4.9.9 Patch Preview

[Warhawks97]

Ok. So when i play def doc i will build the pak 43 emplacment only when enemie gets jumbo, churchill crocc or SP.
The weaker 88 will be the stronger one.

[Krieger Blitzer]

It's ok Hawks...
I know you wanted to change the damage of flak 88s, as I also agreed to that from my side.. but I think it's already too late now to implement any further changes on the upcoming patch, just as Kr0noZ earlier stated that the patch is almost done by now! But I think that they might still reconsider this stuff or these kind of ideas later on future versions. And btw, as far as I am concerned this next release is actually not the Steam one yet.

[speeddemon02]

iirc they wanted 5.0.0.0 to be steam

[Krieger Blitzer]

Btw, I don't care much about A.i but this is something I probably still have to point out. Moving the Calliope jeep from Airborne doctrine to infantry doctrine might eventually require tweaking the US A.i as well so that it doesn't bring this unit as AB doc anymore.

Also, I honestly believe that such a big patch should actually have some serious beta testing with ALL the community participating in order to allow a bigger potential of hunting any possible bugs, instead of keeping this kind of beta testing just internally closed or limited only for certain individuals. Having a limited beta testing only proves that beta testing itself is often necessary after all. Which obviously contradicts what we have been told at some point in the past that beta testing is no longer needed...
And now that turns out for a fact not to be the case! Just my viewpoint though.

[MarKr]

Ahhh...we were betting how long it will take you to make some sort of post where you would pretend the main point to be some issue which is actually not an issue at all but your actual intention would be to show that you know about the test group and indirectly ask for access. My bet was at least one day after finding out...shit, I lost

Anyway, your viewpoint is noted.

[mofetagalactica]

Ahhh...we were betting how long it will take you to make some sort of post where you would pretend the main point to be some issue which is actually not an issue at all but your actual intention would be to show that you know about the test group and indirectly ask for access. My bet was at least one day after finding out...shit, I lost

Anyway, your viewpoint is noted.

M3 sherman crocodile being able to shoot his 75mm cannon someday?

[MarKr]

No, it is not planned at the moment.

[Medic Truck]

As I am having time issues currently, but I am following up on the discussions and little offline gameplays whenever possible.

[Warhawks97]

Crocc couldnt fire its main gun? Thats what i know so far. It was techincally not possible afaik. Prove me wrong.

[kwok]

It is possible I think, but I am against it for good [correction] game design reasons [/correction].

[sgtToni95]

I think they needed the munition storage space to mount flamethrowers components and inflamable liquid tanks maybe?

[kwok]

Are we talking about physics or game impossible?

[MarKr]

Crocc couldnt fire its main gun? Thats what i know so far. It was techincally not possible afaik. Prove me wrong.

According to one source (a quick summary):

There were two types of tank-mounted flamethrowers:
- Auxiliary Mechanized Flame Throwers (these were smaller, mounted on tanks by replacing hull-MG or periscope); in game Churchill croc has this
- Main Armament Mechanized flame Throwers (bigger, replaced main gun; later were placed along with the main gun); in game Sherman/flammenhetzer have this

The Auxiliary version was used first and was mounted on M4 Shermans but also light tanks M3 and M5 and saw action in European theater.
The Main version was first tested on light tanks Stuart but by the time they made first versions, Stuarts were consider obsolete and it was required to mount it on something more durable so they tried to mount it on other tanks, including Shermans. When they were finished with the conversion, the flamethrower replaced main gun (so there was no 75mm cannot to fire). But some tank commanders complained about complete removal of the cannon and so there was another design that featured both the turret-mounted flamethrower and main gun too (either 75mm canon or 105mm howitzer)
"By judicious planning, designers arranged the interior of the vehicles to allow the storage of forty rounds of 75mm or twenty rounds of 105mm shells without decreasing the quantity of flame-thrower fuel."
However the text mentions that these versions actually saw action only in fights in Japan.

So what we have in BK is off - the model has a flamethrower mounted on the turret, visibly along the main gun so it should be able to use both, but practically speaking, those were not used in Europe (and if then probably very few of them), while what was used in Europe was the hull-MG replacement on normal M4s which we don't have in the game.

Source (I haven't tried to look up validity of the source, so it might as well be pile of bullshit )

From technical standpoint, making an M4 unit that has hull-mounted flamethrower and uses 75mm cannon is possible. But even if there was no HE upgrade/ability for this unit, it would change the overall power of the "crocodile" unit and would need more adjustments and overall rebalance...so the question here is if it is really necessary. (I think it is not)

[mofetagalactica]

There were two types of tank-mounted flamethrowers:
- Auxiliary Mechanized Flame Throwers (these were smaller, mounted on tanks by replacing hull-MG or periscope); in game Churchill croc has this
- Main Armament Mechanized flame Throwers (bigger, replaced main gun; later were placed along with the main gun); in game Sherman/flammenhetzer have this

The one they used in the west (bk) was the auxiliary one with the cannon still functional, not the one with the main 75 removed, just saying peopple dont use them mostly because it cost more fuel and is still a sherman that dies againts everything. Being able to shoot his 75 and also use a flamethrower would give them more use. Why do you think that no-one noticed that the sherman cocrodile was the faster one in game? simple, nobody uses them.

[MarKr]

Is it really that they are not used because of not having a cannon? I would say it is because you can do what they do in other, cheaper ways. Flamethrowers are good for killing infantry, especially in buildings. But you can do that with grenades of your regular infantry for cheaper cost and less risk for example.
I am not saying that such a tank would not be more useful, but think of the overall balance. Wouldn't this turn it from "never used" to "always used"? Crocs are iirc available without any unlocks, normal hull MGs are just noise makers so it would be a better version of normal M4 sherman - 75mm cannon + flamethrower + top MG. Even if we made it the way that Croc would have no HE ammo/ability it would still be able to quickly deal with light vehicles, infantry and still pose some threat to medium tanks too - so as I said, more re-balancing would be needed, not just "swap hull MG for flamethrower".

[Warhawks97]

The issue is that you lose your tank when attacking whatever.

The schrecks etc have just as much range. I used to get 1 or 2 of them, rushing them into battle and enemie inf formations or spawns. They burned a bit arround and then exploded causing a "field of flames".

And since any target you want to attack has schrecks/faust etc with more range there is little use of this tank except "Banzai attack" or "Kamikaze" having already planned to lose the tank. I think i saw kwok using it in a very similiar way.

Also killing emplacment crews is pretty hard sometimes. It requires several seconds of shooting flames in it before the crew suddenly dies.

And if you want to kill HMG inside builidngs etc: The 75 mm HE does it just as good. So trenches might be a good target for the crocc which i think its used best against. But you cant know what is inside unless it starts shooting. So only entranched pios or HMG (or inside bunkers) are a target for the crocc. Other inf contains schrecks and stuff.


So ways to make it more appealing using it:
1. Flames to more damage or at least against entranched units and emplacment crews
2. Shermans "wouldnt die to everything" like they were Stuart tanks. It often feels like shermans are stuarts just with better gun. If you guess what i am aiming at: Yes the 50 mm AT and how easily it kills even shermans. The "armor" aspect of shermans is completely out of sight and they are more like vehicles that die to the lightest AT stuff.

Generally the tank is useable when:
1. You have the chance to do a banzai attack on enemie spawns
2. largely outnumbering the enemie already
3. You use armor doc in order to get it for lower cost


Its like with rangers. Crap untill you get many for cheap. Its more a "fun to use unit" than a "usefull tool".

[mofetagalactica]

Is it really that they are not used because of not having a cannon? I would say it is because you can do what they do in other, cheaper ways. Flamethrowers are good for killing infantry, especially in buildings. But you can do that with grenades of your regular infantry for cheaper cost and less risk for example.
I am not saying that such a tank would not be more useful, but think of the overall balance. Wouldn't this turn it from "never used" to "always used"? Crocs are iirc available without any unlocks, normal hull MGs are just noise makers so it would be a better version of normal M4 sherman - 75mm cannon + flamethrower + top MG. Even if we made it the way that Croc would have no HE ammo/ability it would still be able to quickly deal with light vehicles, infantry and still pose some threat to medium tanks too - so as I said, more re-balancing would be needed, not just "swap hull MG for flamethrower".

You mean a better version of a M4 sherman - 75mm without HE and without TOP MG. Then that would usefull for something, so you can at least shoot back at some halftracks or panzer IV. M4 Croc has shitty range, you can pretty much get destroyed before killing 2 or 3 guys of a squad, even inside buildings. Their cost also dosnt even make them usefull if it only has a flametrower. Then maybe with that we will see mixed m4's formations. Instead of just M3 and E8.

[kwok]

I'll just say I disagree with Warhawks in that while it is not often used, the crocc Sherman is powerful enough as is and a great tool. It is up to the players to use in the first place, but often don't.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Currently it might be somewhat useful, but let's not forget that the speed of this unit will be significantly reduced. As I can see absolutely no problem if the Croc Sherman would be able to shoot with its main gun... It doesn't have HE rounds or suppression ability, so it's fine either ways.

[Panzerblitz1]

In addition to man-portable flamethrowers for infantry, two general types of tank-mounted flamethrowers were developed in parallel during the WW II timeframe:

1-Auxiliary Mechanized Flame Throwers
2-Main Armament Mechanized flame Throwers

Auxiliary units fired through the bow machine gun port or periscope. Main armament flamethrowers were mounted in the turret, in place of the main gun. Both approaches went through rapid design evolution, trying various approaches. Portable flamethrowers were adapted to the purpose, but had limited range and fuel capacity. Larger units were developed specifically for installation in tanks and these were far more successful. Units were produced for the M3, M4 and M5 tanks with the M4 Sherman platform becoming the most successful.

[idliketoplaybetter]

Well, regardless Crocc M4 i'd like to point few things.

First of all, i sorta agree to Warhawks, by the matter clarifying the role of the unit. But i disagree, on a proposed changes.

Crocc is an assault kind of tank, as any "fire" weapon is, it is meant to be on a frontline, taking first damage and do its best to breakthrough (as ARE all kinds of flamethrowers and all usage of FlameTanks of that period (actually often not lucky).
What we have in game?

Powerfull tank, usually critting on a burst and dealing tons of area damage. If u get it early enough and have units to support, it can be used much better than M4 (and i personally find such gameplay funnier, instead of endless M4 HE - bait-reverse play).
Again, very important here, WHEN u are getting it.
However, what Warhawks also said about surviveability and regular "HP/armor of shermans" is also a subject. But we have to undersand, that eventhough Balancing cant be straightly made up from history, at the same time, hystorical succesfullness is the only to thing to actually base this "balance suspicion'. And Sherman was terrible tank. Terrible for mid-late war time and terrible for basically any role it meant to be used, including Crocc version.
Although, i have something to add and hope to be constructive without asking for much changes.
I'd offer to give Crocc ONLY for armor doc. Make it possible to overrepair and maybe(if its not the case now) let it skirt up and sandbag. So it will add more chances for tank in its main avangarding role. Even overrepaired units are mostly not worth it, but somewhat increases the chance to live out from battle.

Cheers


p.s. Thing why no one is using it, is not the price (im not denying if it will get cheaper, it might be used more often though), but in fact, everyone are expecting i dunno what from their units. And Crocc gives enough in proper use already.
My first weeks at mod, i was amused to see, that Fire weapon is thrown back while Elite units of Axis are suffering from that extremely!

[Warhawks97]

I dont think that it should be only for armor doc. I mean i dont really get why. It was often used in conjunction with infantry and i used it more often with inf doc as with armor simply as this tank worked better in conjunction with lots of inf. As armor a spam of HE shermans does million times better.

Atm it has its crazy speed to be fast enough to throw a few flames at least before dying. But you take the first hit usually.

@Kwok: Dont tell me now that it is a unit which you "must have" in order to deal with situations. We both use the tank in the same way. Mostly when having the upper hand and rushing for spawns/base.

The other moments i used it was on maps with many hedgerows. There it was kind of fun to use the bulldozer, coming through the bushes and suprise the enemie behind it.


@Idliketoplaybetter: What you mean with terrible tank? Its armor was often underrated bc of the existance of 88 guns and Panther canons etc. But it could stand many of the common AT weapons of its time, esspecially the 50 mm had struggle to deal with it which in general is my main concern regarding shermans.

Can we catch us in steam someday. Coz i am not sure what you are refering to when saying "terrible tank". It had usually a good power weight ratio (unlike tank IV´s and others which got overupgraded for the engine), the wet storage versions where the savest tanks at the days (just 10-15% burned out due to ammo fire compared to 82 of normal shermans and 80% for tigers and Tank IV´s). It could extremly quickly reload (for the 76 version the reload could be done in 2 seconds due to turret design and space for the loader).

back on topic. I dont want it to make super realistic. Just its extremly frustrating to see that a sherman does not much better against the 50 mm AT than stuart tanks in terms of armor. I am exaggerating a bit but this is how it feels and usually is. And that even e8 shermans have to take really care being penetrated more often than not from ambushed 50 mm not even using AP rounds. If i would demand full realism, the 50 mm would rarely penetrate shermans, even from closer distances. But in game it does pen at max range, more often than not and that without any AP round or ambush boost.

In terms of "assault tanks" and to "fight down defenses" and to "help infantry to get over defenses" its very poor to die this fast to one of the cheapest AT tools in game with minimum effort.
And this is something that could could help the crocc sherman to become more of an offensive assault tank.

[MarKr]

I tried to see if it is even technically possible to turn the hull MG into a flamethrower and it is not possible without model editing which is something I don't know crap about.
Anyway there is again the situation where some players claim that some unit is useless while others claim it is OK if it is used right. In such situations I generaly tend to think that if someone manages to use a unit with good results then others can do it too.

[Redgaarden]

I find the croc sherman quite good as it is atm. It brings out more anti tank capability than most shermans. Has highest healthpool of all shermans including jumbo. Shrecks do little to no dmg agaisnt it. You can build a brand new one and suicide rush it against a infantry squad. And it cost less munitions than any other tank.

Only problem I have with them is that they can't destroy engine of king tigers or other big tanks. (Which is a pretty shit engine)
And I hate they are limited to only 3 at the time.
And that their 50.cal gunner always implodes.
And that they can't do shit against halftracks.
And that 50mm pak counters them.
And that luftwaffe counters them.
And that if often crashes the game when they drive over enemy infnatry.

But all in all, I find it more appealing than all other shermans.

[Warhawks97]

Anyway there is again the situation where some players claim that some unit is useless while others claim it is OK if it is used right. In such situations I generaly tend to think that if someone manages to use a unit with good results then others can do it too.

It brings out more anti tank capability than most shermans. You can build a brand new one and suicide rush it against a infantry squad. And it cost less munitions than any other tank.

Simply this.