting killed by both the Pzr IV and The Armored Car, and every armored threats by the IV/70, and it's fine.
So, no top gunner, and no suppression for pzr IV, they are fine as they are now.
Hey, i'm a bat, man !
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
The PE one is actually OK. Its range isnt higher as those of normal tanks as it seems.
What bugs me most is that the stationary mode reduces the incoming accuracy. But thats a problem of many axis vehicles. Marder III, hummel etc. They all have reduced received accuracy when being in stationary mode. The axis TD´s have no change on received accuracy if i remember correctly. The allied have increased received accuracy.
That axis vehicles survive many hits is their vet faults. Vehicle vets so far are taken from vcoh and there axis vet on vehicles is boosting its defense mostly.
So a vet 2 axis HT easily survives a tank shell with approx 1/4 HP left. Last game i never managed to knock out a HT in a single shot from 76 sherman when those had vet 2.
But there is nothing we can about it as it would mean to change all vehicles veterancy system.
There are two stubby Tank IV. The E and D. In PE Th doc i do use it in a similiar way sometimes. IV/70 and stubby tank IV but depend what kind of enemies i am forcing.
IN BK doc i spam the stubby D for 350 MP/35 fuel along with Stug III, Ostwind and the one or other tank IV J.
But in the late game i dont get them really. Idk if it is because they are too bad or if it is because the normal tanks with top mounted MG42 (actually 34) shredding good enough.
What bugs me most is that the stationary mode reduces the incoming accuracy. But thats a problem of many axis vehicles. Marder III, hummel etc. They all have reduced received accuracy when being in stationary mode. The axis TD´s have no change on received accuracy if i remember correctly. The allied have increased received accuracy.
That axis vehicles survive many hits is their vet faults. Vehicle vets so far are taken from vcoh and there axis vet on vehicles is boosting its defense mostly.
So a vet 2 axis HT easily survives a tank shell with approx 1/4 HP left. Last game i never managed to knock out a HT in a single shot from 76 sherman when those had vet 2.
But there is nothing we can about it as it would mean to change all vehicles veterancy system.
There are two stubby Tank IV. The E and D. In PE Th doc i do use it in a similiar way sometimes. IV/70 and stubby tank IV but depend what kind of enemies i am forcing.
IN BK doc i spam the stubby D for 350 MP/35 fuel along with Stug III, Ostwind and the one or other tank IV J.
But in the late game i dont get them really. Idk if it is because they are too bad or if it is because the normal tanks with top mounted MG42 (actually 34) shredding good enough.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
-
Sukin-kot (SVT)
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
- Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Eldrak1911 wrote:@ Sukin, about the sdkz reward with 75mm pak, you're speaking about the Werhmacht HT, or about the PE Armored Car ? Because, if you're speaking about the HT, it gets one shot by every medium tank, the ambush is necessary. And iirc, it can not ambush everywhere, only near tree or cover. So, that ht is fine as it is now.
BUT, if you're talking about the Armored Car, that can take two shot from a sherman (75mm), something could be done, since it does not have the ability to hide itself, only the quikfiring mode. Its range could be a bit dropped, and the quickfiring replaced by a cammo. It would be faire imo, tanks would not be outranged by it, and the Car could still have a chance.
Now, i would like to talk about something else :#PART 6
1) ALL Pz.IV.Es should have top turret mounted MGs.. and MG gunner upgrade for 40 ammo plus the suppression ability also for 40 ammo of course.
I meant WH truck. PE one is ok because it has normal tank range, also stationary position have cool down time and that's why have to be used very carefull, since vehicle sticks on its position for some time and can be easily killed by zooks.
@Mark
Ye, this melee shooting from quad cal shall be fixed. About Pak trucks you are right, but USA one comes as early vehicle and can kill any axis vehicle/truck because of this great range advantage, moreover it costs 250mp, when even simple 57mm pak costs 270.
Regarding stubby pz4, I personally never use them because as I said on previous pages, this tank has no armor, no speed and no mgs with suppression, hence most of the time it becomes a silly victim of zooks or any allied tank.
Last edited by Sukin-kot (SVT) on 24 Jan 2016, 20:55, edited 2 times in total.
-
Warhawks97
- Posts: 5395
- Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
- Location: Germany
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:
I meant WH truck. PE one is ok because it has normal tank range, also stationary position have cool down time and that's why have to be used very carefull, since vehicle sticks on its position for some time and can be easily killed by zooks.
Thing is that this stationary mode greatly reduces received accuracy. Taking into acc that zooks fail badly anyway i´ve never seen this vehicle being killed by two zooks. In any case, moving or in stat mode, one zook always failed and the other couldnt kill it with one hit.
Pretty often it rushes forward, gets into stat mode and snipes tanks/vehicles while like 2 paks shooting at it. 2 shots fail, one hit doesnt kill.
Ive seen such things countlessly often. But same with Geschützwagen with stat mode btw.
@Mark
check my previous posts. I did edit them listing their ranges.Ye, this melee shooting from quad cal shall be fixed. About Pak trucks you are right, but USA one comes as early vehicle and can kill any axis vehicle/truck because of this great range advantage, moreover it costs 250mp, when even simple 57mm pak costs 270.
Build more AA Walderschmidt
-
Sukin-kot (SVT)
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
- Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
I support the idea about standartizing their range and giving ambush boost in return.
-
Eldrak1911
- Posts: 134
- Joined: 22 Jun 2015, 10:44
- Location: France, Bourgogne.
- Contact:
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Since i'm using it only in a defensive purpose, i never saw such a thing ^^ But i must agree that the PE car is often missed by ennemies...Pretty often it rushes forward, gets into stat mode and snipes tanks/vehicles while like 2 paks shooting at it. 2 shots fail, one hit doesnt kill.
Ive seen such things countlessly often. But same with Geschützwagen with stat mode btw.
Hey, i'm a bat, man !
-
Sukin-kot (SVT)
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
- Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia
Re: Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00
Ok, here is promissed test made by Mr.Nobody, fire resistance tests starting from 6:20. And as I told, according to tests, Jeep and WH schwim are approx 3 times more ressistant to any kinds of fire than their counterparts. Eventually, waiting for the fix in upcoming patch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dMcKsieSTM
Comments are on russian, but result is clearly visible anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dMcKsieSTM
Comments are on russian, but result is clearly visible anyway.