Wehrmacht Halftrack 36pak

[Mr. FeministDonut]

This halftrack is currently has the range of 57mm AT halftrack, that USA has.
Range is same when is HE rounds loaded. Tiger1996 do you approve unit that better than USA-peasent one????

[Krieger Blitzer]

I am afraid you are wrong, my friend.

WH 37mm half-track does not have 75 range, but 10 less range.. which means it's not the same as the 57mm US half-track! Also, when HE rounds are loaded, the range goes down!

However, let's imagine that what you say is somehow correct...
It would be still absolutely fine because the US 57mm half-track is available to all docs, in addition to the CW RE doctrine as well. Needless to say that the WH 37mm half-track is available only in Blitz doc. Also not to mention that 57mm is higher gun caliber in the first place, which is able to kill a tank such as Stug, 37mm half-track won't be any much harmful to Shermans or M10 Wolverines on the other hand.

[Mr. FeministDonut]

I am afraid you are wrong, my friend.

WH 37mm half-track does not have 75 range, but 10 less range.. which means it's not the same as the 57mm US half-track! Also, when HE rounds are loaded, the range goes down!

However, let's imagine that what you say is somehow correct...
It would be still absolutely fine because the US 57mm half-track is available to all docs, in addition to the CW RE doctrine as well. Needless to say that the WH 37mm half-track is available only in Blitz doc. Also not to mention that 57mm is higher gun caliber in the first place, which is able to kill a tank such as Stug, 37mm half-track won't be any much harmful to Shermans or M10 Wolverines on the other hand.

make a in-game check please, thanks very much

[Jalis]

Both right and wrong.

Problem is US half track receive a -10 range nerf when camoed. It is a bit strange and perhaps not intented. HE skipped.

Pak 35 cant be really compared with us 57 mm at bk. TT is not the same and even penetration with range seems realist for the pak 35 . It is one of the german guns for I have the less venom to spit.

[MarKr]

Problem is US half track receive a -10 range nerf when camoed. It is a bit strange and perhaps not intented. HE skipped.

It was made this way on purpose. Iirc M3 T48 had even bigger range and people complained that it fires from too far away, kills halftracks and the halftracks cannot even shoot back. We wanted to give it standard AT HT range (65) but people started to cry again that with the shitty stats it has, it will be completely useless (which would be true, compared to those 75mm HTs, the US 57mm is really crappy). So we went for a middle solution - it kept the range of 75 so that it could still try to attack from relatively safe distance, but the camo mode lowers the range to "standard 65" because then you use surprise attack and don't need to do that at range of 80 or more.

So yeah, it was a compromise made in order to keep the unit at least somewhat useful.

[Krieger Blitzer]

We wanted to give it standard AT HT range (65) but people started to cry again that with the shitty stats it has, it will be completely useless (which would be true, compared to those 75mm HTs, the US 57mm is really crappy). So we went for a middle solution - it kept the range of 75 so that it could still try to attack from relatively safe distance, but the camo mode lowers the range to "standard 65" because then you use surprise attack and don't need to do that at range of 80 or more.

To be honest though, I always believed that this is not the right thing to do, or I mean.. not the best solution.

It would have been better if the basic range would be 70 and then 75 when ambushed instead of currently 75 basic and 65 from ambush, which doesn't really make much sense.

This vehicle with a basic range of 75 is extremely good, not only against Pak40 half-tracks but also Stugs and Marders. If you look at the WH Pak40 half-track or Marder3, they have basic range of 60 only, and 65 from ambush. This makes them rather useless... While I believe they should have a basic range of 65 and 70 from ambush. Same for the pak40 PE puma, but also Marder1, the basic range should be 65 and 70 with static position instead of 60 basic and 65 with static.. otherwise they are also completely useless against Churchills.

If it is done the way I am suggesting, the 57mm half-track would still keep the range advantage, but only +5 basic range advantage instead of currently +15 basic range advantage over Pak40 vehicles, and again +5 range advantage when ambushed instead of a great range reduction currently, which is weird.

[MarKr]

You did not understand the whole point. T48 has better basic range because it has crappy gun. Give it standard range and the most of the time the situation will be:
1) T48 fires a shot, misses
2) enemy fires at T48; T48 dead
or
1) T48 fires a shot, hits, target remains fully moveable and alive with 3/4 of max HP
2) enemy fires at T48; T48 dead

The range gives it chance to escape.

And when you attack from camo, you don't need that extra range because opponent does not see you approach - you simply fire from your camoed position.
"Doesn't make much sense" - the gun has crap accuracy at max range so waiting for targets to come closer to get better aim while the crew is not spotted and thus not in danger...makes sense now? Really, don't start with this "makes no sense", this was for better gameplay. There are tons of shit that make no sense (engineers with blowtorch "repair" dead MG gunner on top of tank...)

And dude, really? You compare Marder III and PaK40 HT, vehicles with 75mm L48 guns vs crappy 57mm gun HT? Yes, it has range advantage, but it has just as crappy accuracy at its max range as it has crappy penetration values. PaK40 can one-shot medium tanks (even more so from camo) while 57mm cannot do so even from camo. It is simply too weak to have standard attack range. For Marders and PaK40 HTs the attack range is justified because they can kill medium tanks (which is one class above their own) rather easily, while T48 cannot - it doesn't even one-shot halftracks (or at least not every time). If we gave it standard attack range, T48 would have been useless.

[Krieger Blitzer]

If we gave it standard attack range, T48 would have been useless.

Hmm, but I have - at no possible point - ever suggested that it should have standard attack range!

I only said that it should have 70 basic range instead of 75 currently, the standard attack range for most vehicles is 60.
So, 70 range is still +10 more than the standard attack range...

The gun has crap accuracy, that's true.. but you can just keep trying from safe distance until you manage to hit, the enemy has no chance to catch you anyway as long as you have +15 range advantage! Also, the gun isn't that much crappy... It's capable of killing Pz4.F2, Stugs, as well as all Pak40 half-tracks in addition to valuable mortar half-tracks from safe distance... I tell you what, it's also often used to kill AT guns from such a distance! The accuracy against AT guns that are revealed or not in camo yet, seems to be very high and precise.

Pak40 on the other hand isn't much more valuable when you don't have a range advantage.. it's true you can kill some medium tanks of that same tier with 1 shot, but those medium tanks will also kill you with 1 shot! It's a huge risk attacking them when u don't have a range advantage and at the same time paper armor that is pretty much destroy-able by any sort of AT fire, even 50.cal can kill u. And those half-tracks almost cost as much fuel as HE Shermans. Also, there are some tanks in ur same tier that are simply impenetrable with your Pak40 such as Churchills and Jumbos except with extreme luck. How would you risk going head to head with those tanks when you don't have a range advantage??
Keeping in mind also that when those Pak40 vehicles are selected from the reward menu, you also won't have the standard Pak40 AT guns.. which means you are severely exposed against Churchills and Jumbos, on the other hand both the T48 and 57mm AT guns are available to all docs always.

According to my suggestion, the 57mm half-track would still keep its range advantage, which is +10 basic range advantage over all other vehicles instead of currently +15 basic range advantage.. and at the same time, also according to my suggestion... The 57mm half-track would still keep a basic range advantage over Pak40 vehicles.. but instead of +15 basic range advantage, it would be +5 only. Yet, the Pak40 vehicles would only have +5 more range advantage over all other vehicles! So, my suggestion would simply lead to a better more fair result.. and yet it breaks nothing!

[MarKr]

PaK40 is more valuable because:

PaK40 can one-shot medium tanks (even more so from camo) while 57mm cannot do so even from camo.

If you camo it somewhere and let it shoot, the chances are that you will penetrate any medium tank, very likely destroy it or cause crit on it and then you can (relatively safely) relocate. You cannot do that with T48 57mm. If you do the same, you are likely to miss, if you don't miss, you are likely to bounce off of medium tanks (people mostly use PIV H/J and there you are screwed, even against F2 the chances are not all that good). Even if you by some miracle don't bounce off, you cause low damage. At this point opponent can either try to chase you (you are faster so you are likely to get away) ot he will simply back off and you need to relocate because your position is busted.

Long story short - PaK40 HT IS more valuable than T48.

[Warhawks97]

I am also not really liking the 57 mm HT.

Thing is that this unit becomes a too offensive one. You usually just see M16 paired with this thing. And they keep constantly pushing your inf and vehicles back. Even when you got tanks, you cant catch them and they just go back and forth and you cant hit them. Even when 10 shots bounce, one go through. Thus i am a lot more afraid of a single or even double 57 mm HT as of a tank like a sherman.

Axis vehicles have currently a very dangerous life that can end any time very quick out of the sudden. Boys AT and also this thing. Its a huge vehicle denial system, even when you play defensively as axis.

These units are just more mobile AT guns and thus their main purpose is to be a defensive unit that has the mobility to keep up with moving fronts or being simply relocated faster. Right now they serve an offensive purpose.

The best i could do against this M16 57 mm HT combo was to push aggressively with my 50 mm.... but again i couldnt put any unit in front of it which means that my 50 mm pak became the most important offensive unit. So the game has been turned into absurdity as it became the "battle of the paks". Offensive (vehicles) had to stay more or less always behind them.

On top, its the only unit that loses gun range when in camo.

I would make it 65 standard range and perhaps 70 from cammo (or keeping at 65). Instead -if you feel that the performence isnt good enough- you can add AP rounds. Right now its too much pak skrimishing. It largely reminds me of my skirmisher units (javelin units) in my rome total war games.

The advantage is that it costs less MP than AT guns. It costs fuel but inf and AB doc dont really suffer fuel. It has a better mobility (and not the aim time of normal AT guns?) which alone is a huge factor in games.

I think its also possible for the unit to add first strike boosts in the ebps files or the ability such as shortned reload time when in camo or 25% reduced received accuracy when perhaps the first two ambush shots have been made. That way you can escape easier when the ambush has ended.


So there are a lot of options you can add to it to make it valuable.

And as tiger said, its not a reward anymore. So you have no real disadvantages you have to compensate.

And against stugs and stubby tank IV´s and vehicles the gun is good enough. With sufficient ambush boosts and perhaps AP shells it would be good enough for the cost.


Regarding the axis 37 mm HT. 60 range has always been enough for the purpose. Its good in killing the early vehicles like jeeps, greyhounds, M20 etc. Halftracks and whatever. Also infantry with HE rounds. The rate of fire is high and the units you fight against do not have the firepower to oneshot your HT. So i dont really get why those have also got a range advantage.

[Frost]

does anyone know the pet vaules of 57mm against stug + ive noticed that camo for some reason doesnt effect 57mm

it feels like camo isnt worth cause u will be micro the thing out of enemy tanks range so camo should be worth it.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Actually, there is another option that could be done which is a bit different from what I suggested earlier...

Perhaps the WH pak40 half-track could just have a basic range of 65 and then same range as AT guns being 75 from ambush, the US 57mm half-track could have a basic range of 70 or 65 as well, but then also 75 from ambush.. in return, the camo ability would be no longer possible to use anywhere except roads.. but only usable in medium or heavy cover, same as TDs!

So ya, a lot of better things could be done... I mean that the way how it is currently working simply isn't the best.