4.9.6 Beta

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1251
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 15 Dec 2016, 12:31

Blitzkriegrekrut wrote:
Panzerblitz1 wrote:NO, and please Stop asking for more models here, The Maus never saw combat, and you just can't compare the Maus armor with anything in game, so please, again STOP asking for models, First: its not the subject here on the V 4.9.6 beta, and should be in "suggestion" , second: we can't use it! thank you for your understanding.


Ah sure, but the Superpershing that never see combat in WW 2 is in game (and its just fucked up, very op).
Seriously... please return to historical correctness.


The SP saw combat in Germany, and yes im seriously historicaly correct.
Fucked up or OP isn't a valable or a good reason my friend, whats your point? same goes for heavy panzers like King Tiger/Elefant/Jagdtiger/Sturmtiger, so before questioning my "historical correctness" check first if you're on the right side, i mean its fair no? we could make mistakes, but in that case the SP isn't, Welcome to bk as its your first post here, even if its a ranting one :?

Spoiler: show
DUEL AT DESSAU - on April 21, 1945

Only three days before the 3rd Armored Division's final combat action of WWII, a Super Pershing of the 33rd Armored Regiment met and defeated the most powerful and most heavily armored German tank of the war - the legendary 77-ton King Tiger, also known as the Tiger II or Tiger Royal. It would be the first and only meeting between a King Tiger and the Super Pershing, a modified standard M26 Pershing weighing 7 tons heavier at 53 tons - an almost "secret" tank that, to this day, remains largely an enigma to military historians.

Only two Super Pershings were ever built, and the 3AD had the only one in the European Theater - an experimental version with its remarkably long barrel. Arriving very late in the war (March, 1945), it was field tested and modified inside Germany and subsequently saw about ten days of actual combat action, beginning several days after the Battle of Paderborn and ending with the Battle of Dessau near the Elbe River.

The Super Pershing (aka T26E4-1) was equipped with a new long-barreled T15E1 90mm gun that was designed to out-perform the German high-velocity 88mm on the King Tiger. In testing, this new U.S. gun had successfully penetrated 8.5 inches of armor at 1,000 yards at 30 degrees. Even more remarkable, it had penetrated 13 inches of armor at 100 yards. The special 90mm ammunition had produced a muzzle velocity of 3,850 feet per second, or some 600 feet per second faster than the 88mm of the King Tiger. The new 90mm round also proved to have superior range and accuracy over the previous version.

Army ordinance technicians (in the U.S. and Europe) had been anxious about getting the new tank into combat, hoping to match it against a King Tiger. But by April, 1945, German armor west of Berlin had dramatically thinned out, not to mention an extreme shortage of fuel, and the odds of spotting the monster German tank were slim. But in Dessau on April 21, "luck" would befall the Super Pershing crew commanded by SSgt Joe Maduri, a veteran 3AD tanker in his tenth straight month of combat.

The 3AD had begun a four-pronged attack on the city, which was heavily defended. Division armor were finally able to enter the city slowly after numerous concrete tank barriers were destroyed. With 3AD tanks fanning out, and 36th Infantry riflemen following, the Super Pershing reached an intersection and began to round a corner to its right. Unknown to its crew, a King Tiger had apparently been waiting in ambush at a distance of two blocks or roughly 600 yards away, and in the same direction that the Americans were turning into.

At this distance, easily within its capability, the Tiger fired at the Super Pershing. But its infamous high-velocity 88mm shell, of the type that had destroyed so many American tanks and vehicles during the war, went high and was not even close. Gunner Cpl John "Jack" Irwin, only 18 years old, responded almost instantly with a round that struck the Tiger's huge angled glasis, or front plate. But the shot, a non-armor-piercing high explosive (HE) shell, had no effect. Ricocheting off the armor, it shot skyward and exploded harmlessly. The Super Pershing had been loaded with an HE only because Irwin had been expecting urban targets, such as buildings, personnel, and light anti-tank guns. "AP!", he shouted to his loader "Pete," which meant an armor-piercing shell would be next.

Maduri and crew then felt a concussion or thud on the turret. It was never known if this shot came from the Tiger, or from some other anti-tank weapon. In any case, no serious damage was done - probably a lucky glancing impact. In the next instant, Irwin aimed and fired a second time, just as the royal monster was moving forward and raising up over a pile of rubble. The 90mm AP round penetrated the Tiger's underbelly, apparently striking the ammo well and resulting in a tremendous explosion that blew its turret loose. With near certainty, the entire crew was killed.

But there was no time to examine their "trophy." A battle was raging, and the Super Pershing continued down the street, passing the lifeless and burning King Tiger. Tough fighting still lay ahead, as German bazooka, Panzerfaust, and machine-gun fire came from windows and doorways.

The encounter with the King Tiger had been "short and sweet," lasting less than twenty seconds. It may not have been the titanic "slug fest" that could have occurred on an open field, but it was an overwhelming victory for the quick-reacting Super Pershing crew. The battle for Dessau would end completely on the following day, but not without the Super Pershing destroying another German heavy tank (believed to be a 50-ton Panther Mark V) with two shots. The first disabling its drive sprocket, and the second round completely penetrating the tank's side armor. That apparently set off an internal blast, again probably from stored ammo. And, still in Dessau, that was followed by Maduri and crew forcing the commander of a German medium tank to surrender without firing a shot. For the German crew, out of ammo for their main gun, the intimidating "look" of that long-barrel 90mm gun that must have destroyed any remaining will to fight or flee.

Note: Sources include the book Spearhead in the West (1945 version); the book Death Traps by Belton Cooper; and the book Another River, Another Town and personal writings by John P. Irwin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More background on the "Super Pershing" (T26E4-1)

In mid-March, 1945, fresh from gunnery trials in the United States, a single Pershing T26E4-1 arrived at the Maintenance Battalion of the 3rd Armored Division inside Germany. In his book Death Traps (see feature story in ths same website section) Belton Cooper writes, "Having already lost several of the new [Pershing] M26's [aka T26] to high-velocity German anti-tank guns, we knew that its armor was still inferior to that of the Mark VI Tiger."

Cooper writes, "Anyone standing behind an M4 Sherman could see the projectile go out and curve down slightly as it sped toward the target. This new high-velocity gun was entirely different. When we fired the first round, we could barely see the projectile. It appeared to rise slightly as it struck the target. This was an optical illusion, but the effect was awesome. When it hit the target (a knocked out German tank-destroyer/assault gun), sparks shot about sixty feet into the air, as though a giant grinding wheel had hit a piece of metal."

Cooper described how, despite the 3AD maintenance crew painstakingly and very creatively adding seven tons of weight in additional armor to the Super Pershing, its highest speed had only been dropped by about five miles an hour. Its 550-horsepower engine had proven itself. Cooper felt that the tank's maneuverability and firepower had it marked for great success in combat. "We realized that we had a weapon," Cooper writes, "that could blast the hell out of even the most powerful German Mark VI Tiger."

But, finally, on April 4, 1945, between the Weser River and Northheim, the Super Pershing was to fire its gun in anger. Cooper writes, "Some of the German units that had fallen back from the bridgehead set up a few isolated strong points along our route. One such position on a wooded hill ... opened fire as the column passed. The Super M26, in the forward part of the column, immediately swung its turret to the right and fired an armor-piercing shot toward an object on the forward slope of a wooded hill about fifteen hundred yards away [over three-quarters of a mile]. A blinding flash of sparks accompanied a tremendous explosion as debris shot fifty feet into the air ... The unknown object was a tank or self-propelled gun; had it been a half-track or other vehicle, the flash would not have been as large ... The rest of the column let go with a deluge of tank and automatic weapons fire, and the Germans soon broke off the action ... we didn't know what the Super M26 hit ... no one was anxious to go over and check it out."

Some days after the above event, the Super M26 was transferred to a new crew with the 33rd Armored Regiment, where more of it's great potential would be realized, if only weeks before WWII would end.

NOTES: This tank while assigned to Task Force Wellborn, and destroyed at least 3 tanks, including the King Tiger at Dassau. Although still not as good as the Tiger II the Pershing was more than capable of dealing with the Panther and could take on the Tiger I on equal terms.
Image

Blitzkriegrekrut
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Dec 2016, 09:20

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Blitzkriegrekrut » 15 Dec 2016, 16:20

Spoiler: show
DUEL AT DESSAU - on April 21, 1945

Only three days before the 3rd Armored Division's final combat action of WWII, a Super Pershing of the 33rd Armored Regiment met and defeated the most powerful and most heavily armored German tank of the war - the legendary 77-ton King Tiger, also known as the Tiger II or Tiger Royal. It would be the first and only meeting between a King Tiger and the Super Pershing, a modified standard M26 Pershing weighing 7 tons heavier at 53 tons - an almost "secret" tank that, to this day, remains largely an enigma to military historians.

Only two Super Pershings were ever built, and the 3AD had the only one in the European Theater - an experimental version with its remarkably long barrel. Arriving very late in the war (March, 1945), it was field tested and modified inside Germany and subsequently saw about ten days of actual combat action, beginning several days after the Battle of Paderborn and ending with the Battle of Dessau near the Elbe River.

The Super Pershing (aka T26E4-1) was equipped with a new long-barreled T15E1 90mm gun that was designed to out-perform the German high-velocity 88mm on the King Tiger. In testing, this new U.S. gun had successfully penetrated 8.5 inches of armor at 1,000 yards at 30 degrees. Even more remarkable, it had penetrated 13 inches of armor at 100 yards. The special 90mm ammunition had produced a muzzle velocity of 3,850 feet per second, or some 600 feet per second faster than the 88mm of the King Tiger. The new 90mm round also proved to have superior range and accuracy over the previous version.

Army ordinance technicians (in the U.S. and Europe) had been anxious about getting the new tank into combat, hoping to match it against a King Tiger. But by April, 1945, German armor west of Berlin had dramatically thinned out, not to mention an extreme shortage of fuel, and the odds of spotting the monster German tank were slim. But in Dessau on April 21, "luck" would befall the Super Pershing crew commanded by SSgt Joe Maduri, a veteran 3AD tanker in his tenth straight month of combat.

The 3AD had begun a four-pronged attack on the city, which was heavily defended. Division armor were finally able to enter the city slowly after numerous concrete tank barriers were destroyed. With 3AD tanks fanning out, and 36th Infantry riflemen following, the Super Pershing reached an intersection and began to round a corner to its right. Unknown to its crew, a King Tiger had apparently been waiting in ambush at a distance of two blocks or roughly 600 yards away, and in the same direction that the Americans were turning into.

At this distance, easily within its capability, the Tiger fired at the Super Pershing. But its infamous high-velocity 88mm shell, of the type that had destroyed so many American tanks and vehicles during the war, went high and was not even close. Gunner Cpl John "Jack" Irwin, only 18 years old, responded almost instantly with a round that struck the Tiger's huge angled glasis, or front plate. But the shot, a non-armor-piercing high explosive (HE) shell, had no effect. Ricocheting off the armor, it shot skyward and exploded harmlessly. The Super Pershing had been loaded with an HE only because Irwin had been expecting urban targets, such as buildings, personnel, and light anti-tank guns. "AP!", he shouted to his loader "Pete," which meant an armor-piercing shell would be next.

Maduri and crew then felt a concussion or thud on the turret. It was never known if this shot came from the Tiger, or from some other anti-tank weapon. In any case, no serious damage was done - probably a lucky glancing impact. In the next instant, Irwin aimed and fired a second time, just as the royal monster was moving forward and raising up over a pile of rubble. The 90mm AP round penetrated the Tiger's underbelly, apparently striking the ammo well and resulting in a tremendous explosion that blew its turret loose. With near certainty, the entire crew was killed.

But there was no time to examine their "trophy." A battle was raging, and the Super Pershing continued down the street, passing the lifeless and burning King Tiger. Tough fighting still lay ahead, as German bazooka, Panzerfaust, and machine-gun fire came from windows and doorways.

The encounter with the King Tiger had been "short and sweet," lasting less than twenty seconds. It may not have been the titanic "slug fest" that could have occurred on an open field, but it was an overwhelming victory for the quick-reacting Super Pershing crew. The battle for Dessau would end completely on the following day, but not without the Super Pershing destroying another German heavy tank (believed to be a 50-ton Panther Mark V) with two shots. The first disabling its drive sprocket, and the second round completely penetrating the tank's side armor. That apparently set off an internal blast, again probably from stored ammo. And, still in Dessau, that was followed by Maduri and crew forcing the commander of a German medium tank to surrender without firing a shot. For the German crew, out of ammo for their main gun, the intimidating "look" of that long-barrel 90mm gun that must have destroyed any remaining will to fight or flee.

Note: Sources include the book Spearhead in the West (1945 version); the book Death Traps by Belton Cooper; and the book Another River, Another Town and personal writings by John P. Irwin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More background on the "Super Pershing" (T26E4-1)

In mid-March, 1945, fresh from gunnery trials in the United States, a single Pershing T26E4-1 arrived at the Maintenance Battalion of the 3rd Armored Division inside Germany. In his book Death Traps (see feature story in ths same website section) Belton Cooper writes, "Having already lost several of the new [Pershing] M26's [aka T26] to high-velocity German anti-tank guns, we knew that its armor was still inferior to that of the Mark VI Tiger."

Cooper writes, "Anyone standing behind an M4 Sherman could see the projectile go out and curve down slightly as it sped toward the target. This new high-velocity gun was entirely different. When we fired the first round, we could barely see the projectile. It appeared to rise slightly as it struck the target. This was an optical illusion, but the effect was awesome. When it hit the target (a knocked out German tank-destroyer/assault gun), sparks shot about sixty feet into the air, as though a giant grinding wheel had hit a piece of metal."

Cooper described how, despite the 3AD maintenance crew painstakingly and very creatively adding seven tons of weight in additional armor to the Super Pershing, its highest speed had only been dropped by about five miles an hour. Its 550-horsepower engine had proven itself. Cooper felt that the tank's maneuverability and firepower had it marked for great success in combat. "We realized that we had a weapon," Cooper writes, "that could blast the hell out of even the most powerful German Mark VI Tiger."

But, finally, on April 4, 1945, between the Weser River and Northheim, the Super Pershing was to fire its gun in anger. Cooper writes, "Some of the German units that had fallen back from the bridgehead set up a few isolated strong points along our route. One such position on a wooded hill ... opened fire as the column passed. The Super M26, in the forward part of the column, immediately swung its turret to the right and fired an armor-piercing shot toward an object on the forward slope of a wooded hill about fifteen hundred yards away [over three-quarters of a mile]. A blinding flash of sparks accompanied a tremendous explosion as debris shot fifty feet into the air ... The unknown object was a tank or self-propelled gun; had it been a half-track or other vehicle, the flash would not have been as large ... The rest of the column let go with a deluge of tank and automatic weapons fire, and the Germans soon broke off the action ... we didn't know what the Super M26 hit ... no one was anxious to go over and check it out."

Some days after the above event, the Super M26 was transferred to a new crew with the 33rd Armored Regiment, where more of it's great potential would be realized, if only weeks before WWII would end.

NOTES: This tank while assigned to Task Force Wellborn, and destroyed at least 3 tanks, including the King Tiger at Dassau. Although still not as good as the Tiger II the Pershing was more than capable of dealing with the Panther and could take on the Tiger I on equal terms.
[/quote]


WTF?
Sorry, don't know that, very interesting.
But is the source reliable? In wiki stand nothing about Superpershing.

User avatar
XAHTEP39
Posts: 207
Joined: 09 May 2015, 12:34
Location: Saint-Peterburg, Russia

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby XAHTEP39 » 15 Dec 2016, 16:29

Wiki is a not most reliable source...

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Jalis » 15 Dec 2016, 16:43

Really the sp again. It was fielded on battle field for operational missions. Even people who could have doubt it saw real combat, or against what it achieved victory, would hardly argue against it. The Maus was a proto and never go farest than trial.

Probably SP is borderline, but it have its place. There is far worst historical mistake in the game. I will not, once again speak about the the fg 42.
If we look deeper than détails on what tank could be in game, or what gun could or could not pen frontally an other, there is in game features that have nothing to do in historical context.

First PE SE have nothing to do on the western front. It is typically an eastern front doctrine that seems inspired from Walter Model methods.
Second push fuel for Axis BK and PE TH as well as Manpower supply for Axis BK are deep mistake from an historical point of view. How can you give extra supply to axis, especially in fuel when Axis was dying dry during all the war and became worst when end happened ?

Third axis blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg in 1939 ok, 40 ok 41 ok, 42 it is limit. Blitzkrieg for axis at coh time, what a joke. Blitzkrieg for Patton, yes. Blitzkrieg for Russian with operation Bagration yes. But for german it was Blitzrout. From July to september Axis withdraws on hundreds of kilometers both on eastern than western front.

It is useless I add 4 - 5 - 6 I presume, nobody would read a roman.

For what I saw in this forum, when history become an argument, it about always to hide real goal. Usually a lobby for a faction or a doctrine.
So let the super Pershing like it is. It can be on the limit, but it is certainly not , in game, an historical heresy

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1251
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 15 Dec 2016, 16:46

Blitzkriegrekrut wrote:WTF?
Sorry, don't know that, very interesting.
But is the source reliable? In wiki stand nothing about Superpershing.


Yes it is 100% reliable of course, you can't invent units and divisions like that, its perfectly documented, we got some picture of this unit as well, and Wiki is NOT a reference... far from it.
Attachments
SP.JPG
Image

Blitzkriegrekrut
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Dec 2016, 09:20

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Blitzkriegrekrut » 15 Dec 2016, 16:58

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
Blitzkriegrekrut wrote:Yes it is 100% reliable of course, you can't invent units and divisions like that, its perfectly documented, we got some picture of this unit as well, and Wiki is NOT a reference... far from it.


Nice, how call that page where you got it from?
But yeah, Wiki is not always a reference.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1251
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 15 Dec 2016, 17:02

you got that: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/t26e4-super-pershing/
and that: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=73066
Or the US Army archives, but can't found it right now.
Image

Blitzkriegrekrut
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Dec 2016, 09:20

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Blitzkriegrekrut » 15 Dec 2016, 18:30

Okay thanks.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby JimQwilleran » 15 Dec 2016, 19:08

Jalis wrote:Really the sp again. It was fielded on battle field for operational missions. Even people who could have doubt it saw real combat, or against what it achieved victory, would hardly argue against it. The Maus was a proto and never go farest than trial.

Probably SP is borderline, but it have its place. There is far worst historical mistake in the game. I will not, once again speak about the the fg 42.
If we look deeper than détails on what tank could be in game, or what gun could or could not pen frontally an other, there is in game features that have nothing to do in historical context.

First PE SE have nothing to do on the western front. It is typically an eastern front doctrine that seems inspired from Walter Model methods.
Second push fuel for Axis BK and PE TH as well as Manpower supply for Axis BK are deep mistake from an historical point of view. How can you give extra supply to axis, especially in fuel when Axis was dying dry during all the war and became worst when end happened ?

Third axis blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg in 1939 ok, 40 ok 41 ok, 42 it is limit. Blitzkrieg for axis at coh time, what a joke. Blitzkrieg for Patton, yes. Blitzkrieg for Russian with operation Bagration yes. But for german it was Blitzrout. From July to september Axis withdraws on hundreds of kilometers both on eastern than western front.

It is useless I add 4 - 5 - 6 I presume, nobody would read a roman.

For what I saw in this forum, when history become an argument, it about always to hide real goal. Usually a lobby for a faction or a doctrine.
So let the super Pershing like it is. It can be on the limit, but it is certainly not , in game, an historical heresy

Well said Jalis.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Dec 2016, 17:25

So, I definitely kept tracking all the discussions going around with a huge sense of interest.. and now i guess I can finally provide my feedback! Hope it's not too late though.
Here are my thoughts...
_______________________________________________________________________________________
#New FoW system:-
I saw the poll.
Reverting this change to the regular state, is doubtlessly the correct decision.. the new fog of war system obviously doesn't fit into the CoH1 gameplay engine mechanics at all.
-----------------------------------------------------
#Teleport bug:-
I think the fix is finally working now, I can remember that right before the release of 4.9.3 i actually tested the exact same fix with Wolf. But I think it was later reverted for some reasons which i can't really remember. Anyway... Now I can say it's working, at least according to what I have seen. But it might be significantly increasing the chances of "desync" btw.
-----------------------------------------------------
#New units:-
The Panzer 3 is fine, cool and generally awesome in fact.. great to know that both the direct fire ability as well as the smoke screen will be added.

Speaking of the SturmTiger, now that's the tricky part.. as I must agree with Sukin. But I wouldn't say that placing the SturmTiger in Terror doc is any "stupid" or anything. As I believe it's still fine after all, but this is for sure not the best way of tuning the balance in my humble opinion.

I have to admit that it actually makes sense for the SturmTiger to be a reward of the V1, but to be honest.. just a little kind of sense!
Not just because they explode the same way, then this would automatically mean that they have to replace each other anyhow.

I think that any expert PvP player. Would have to agree that the best place for the SturmTiger would be as a reward unit of the Tiger Ace in Blitz doc... This is where it should really be.

But since the devs probably decided already that it will stay in Terror doc (which is something I am not really happy about) then well, let's just get over this point for now.
------------------------------------------------------
#US 57mm AT gun Half-track:-
Once again I have to agree with Sukin here. As I also fully support this statement;
seha wrote:i don't think you should change any other vehicles. i think best is to equally adjust the range of both halftracks. like i said. 65 default range for both. and 70 from ambush. just a viewpoint.


But just to make things clear for everyone...
>>> Currently both the US or the CW 57mm AT gun half-track has 75 default range, which is as much as paks. But once camoed, the half-track somehow loses range.. while becoming about 65 _ not sure about the exact number though.
in return however.. it gains some accuracy bonus, but ya... Losing range in ambush mode makes absolutely no sense in fact.

>>> The WH 75mm AT gun half-track on the other hand currently has 60 default range. And 65 when ambushed... Which is too low indeed.

Therefore, i think the solution Seha has proposed.. is simply the best.
------------------------------------------------------
Wake wrote:US Airborne Engineers still cost 320 manpower, which is quite expensive considering that their abilities.

Totally agreed. I am with lowering the cost of this unit... To 220 MP or something.. in return, normal engineers should be no longer able to construct the AA Quad.50 emplacements anymore, but only the AB engineers would be able to do so.
------------------------------------------------------
#New Ai:-
Love it! Although it might be less competitive now.. but it's much smarter actually, and less bugged than before. They no longer deploy mixed units of different doctrines at the same time! Also, they are using airstrikes much more effectively now.
------------------------------------------------------
#Aim time for handheld AT weapons:-
The best change so far. Nuff said...
------------------------------------------------------
#New single-shot HE rounds:-
Great change too, and this way it's not OP either.. as it could still miss... But definitely much less compared to older times.
------------------------------------------------------
#Tulip rockets:-
They are fine now, but hey... I think it's still greatly overperforming so much against both the JagdTiger and the JagdPanther!
------------------------------------------------------
- Planes changed to better fit their historical loadout:
- Straffing run is now performed by ME109 (MGs + 20mm autocannon)
- Bombing run is still performed by Stuka but instead of 7x70kg bomb it carries one big bomb which now FINALY hits where you send it (thanks to Panzerblitz1 for the fix)

I don't know. But the strafe run still has such a ridiculously narrow AoE. And about the Stuka, I honestly miss the old bombs. The 1000 kg bomb from Afrika add-on is not bad... I am also aware the Stuka airstrike will be cheaper. But, the old bombs of the Fw-190 actually used to scatter much better! They were just so much lethal than this.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:One thing you probably forgot about: accuracy penalty while moving for Quad Cal. its still shreds inf in a blink of an eye even driving with max speed. And any changes regarding BK sabotage squad? Bobby traps, evasive manevures without vet unlock? Satchels? There were a lot of suggestions.

Well, I know MarKr already replied regarding the Quad half-track. Yet, no response considering the Demo Storm squad... SO, i would like to bring it up once again!
I would be really glad if this lonely squad (which is limited to only 1 at a time) could hopefully have evasive maneuvers by default, without first requiring the doctrinal veterancy unlock anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------
#AA effectiveness:-
I still need to make a more precise test on this one... It's a very critical issue.
--------------------------------------------------------
#90mm guns:-
I tested this one with Endro for 1 time, and yet again with others... But also over and over once again with many different players.
I can't tell you how much I actually tested the performance of 90mm guns.. it's probably the most thing i ever managed to test for more than a single time throughout this beta.

But first of all, and before I get into deeper details about the 90mm guns. Firstly I would like to mention about the Jacksons. And I say; WELL DONE!
Now the M36 has much weaker armor and much less HP as supposed, the B1 is also not incredibly fast anymore.
And finally now all the 90mm guns are performing in the same manner...

>>> But now my evaluations on the 90mm gun changes:-
-Panther vs Pershing is perfectly tuned now.. they can also bounce off each other quite often enough using regular AP shells which is totally fine.

-But on the other hand, I have to say that Tiger vs Pershing is currently just.. not bad... but unfortunately not perfect though.
I have actually seen the Tiger's gun bouncing off the Pershing, as much as I have seen the Pershing's gun bouncing off the Tiger... Which is perhaps a good thing, and balanced.

However, I think the reason why I don't give this one a "perfection" stamp.. is obviously the realism aspect...
It's true that i just mentioned that currently both the Tiger and the Pershing can still bounce off each other.. but i think the problem is that it's just happening too rarely using regular AP shells.. although at max range!
It's just not fun this way in my own perspective. If they can penetrate each other so well like this even at max range using regular AP shells, then why APCR rounds even exist?

A fight between the Tiger and the Pershing should last longer than this. And not just who hits first.. kills first! Specifically when using regular AP rounds at max range. I mean, there should be more bouncing from both sides really... But with a slight edge to the favor of the Pershing over the Tiger.

What exactly I suggest here? Well, then I probably have to repeat the same ideas of which I've previously suggested in the past.. not the exact same stuff though, as I think few things got modified a bit...
-Tuning down the penetration chances of the Tiger1 against the Pershing. From currently around 60% at max range, to about 47% or so.
Note:- The performance of the Flak 88s against the Pershing is currently fine.

-You increased the pentration chances of the Pershing against the Tiger from around 46% (in 4.9.5) to about 78% (on this beta) which i still consider too high.. please remember that this is at max range using regular AP rounds!
So, I would say you should drop it down as well, from 78% to around 68% or so.
Which will be still about 8% higher than when shooting at the Panther... As it won't break the realism part.

>>> No need to exclude Pershings or Jacksons of the War Machine ability while lowering its cost anymore. Also no need to restrict the number of Pershings or Jacksons while setting up any further availability limits...

But, keeping in mind the SP is still in the game.. then I believe at least 1 thing of the following 2 options still need to be done:-
-Either to disallow both the Pershings and the Jacksons from gaining 1 veterancy level after the unlock.
-OR to delay them both by 1 CP like I suggested before!
From; 1 CP Sherman > 1 CP Hellcat > 3 CP Pershing > 4 CP SP.
To; 1 CP Sherman > 2 CP Hellcat > 3 CP Pershing > 3 CP SP.

>>> This way the SP will be still available after only 9 direct CPs. Yet, both the Pershing and the Jacksons would be delayed by only 1 CP. If the player goes directly for the Pershing, he will be able to bring it as soon as Panthers or 76 Jumbo (and even still earlier than the Terror Panther btw.. but only by 1 CP, and no more by 2 CPs like currently) But if he decides to directly go for Jacksons first, then he will have them as soon as Terror Tigers, while Pershings this way will be available later than the Terror Panther by just a single CP. Which is not a big deal I think... Since he will already have Jacksons at that time.

This is the only true way to improve the gameplay while not damaging the game balance in my opinion.
But after all, as i said - currently things are not bad. But if you implement those changes i just listed... Then I believe it will be much better.
---------------------------------------------------------
Panzerblitz1 wrote:Im talking about tanks here, not sdkfz's, stubbies new values will be for all kwk37 l24 guns though.

But they are talking about other stubby 75mm half-tracks.
All of them; the Def doc short barreled 75mm stubby half-track, and the PE short barreled 75mm stubby half-track.. as well as the short barreled 75mm stubby Puma armored car.
They all have APCR round upgrades, which is illgoic. This upgrade should be removed, as they should have HEAT rounds in return!
Just clarifying the issue here...
---------------------------------------------------------
Last but not least...
#Terror doc Firestorm off-map incendiary rocket barrage:-
SO? :P 200 ammo is too much for this thing really. It often only works more like a force retreat button... Nothing more or less.
185 ammo seems more legit I guess!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Bugs report only in private.
Thanks for paying attention!

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1726
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby MarKr » 18 Dec 2016, 20:10

I don't have time to read the WoT so I just skimmed it and this caught my attention
Tiger1996 wrote:#US 57mm AT gun Half-track:-
Once again I have to agree with Sukin here. As I also fully support this statement;
seha wrote:i don't think you should change any other vehicles. i think best is to equally adjust the range of both halftracks. like i said. 65 default range for both. and 70 from ambush. just a viewpoint.


But just to make things clear for everyone...
>>> Currently both the US or the CW 57mm AT gun half-track has 75 default range, which is as much as paks. But once camoed, the half-track somehow loses range.. while becoming about 65 _ not sure about the exact number though.
in return however.. it gains some accuracy bonus, but ya... Losing range in ambush mode makes absolutely no sense in fact.

>>> The WH 75mm AT gun half-track on the other hand currently has 60 default range. And 65 when ambushed... Which is too low indeed.

Therefore, i think the solution Seha has proposed.. is simply the best.
First of all - the extra range of the T48 is there to make it at least somehow usable - take away the range advantage and the vehicle will become another one of those that are never used.
It doesn't have enough punch to realiably penetrate even PIV F2 so it can only pose a threat to Halftracks and vehicles. At the max range it tends to miss about 2/3 of shots so it is not particularly reliable either unless the target keeps standing there for some time and ignores the fact it is under fire.

The range reduction in camo is there because it would be OP if the vehicle could fire from camo at 75 range or even gain range boost when in camo as other vehicles have it. So you can either fire at range without camo or get camo and need to wait for opponent to come closer.

Axis AT halftracks have 75mm L48 guns which can easily knock out medium tanks so they have no real need for some extra range - they gain some in camo/static position because they sacrifice mobility for extra range.

And when I say that T48 would be useless without the range, then I mean that it would be shredded to pieces by PaKs before it would even fire at any vehicle with normal attack range - this is exactly the case with Axis Halftracks and armored cars armed with 37mm and 28mm guns. Really, how often do you see them in game? (Almost)Never. And why is that? Because they lack range and can be easily destroyed by PaKs. So the same rule should actually apply to these Halftracks as to T48.
Simply said - same rules will apply. No worry, these things are really weak even against medium tanks so they are purely anti-vehicle and the up-side is that with this Axis will also gain an option to take out the T48 and the M16 which many people seem to complain about lately.
(Axis 37mm HTs' abilities will keep their range so WH won't be able to shoot HE at longer distance just as well as PE won't be able to use tread breaker at any longer distance than it can now)
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Dec 2016, 21:30

I don't have time to read the WoT so I just skimmed it and this caught my attention

Alright, wish you will read the rest of the points though.. whenever u have got enough spare time :)
First of all - the extra range of the T48 is there to make it at least somehow usable - take away the range advantage and the vehicle will become another one of those that are never used.

Buf if you take a closer look into the suggestion.. which is to equalize the range for both half-tracks (the WH 75mm halftrack as well as the US/CW 57mm halftrack) to 65 default range... Then i believe that this way the range advantage is not completely taken away! Also keeping in mind that they would be both able to gain even more range (reaching 70) when ambushed, according to the suggestion...
Which is still less than paks for sure! Since that I believe paks always need to have more range than the mobile AT units.

Axis AT halftracks have 75mm L48 guns which can easily knock out medium tanks so they have no real need for some extra range - they gain some in camo/static position because they sacrifice mobility for extra range.

Moreover, I think that when you compare the 57mm half-track with the 75mm half-track.. it feels like there is actually no much difference, in terms of combat vaule! Which is wrong in my own perspective...
I mean; how come the 57mm AT gun half-track is faster, cheaper.. and also a counter to the 75mm half-track from safe distance??!! It should be the complete opposite. Not to mention that when you have the 75mm half-track, you won't have any normal 75mm AT guns. Since it's a reward unit! While as US on the other hand, you can have both the 57mm half-track and the 57mm AT gun too...

Both half-tracks are also available about the same period of the game. Which is during mid game... If the 57mm half-track can't penetrate any Panzers reliably. Then the 75mm half-track isn't any better in that case! Because, in mid game.. this 75mm gun won't be able to reliably pentrate the heavy Allied tanks which are fielded as early as the Pz.IV anyway. That's exactly what I meant above by saying "both half-tracks this way have the same combat value" which is totally weird. Or I probably have to add; that not just they have the same combat value somehow, but the 57mm half-track seems even more valuable in fact! Obviously because of the range advantage.

The range reduction in camo is there because it would be OP if the vehicle could fire from camo at 75 range or even gain range boost when in camo as other vehicles have it. So you can either fire at range without camo or get camo and need to wait for opponent to come closer.

But this is somewhat against the principles of the game btw. Camo usually used to increase the range of units, not to reduce it! And firing at a range of 75 by default (which is as much as paks somehow) is actually more OP than when doing it from ambush mode. As that this way, there is even no point whatsoever to camo with this unit at all.. just... Why would u ever do? You already have great mobility which allows you to escape any dangers. Also combined with a massive range!

And when I say that T48 would be useless without the range, then I mean that it would be shredded to pieces by PaKs before it would even fire at any vehicle with normal attack range - this is exactly the case with Axis Halftracks and armored cars armed with 37mm and 28mm guns. Really, how often do you see them in game? (Almost)Never. And why is that? Because they lack range and can be easily destroyed by PaKs. So the same rule should actually apply to these Halftracks as to T48.
Simply said - same rules will apply. No worry, these things are really weak even against medium tanks so they are purely anti-vehicle and the up-side is that with this Axis will also gain an option to take out the T48 and the M16 which many people seem to complain about lately.
(Axis 37mm HTs' abilities will keep their range so WH won't be able to shoot HE at longer distance just as well as PE won't be able to use tread breaker at any longer distance than it can now)

So, again.. let me repeat this important sentence once more... Mobile AT units should never get the same range as ordinary paks. You just can't have both mobility and range advantages at the same time!
That's the main reason why I would also reject this idea from my side! As you shouldn't be surprised either if you see that people didn't actually like this idea previously when you proposed it to them earlier...

And btw, the PE 37mm half-track is often used intensively throughout PvP games. At least according to what I have seen... Obviously because of the 100 ammo rocket ability, which is the only true counter to Jumbo Shermans in mid game. And also because of the focused firing ability.. as well as the tread breaker of course.
Both the PE 28mm scout car as well as the Def doc 28mm half-track are also very valuable in PvP games... They are the perfect counter to the Recce.
The only thing which is not really valuable, is perhaps the 37mm half-track from Blitz doc.. not sure why... But I think it will be more valuable now after adding aim time to the handheld AT weapons!

Lastly now, if we get back to the suggestion... I guess you really need to have a deeper look into it!
For the 57mm half-track; in fact it's going to lose only 5 range points in total... Which is not much! Just from 75 to 70 (when ambushed) and 65 when not ambushed!
For the 75mm half-track; It will be much more useful now... Finally same as the 57mm half-track! As we will no longer see the 57mm half-track easily out-ranging it anymore.

Just think about it... ;)

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1726
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby MarKr » 18 Dec 2016, 22:31

which is to equalize the range for both half-tracks (the WH 75mm halftrack as well as the US/CW 57mm halftrack) to 65 default range... Then i believe that this way the range advantage is not completely taken away! Also keeping in mind that they would be both able to gain even more range (reaching 70) when ambushed, according to the suggestion...
In your view it is simply "US AT HT" is the same as "Axis AT HT" so the same rules should apply. That is not the case. Axis 75mm HTs are stronger and can take out most of Allied tanks (except for heavies - and even there they have some chance). US T48 has 57mm gun that is weak as hell against pretty much all tanks which means it is only effective against light vehicles. They simply have different roles and that is also why they are available at different phases of the game. T48 is vehicle killer (that means mainly Halftracks) 75mm HTs are medium-tank killers.
Since that I believe paks always need to have more range than the mobile AT units.
And we believe they don't always need to have more range.
how come the 57mm AT gun half-track is faster, cheaper.. and also a counter to the 75mm half-track from safe distance??!!
T48 shots Axis 75mm HT - Axis HT is most of the times alive. Axis HT shots T48 - T48 is one shotted. Also as stated above - T48 is HT counter, Axis 75mm are medium-tank counters.
Then the 75mm half-track isn't any better in that case! Because, in mid game.. this 75mm gun won't be able to reliably pentrate the heavy Allied tanks which are fielded as early as the Pz.IV anyway.
This has nothing to do with the 75mm gun of the Halftrack - all 75mm L48 have about the same effectivity against allied tanks (there was a unification of these guns few patches ago). And since you started about the value of these units - WH HT has camo and HE shots, PE HT has static position and Wolfram. T48 only has camo and the range (with low accuracy - again).
But this is somewhat against the principles of the game btw. Camo usually used to increase the range of units, not to reduce it! And firing at a range of 75 by default (which is as much as paks somehow) is actually more OP than when doing it from ambush mode. As that this way, there is even no point whatsoever to camo with this unit at all.. just... Why would u ever do?
Already said this in the previous post - at max range T48 misses a lot. Use camo, let them come closer and attack with better accuracy.
So, again.. let me repeat this important sentence once more... Mobile AT units should never get the same range as ordinary paks. You just can't have both mobility and range advantages at the same time!
And let me repeat this sentence one more time - it misses 2/3 of shots at max range PaKs don't. If you see that there are shots landing all around your HT and you won't do anything about it (at least move it) then it is your problem.
And btw, the PE 37mm half-track is often used intensively throughout PvP games. At least according to what I have seen... Obviously because of the 100 ammo rocket ability, which is the only true counter to Jumbo Shermans in mid game. And also because of the focused firing ability.. as well as the tread breaker of course.
Both the PE 28mm scout car as well as the Def doc 28mm half-track are also very valuable in PvP games... They are the perfect counter to the Recce.
Yes, this is kinda what I was talking about - these are counters to something. Remove the range from T48 and it will be counter to what? Yes, to nothing and thus it will join the ranks of "never used units".
You say that AT HTs cannot have same range as PaKs...why exactely? PaKs only cost MP, HTs cost MP and Fuel and thus the mobility. Also PaKs are harder to hit by vehicles while HTs are waaay easier to hit by vehicles thus, in sense, more fragile.

This is my last reaction to your post about this because I am well aware that these posts would drag on for 5 pages and we would not come to agreement anyway.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 18 Dec 2016, 23:00

US T48 has 57mm gun that is weak as hell against pretty much all tanks which means it is only effective against light vehicles.

Allied 57mm is almost same as Axis 50mm, which are not weak as hell... They might be weak.. but not as hell.
They simply have different roles and that is also why they are available at different phases of the game.

They are available the same time I think...
75mm HTs are medium-tank killers.

But those medium tanks will easily kill your 75mm half-track if you can't out-range them.
T48 shots Axis 75mm HT - Axis HT is most of the times alive. Axis HT shots T48 - T48 is one shotted.

Both are dead by 1 or 2 shots... And, how are you ever going to score a hit at the 57mm half-track using the 75mm half-track when it's always out of your range?
Already said this in the previous post - at max range T48 misses a lot.

The 75mm half-track is not any better with the accuracy either... Although it has much less range.
Remove the range from T48 and it will be counter to what?

But the suggestion doesn't state that the range bonus should be removed... Anyway.
You say that AT HTs cannot have same range as PaKs...why exactely? PaKs only cost MP, HTs cost MP and Fuel and thus the mobility. Also PaKs are harder to hit by vehicles while HTs are waaay easier to hit by vehicles thus, in sense, more fragile.

Well then, why not to give the 75mm half-track more range too? It is currently useless this way.. keeping in mind you won't have any normal 75mm Paks while having it selected. At least, it shouldn't be a reward unit then!
This is my last reaction to your post about this because I am well aware that these posts would drag on for 5 pages and we would not come to agreement anyway.

Unfortunately... This is apparently true, as we probably won't reach to an agreement concerning this matter that way!
However, I don't argue to prove I am right.. neither I demand anything at the end. As I don't really care in fact! These were just my thoughts. But if you would like to end the discussion on this particular point... Then it's alright! There are many other points to consider.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 111
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby seha » 19 Dec 2016, 12:35

interesting dialogue here. but mark. although sukin-kot earlier brought up this talk about the range of the 57mm halftruck and although tiger now also talked about this again. you still don't change your opinion ! :roll:
so let me introduce my latest idea about this. maybe it will be good for everyone.
you don't like 65 default range and 70 after camo for both?
ok. what about 70 default range for the 57mm halftruck. and +5 when hidden?
you see. no one here want to *remove* the range advantage for this unit.
for the 75mm halftruck. still same request. 65 default range and +5 after camo.
like this. the 57mm halftruck still have more range than the 75mm halftrack. since you say it has weaker gun and so it must have more range to be useful. this request is different now because it is not about making them equal.
and please don't change or increase range for any other vehicles.
what do you think?

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 19 Dec 2016, 13:37

maybe it will be good for everyone.

Hmm... Fine with me! At least it would be better than the current state.
like this. the 57mm halftruck still have more range than the 75mm halftrack. since you say it has weaker gun and so it must have more range to be useful. this request is different now because it is not about making them equal.

Even though that yet this way I actually dislike how the 57mm AT gun half-track would be still able to out-range the 75mm half-track somehow.. but as i said; overall I am fine with it.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1726
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby MarKr » 19 Dec 2016, 14:26

interesting dialogue here. but mark. although sukin-kot earlier brought up this talk about the range of the 57mm halftruck and although tiger now also talked about this again. you still don't change your opinion ! :roll:
First of all - I should change my opinion because two people have different point of view? Also Sukin reacted to my post with irony but provided no counter arguments to what I wrote and Tiger reacted to me while ignoring some of my points (or perhaps not understanding what I meant) and keeping saying his things.
I could also say that even though I gave you arguments for the changes and you did not change your opinion or that sgt.Toni and JimQwilleran and I would say others too (since there were not really any other supportive reactions to that) don't seem to have a problem with T48 anyway so there are people on both sides.

You're still not getting my point. Think of effectiveness of T48 (even if we don't look at the inaccuracy) it has some (though low) chance against PIV F2 and thus its purpose is hunting Halftracks which it can do. Thought HTs are protected with PaKs (with big range) and infantry so without the range, the T48 is kinda useless.
Axis 75mm Halftracks are there to hunt medium tanks and thus they are effective against Shermans (yes, not Jumbos but those are not mediums) Cromwells and everything weaker.
So the bottom line is that T48 has weaker gun and thus has range while 75mm Axis has stronger gun and thus less range.

Pretty much the only problem people have with this is that they cannot EASILY take it out the 57mm gun is not much of a threat if it is at reach, even when it is not at reach because it misses often, so it is more of an annoyance because you need to keep moving. And the 28mm and 37mm HTs are present in most Axis doctrines so they will be a counter to the T48 so what is the problem with this? Same options for everyone...and I would not be against adding a bit range to Axis 75mm HTs...not that much because they can still boost it with camo/static mode but it is true that the HTs are also easy prey for their primary target - medium tanks. So this:
for the 75mm halftruck. still same request. 65 default range and +5 after camo.
yeah, why not.

please don't change or increase range for any other vehicles
And even if your idea came through...you are being inconsistent when you say not to increase ranges of other AT halftrack. You want to "make similar ranges" because T48 and Axis 75mm "are the same" but what makes the 37mm and 28mm AT HTs different in this perspective? Even Tiger said that people use PE 37mm because of the ABILITIES - to kill Jumbos with the rocket ability or snipe shit with ability but not because of its "normal gun/attack". 28mms to counter Recce - one unit used by CW, who has no 37mm ATs...Simply said they suffer from the same problem as T48 would suffer without the range.
Image

User avatar
seha
Posts: 111
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby seha » 19 Dec 2016, 15:20

first.
MarKr wrote:but it is true that the HTs are also easy prey for their primary target - medium tanks. So this:
for the 75mm halftruck. still same request. 65 default range and +5 after camo.

yeah, why not.

very well. thanks.
I should change my opinion because two people have different point of view?

this is not what I mean. just i mean that after i see how their ideas did not work. then i decide to join and discuss again to provide my ideas. was trying to make the discussion more constructive. so we reach to something.
So the bottom line is that T48 has weaker gun and thus has range while 75mm Axis has stronger gun and thus less range.

i get this. but 70 default range +5 after camo won't make T48 suddenly useless.
you are being inconsistent when you say not to increase ranges of other AT halftrack. You want to "make similar ranges" because T48 and Axis 75mm "are the same" but what makes the 37mm and 28mm AT HTs different in this perspective?

i think no one said they are the same. but what was said is they have same combat value. but you are making a good point here about the 37mm and the 28mm.
i think no one want them to have more range because of realism. but also balance. i know realism is no argument because the game is not really based on it. but these small guns have high rate of fire. and the vehicles have good speed. useful abilities and cheap. they are not useless. so there is no need to change them.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby JimQwilleran » 19 Dec 2016, 16:05

seha wrote:i get this. but 70 default range +5 after camo won't make T48 suddenly useless.

Then if it's not such a big change, why do u insist so much on it? If it won't become suddenly useless, or useful or whatever, do we really have to touch it? Do you really want to balance game, or just change something only for sake of changing and pushing through your opinion?

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 19 Dec 2016, 16:10

The whole idea is to make it more useful when ambushed, and slightly less useful when not... Yet without harming its long range capabilities after all.. not to be useless.
I mean; at the end a range of 70 by default is still much!

User avatar
seha
Posts: 111
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby seha » 19 Dec 2016, 16:55

JimQwilleran wrote:
seha wrote:i get this. but 70 default range +5 after camo won't make T48 suddenly useless.

Then if it's not such a big change, why do u insist so much on it?

not insisting.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1726
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby MarKr » 19 Dec 2016, 17:44

this is not what I mean. just i mean that after i see how their ideas did not work. then i decide to join and discuss again to provide my ideas. was trying to make the discussion more constructive. so we reach to something.
Oh, ok.
i get this. but 70 default range +5 after camo won't make T48 suddenly useless.
I am not sure how I feel about this. You see, camo is there for ambushes, that means that opponent comes closer and thus your gun will reach better penetration or you will be able to use some ability or that they pass you unnoticed and you can score a rear shot. Stronger guns can use it for attacking from grater distance because their penetration drop is usually not that drastic. But the greater range will not help with penetration to 57mm gun because PIV F2 and higher it will most likely not penetrate anyway and weaker targets it will penetrate almost certainly and T48 has no abilities that could benefit from the ambush at distance so the only "advantage" is to wait for opponent to get close and then fire but let's face it, the strongest thing T48 has a chance to penetrate are PIVs and the chance to one-shot them is very low that means that once you fire from closer distance from camo, you pretty much lose the unit. The camo ability for T48 doesn't seem particularly useful to be honest.
i think no one said they are the same. but what was said is they have same combat value.
Depends on how you look at it. T48 is capable of taking out halftracks, medium tanks are kind of rare to take out so it destroys units of approximately same tier and price. 75mm Axis HTs destroy medium tanks and thus destroy units of higher tier and price. So the combat value is also questionable.
i know realism is no argument because the game is not really based on it. but these small guns have high rate of fire. and the vehicles have good speed. useful abilities and cheap.
Rate of fire is inconsistent and kind of weird...37mm PE HT reloads 2 seconds while WH 37mm HT reloads 3.5-4 seconds, might be fast but are really no big problem even for weakest AT guns in the game (especially when those AT guns have 75 range) and the useful abilities...Well, PE 37mm HT has some useful abilities, WH 37mm HT has only the HE mode, PE 28mm armored car has no abilities (iirc only in SE it has Disable point) and WH 28mm HT can only spawn PaKs on the battle field.
So:
PE 28mm - no abilities to speak of, only gun
WH 28mm - basically a unit spawner, later, when these PaKs can be spawn its 28mm gun is of almost no use
PE 37mm HT - useful abilities; With one can snipe infantry; other can take out bigger tanks against which it cannot do crap with its stock gun; third can disable vehicle movement (though short range = you risk the vehicle yorself)
WH 37mm HT - can use HE mode without need to buy upgrades (switching costs ammo though)
And think about it - the main combat role of these vehicles is to deal with enemy vehicles in early game - do they do that? I would say that mostly they don't because opponent has PaKs with greater range and you will lose these vehicles fast because of that. So nobody wants to waste resources in early game thus their usage is minimal.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 19 Dec 2016, 19:17

The camo ability for T48 doesn't seem particularly useful to be honest.

Agreed! If it will keep a default range of 75 then the ambush ability for sure makes no sense whatsoever... Maybe you should even remove the ambush ability then.. no one is going to ambush a tank with this half-track at such a close range, because.. once it fires... It won't kill the tank for sure. As it will be also revealed... Therefore it's pretty much dead at this point, specifically as long as it's in range of the enemy tank!
I think that's exactly the reason why Seha suggested that the ambush ability should actually provide more range; So 70 range as default and plus 5 more range points when ambushed.
Unless you want to remove the ambush ability! Then only in that case a range of 75 by default would be justified.
You see, camo is there for ambushes, that means that opponent comes closer and thus your gun will reach better penetration or you will be able to use some ability or that they pass you unnoticed and you can score a rear shot.

Ambush works like this way only for AT teams with short ranged handheld AT weapons, while AT guns work differently... As they ambush and shoot from distance. T48 is a mobile AT gun half-track! And not a handheld AT weapon.
37mm PE HT reloads 2 seconds while WH 37mm HT reloads 3.5-4 seconds

I was actually about to type about this before you post :P The WH 37mm HT should reload in 2 seconds too...

About giving more range to the Axis half-tracks.
Hmm... It seems that you REALLY want to implement that ^^ But MarKr, doesn't it seem a little bit weird to you that a 37mm cannon or a 28mm gun would actually have more range than most tanks such as the 76 Sherman with its long barreled gun for example? Or as much range as the Elephant? I mean; it might be more acceptable for the 57mm AT gun to have such range.. but, for such small cannons which can shoot so rapidly in a manner of which could be considered OP if they would also have such a massive range combined with good mobility as well?!
They won't penetrate tanks anyway, so they are not a threat even if they get a range of 100. That's correct... But against other half-tracks they would be definitely OP! Currently when those half-tracks ever manage to get into a face to face fight with Allied ones.. then the winner is usually the one who reloads faster already btw.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 111
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby seha » 20 Dec 2016, 12:33

MarKr wrote:I am not sure how I feel about this.

me too. i think both arguments are correct. now t48 has 75 default range and 65 after camo? suggestion is 70 default range and 75 after camo. both are good. but maybe the suggestion will make it better. 70 is still more than the new 65 default range of 75mm halftruck. it will reach 70 only after camo. this when t48 can reach 75 after camo too. with this suggestion the t48 will always have 5 more range advantage. so you choose about t48. the suggestion or to keep like now.
MarKr wrote:And think about it - the main combat role of these vehicles is to deal with enemy vehicles in early game - do they do that?

i think they do. because fast reload.
Tiger1996 wrote:I was actually about to type about this before you post :P The WH 37mm HT should reload in 2 seconds too...

by the way. the whermacht version can kill halftrucks easier with high explosive shells......

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3049
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 4.9.6 Beta

Postby Tiger1996 » 20 Dec 2016, 15:40

by the way. the whermacht version can kill halftrucks easier with high explosive shells......

Yup, same as the ordinary 37mm AT gun; Pak36.
It's actually more effective against the Recce when using HE rounds.. than when using regular AP! :P But I think this is totally fine.


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests