Final initial list! v4.95/v5.00

[Warhawks97]

Hmm. I dont get really smart of the schwimm test oO.

All i can see as "prove" is that one schwimm beats jeep, the other loses. But idk, i would test each schwimmwagen at least 5 times against a certain unit/weapon. I will continue to watch now.

ah, ok. I see the table you made.

[Wake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dMcKsieSTM

Great video! If only I could speak Russian. But yes, this shows that the Wehrmacht schwimm is too good. I was incredibly surprised to see that riflemen with grease guns lost to the WH schwimm at close range! That's just ridiculous, considering that both units cost 240 MP.

On a different note, I have compiled a list of unit prices that I think are too expensive or overpriced. Tell me if you agree/disagree.

Controversial List


Recoiless Rifle Jeep - from 280 MP/5 Fuel to 300 MP. The previous justification for this unit costing fuel is that it could damage vehicles, however, at the current price, you can get a bazooka team for 50 more MP, and the bazooka is much more accurate and damaging than the recoiless rifle. And, because it can be built only after the Weapons Support Center is built, you can also get rangers at the same time, and upgrade them with a bazooka. In its current state, the RR jeep usually misses and if it does, will lose to scout cars, which is its main opponent.


Sherman V (M4A4) - from 400 MP/40 fuel to 360 MP/35 fuel. This unit is a joke. It costs the same as the American Sherman, but has no 50 cal and no permanent HE rounds. This makes it terrible vs infantry. Even with a 75mm main cannon and 2 30 cal MGs, a jeep can kill infantry faster than this thing. It doesn't have much health and is relatively slow. The only useful purpose of this tank is to destroy light vehicles (which usually escape because it takes 2 hits to kill) or fight stubby Panzer IV Ausf Es and Ds. In its reward unit description, it also says that it is a cheaper but worse alternative to the Cromwell (400/40). The Cromwell is faster, harder to hit, has permanent HE rounds, and currently, is actually cheaper than the Sherman V. To compare prices of other units, look at the StuG IV (400/40) and StuG III (350/40) and Panzer IV E (400/40).


American M5 Stuart - from 340 MP/30 fuel to 300/30 and British M3A1 Light Stuart - from 320 MP/30 fuel to 280/25. Both of these units are quite overpriced, especially the British one, as it has much less armor, health, and effectiveness. Both are terrible vs infantry and the British Stuart still gets destroyed by axis light vehicles.


M8 Scott - from 400 MP/40 fuel to 300 MP/30 fuel AFTER the Cheaper Shermans unlock. The Scott used to be quite OP, but it got nerfed a few patches ago and I almost never see it being used anymore - probably due to it being only available in the Armor doc, and since by the time a player builds the supply yard, which is required to make the Scott, a player has usually unlocked the Cheaper Shermans Upgrade, so there is no point in buying the Scott when you can get a Sherman for much cheaper that has an equally effective HE round, more MGs, and more health. I propose dropping it to 300/30 to match the price of the Shermans after the upgrade, like it is before the upgrade.


M36 Jackson (and M36B1) - from 700 MP/110 fuel to 620 MP/90 fuel for the M36B1, and 560 MP/75 fuel for the M36. The reason being that these are the most expensive tank destroyers on the allied side by far. I compared the Jacksons to the costs of the British Achilles and Firefly since both units are incredibly similar and fulfill the EXACT same role. The Achilles costs 430/65, and like the M36 Jackson, can camo and is fast on a M10 Wolverine chasis. The 17 pounder and 90mm gun are quite similar, so why does the Jackson cost nearly twice as much? The other comparison is the M36B1 vs the Firefly, both are on a Sherman chasis and have the 17 Pounder/90mm gun yet the Firefly only costs 550/80. Can someone explain why the 90mm versions of the tanks are so much more expensive? If they are as similar as I think, the price should definitely be reduced! Again, the Jackson and the Firefly/Achilles are nearly identical and have the same purpose. Another unit to compare is the Comet, which costs 650/100 and is supposedly the ultimate British tank destroyer, having a gun that is better than the 17 pounder, along with speed and armor! But the Jackson is even more expensive than this!


M26 Pershing - from 830 MP/160 fuel to 780 MP/130 fuel. The Pershing currently sucks, so I based the new price off of the prices of the Panthers. Because what is the Pershing? It can kill panthers, but anything bigger and it still loses.


SAS Commandos - from 650 MP to 600 MP. These guys are supposed to the final, most elite infantry in the entire allied army. The only allied infantry unit that costs more is the Airborne HQ squad. Yet the SAS, who come out often in the extreme late game, seem to have very little resistance to gunfire. Most axis units destroy them pretty easily. But for me, the real test is Luftwaffe vs SAS. Put a Reg 5 Fallschrimjager or Gebirgsjager squad vs the SAS with no vet and no cover for both, and I guarantee you the Luftwaffe win every single time, even though the Luft cost only 550 MP. If the SAS try to get in close with their thompsons, they will get shredded along the way by either G43 or FG42s. If they stay far away, the 2 bren guns aren't enough to handle the long range damage output of the Luftwaffe. I'm comparing the SAS and Luft because they have the exact same purpose - heavy airborne infantry with AT capabilities.



Sd.Kfz. 251/7 Halftrack (28mm sPzB) - from 300 MP/35 fuel to 300 MP/20 fuel. The same gun on a PE car costs 320/15. So 35 fuel for an AT rifle is ridiculous. For 70 more MP, you can build a Puma with a 50mm cannon that damages Shermans!


Sd.Kfz. 251/10 Halftrack (37mm PaK) - from 280 MP/30 Fuel to 300 MP/25 fuel. This one is just ridiculous! For 20 more MP and 5 more fuel, you can buy the same halftrack but with a PaK 40 in the back instead of a tiny 37mm pea shooter.


Sd.Kfz. 251/16 Flamethrower Halftrack - from 275 MP/35 fuel to 300 MP/30 fuel. It's a deadly flamethrower, but it's also still a halftrack. It gets destroyed by 1 bazooka, the 37mm AT gun stops it easily, and it takes damage from 50 Cals.


Panzergrenadiers - from 360 MP to 340 MP. These guys cost the same as Rangers but are much worse in combat ability. I consider them to be on-par with riflemen, except that they can build and repair.


Assault Grenadier Heavy Infantry - from 425 MP to 400 MP. These guys are supposed to be the equivalent to WH grens but they are worse (can't get Panzershrecks and have the volks K98 instead of elite K98), and currently cost more. At least make them equal in price.


FPB 3 Luftlande Pioneers - from 420 MP to 350 MP. I think they are just overpriced. These guys are similar to British Sappers, as in a builder unit that can also fight effectively.


Airborne Engineers - from 320 MP to 220 MP. Same reason as above, except that these engineers are just as shitty as the ones that cost 180 MP from the HQ. Actually, I am wrong. They are shittier, because instead of Garands, they get Carbines.


101st Airborne Rangers - from 415 MP to 400 MP. Probably my most controversial suggestion, but I think that Airborne is the worst doc in the game because 101st and 82nd are so incredibly overpriced. 101st get raped by volks at long range unless you dump 90 munition into them. They can't hit anything with their one recoiless rifle and even if they do, it doesn't do much damage. At least set their price equal to grenadiers, which can rape them 8 times out of ten, even if the 101st have vet (just ask kwok).


82nd Airborne Rangers - from 500 MP to 475 MP. Same reasons as above, except 82nd have a lot of health and bazookas instead of shitty recoiless rifles. However, I compare them to Luftwaffe Reg 5 Fallschrimjagers and Gebirgs, and again, the Luftwaffe will easily win at any range in an open field map because the 82nd have to get close to make their thompsons effective. I based this price off of the 450 MP Commandos.

[MarKr]

It shows that WH Schwimmwagen takes less damage from infantry than PE one. In those test situations the PE got always destroyed faster or lost more health than WH Schwimmwagen.

More rounds of testing would not hurt but I think the result would not be that different. When Schwimmwagen attacks a squad the squad fires with 6 weapons. If there were vehicle cannons being tested against each other then more test rounds would be definately needed but here the only difference would most probably be how fast would the infantry die.

Anyway the problem stil remains - I cannot find any clue in the files why should one act differently from the other.

[Eldrak1911]

- from 300 MP/35 fuel to 300 MP/20 fuel. The same gun on a PE car costs 320/15. So 35 fuel for an AT rifle is ridiculous. For 70 more MP, you can build a Puma with a 50mm cannon that damages Shermans!

I think you're missing the point : That HT is not realy meant to be used with its PzB, but it's meant to build AT Gun, 75mm for 360mp, and 88m for 480mp.

The two prices are fine as they are imo. Or, yes, we could drop a bit the fuel price, from 35 to 25. But not under that. That ht is realy a good unit if used correctly.

[Armacalic]

Can someone explain why the 90mm versions of the tanks are so much more expensive? If they are as similar as I think, the price should definitely be reduced! Again, the Jackson and the Firefly/Achilles are nearly identical and have the same purpose.

I think I can.

The 17 pounder cannon is a 76.2mm (3inch) AT gun. It's better than the 76.2mm (3inch) cannon the US uses. The lenght of its barrel, and the ammo it could fire were the main reasons for the difference in penetration. But at the end of the day, "it was still" a 76mm cannon.

The 90mm cannon is obviously bigger, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the 90mm does more damage on penetration than the 17 pounder, though both in real life had relatively the same penetration capabilities (Don't know in game, though).

(Random trivia, probably useless for the game, in real life, the only vehicles that neither the 90mm nor the 17 pounder could penetrate frontally with their normal shells were JagdTigers. Every other tank in the german side was liable to be penetrated from the front, with mixed results for the King Tiger.)

[Warhawks97]

Re jeep:

Who builds it? It never hits shit lol. In 1 vs 1 with scout car its often going to lose. Boost accuracy or idk. I would keep the fuel cost but drop MP to 240, idk. Maybe we will see a reformation in jeeps/schwimm anyway.

Scott:
The scott has dif HE than HE sherman. I recoment to use scott vs inf that stays more static and in cover. Unlike sherman the scott doesnt suffer damage or accuracy penalty vs inf in cover. If you have to counter normal inf (grens etc) the sherman is better. More health, top mounted MG etc. Vs Luft the scott might be superior as its damage boost works differently as those of shermans which deal less damage vs luft inf.

I am against cheaper scott unless its range is reduced to 60 so that it doesnt outrange tanks anymore, immobilizing those from superior range. If that is changed i am all up for that suggestion.

M36 Jacks:
Dont compare it so easily 1 to 1 with CW achilles. Brits can only get the 17 pdr even when they counter cheaper medium tanks. US can get simpply mand M10. The Jacks is an addition. I wouldnt change much here, only fuel cost from 110 to 95.
The Jacks A should have the normal ambush range boosts. All TD´s in ambush have range boost. Axis +10, allis + 5. Just Jacks hasnt. Also when engine upgrade is up it should get automatically flank speed when leaving ambush mode. Thats how the fragile allied TD´s work and thats what bugs me most on it. You cant escape easily with that fragile expensive TD unless you instantly pay 35 ammo to escape.

Pershing:
Buff its armor, especially vs certain L/48 guns but also some others. Tigers and panthers have extrem high standard pen agaist it, much better as against jumbo. But dont touch cost.

SAS:
All experienced RAF player say they are crap. I think 700 MP is really a bit too high.

251/7:
Agreed. I would also drop MP to 280 MP.

251/10:
It has good rof and good HE. Just 75 ammo each time to switch to HE is way too high. But slight fuel drop wouldnt hurt i think.

251/16
Where is the prob? you wanna increase MP cost and lower fuel? I wouldnt. Simply as it throw flames which needs fuel:D

Pgrens:
Agreed. But they are better as rifles. Better rifle stats but also more resistant against MG (and especially Jeep fire) as long as you dont move.
I would honestly love to test the squad size drop down to 5 men at the beginning by dropping cost to 300 or 320 MP.

Heavy assault grens:
Same as above.

Luft pios:
Yes. But also we might get the squad available being build in a building for approx 260 MP.

AB Pios:
Yes.

101st AB Ranger:
Yes. Even 385 would be absolutely OK.

82nd AB:
Yes. 450 MP i would say. But we have to keep tracking Luftwaffe reg 5 cost.



What about stuart? The worst unit out there?
270/30 or 280 for the CW one, 300 for the US one and 275 after Tank depot upgrade.


M16 from 300 MP and 30 fuel to 325 MP and 25 fuel. After tank depot upgrade 300 MP and 20 fuel.

[Wake]

What about stuart? The worst unit out there?
270/30 or 280 for the CW one, 300 for the US one and 275 after Tank depot upgrade.

M16 from 300 MP and 30 fuel to 325 MP and 25 fuel. After tank depot upgrade 300 MP and 20 fuel.

I wholeheartedly agree. For reference, the 20mm Sdkfz 234 costs 325/25 as well. This also brings up the question, if the M8 Greyhound is supposed to be the exact equivalent of Sdkfz 234 on the American side, but the Greyhound costs 330/30, why does the Sdkfz usually win the fight between these 2 units?

Also, what do you guys think about the M15A1 Multiple Gun Halftrack, the one that faces backwards? It currently costs 375/30, while the normal M16 Quad that it replaces costs 300/30. I think both should cost the same, considering that the backwards one is better, but there is a huge trade-off in the fact that it is much more difficult to micro control and cannot be used as aggressively.

[Warhawks97]

I wholeheartedly agree. For reference, the 20mm Sdkfz 234 costs 325/25 as well. This also brings up the question, if the M8 Greyhound is supposed to be the exact equivalent of Sdkfz 234 on the American side, but the Greyhound costs 330/30, why does the Sdkfz usually win the fight between these 2 units?

Nope, i wouldnt say supposed to be exact equivalent. You also have to consider some costs of units that comes at the same time. So overall i am atm fine with greyhound. In the next patch with standardized mines it might become also more usefull. The 234/2 with 20 mm is overall the better one but still i dont see any trouble with greyhound cost.

Also, what do you guys think about the M15A1 Multiple Gun Halftrack, the one that faces backwards? It currently costs 375/30, while the normal M16 Quad that it replaces costs 300/30. I think both should cost the same, considering that the backwards one is better, but there is a huge trade-off in the fact that it is much more difficult to micro control and cannot be used as aggressively.

Personally using the M16 but i see many using the M15A1 very well that also clearly say that they prefer the M15A1. Even if it requires more controle as the M16 it also defends your line better against threats. Kept behind your inf it nicely counters any axis vehicle attempting to shred your units. And if its true that the M15A1 gets cheaper after tank depot upgrade then it dont really see any problem.
The M16 might go up with MP cost to apporx 320 MP and dropping after tank depot upgrade but not sure though as its inferior to 234/2 with 20 mm (those are indeed serving similiar purposes having even same ability).


So it think the units you listed (except pershing) + stuart tanks are the one we should consider to drop the build cost.

[Viper]

M36 Jackson (and M36B1) - from 700 MP/110 fuel to 620 MP/90 fuel for the M36B1, and 560 MP/75 fuel for the M36. The reason being that these are the most expensive tank destroyers on the allied side, and currently cost as much fuel as a Jagdpanther!

huh? jagdpanther = 180 fuel >>> and 160 after reduction!

[Wake]

huh? jagdpanther = 180 fuel >>> and 160 after reduction!

Oh, yes, I was wrong on this one! I changed it.

I also added the CW Sherman and Stuart.

[kwok]

Wake I like your new picture (vet 3 engineers). Did you know mine kills credit the engineers who placed them?

One time I had vet 4 airborne observation squad. Didn't do anything helpful though, i didn't feel any of the bonuses. If anything they sapped veterancy from other more important squads. But just showed that they did their job well.

[MarKr]

The vet system is non-rewarding for certain units because it is unified for vehicles, tanks and infantry - i'm not sure right now but I think that infantry gets increase in accuracy, cooldown and something else...same bonusee are listed even for spotters who have no gun and therefore bonuses are useless. In case of engineers their fighting capabilities are so poor that the bonuses don't make them much better.

[Warhawks97]

The vet system is non-rewarding for certain units because it is unified for vehicles, tanks and infantry - i'm not sure right now but I think that infantry gets increase in accuracy, cooldown and something else...same bonusee are listed even for spotters who have no gun and therefore bonuses are useless. In case of engineers their fighting capabilities are so poor that the bonuses don't make them much better.

depends. When i picked up a schreck once with pios ive got them on vet 4 (or even 5 idk). They killed in total 3 tanks and lots of inf. 30 kills or more.

Inf and Tanks vet are "BK vets". They get stuff like accuracy, reload speed, cooldown reduction, reduced suppression, better sprint/nades etc. But always in smaller steps.

Vehicles (and paks) do get quite massive buffs with each vet as they are often taken from vcoh.

[Wake]

depends. When i picked up a schreck once with pios ive got them on vet 4 (or even 5 idk). They killed in total 3 tanks and lots of inf. 30 kills or more.

Inf and Tanks vet are "BK vets". They get stuff like accuracy, reload speed, cooldown reduction, reduced suppression, better sprint/nades etc. But always in smaller steps.

The story behind my picture is that, in early game, if you put your engineers inside of a big house with many windows, where all 6 engineers can shoot from it, and the enemy gets close, the engineers will destroy them. At close range, the engineers with their semi-auto Garands can beat unupgraded Grenadiers. That's what happened on St. Hillaire, in the big warehouse on the side.

Also, I know that vet for some units is very different, like M8 Greyhound gets faster instead of stronger. In fact, a vet 3 Greyhound is like a race car, it's ridiculously fast.

Do you know where in Corsix I go to look at the veterancy effects for each unit?

[Warhawks97]

depends. When i picked up a schreck once with pios ive got them on vet 4 (or even 5 idk). They killed in total 3 tanks and lots of inf. 30 kills or more.

Inf and Tanks vet are "BK vets". They get stuff like accuracy, reload speed, cooldown reduction, reduced suppression, better sprint/nades etc. But always in smaller steps.

The story behind my picture is that, in early game, if you put your engineers inside of a big house with many windows, where all 6 engineers can shoot from it, and the enemy gets close, the engineers will destroy them. At close range, the engineers with their semi-auto Garands can beat unupgraded Grenadiers. That's what happened on St. Hillaire, in the big warehouse on the side.

Also, I know that vet for some units is very different, like M8 Greyhound gets faster instead of stronger. In fact, a vet 3 Greyhound is like a race car, it's ridiculously fast.

Do you know where in Corsix I go to look at the veterancy effects for each unit?

sbps. There you find "squad_veterancy_ext". Check each veterancy rank-> squad actions. Leader actions have those units with aura. In the leader action you will find the aura name which is count as ability. The vet shows you which leader action is being applied and those are listed in the huge ability folder.

[sandman332]

Hello,
Just had some feedback, questions and concerns about a few of these things.

First of all, I noticed this, "ALL Pz.IV.Es should have top turret mounted MGs.. and MG gunner upgrade for 40 ammo plus the suppression ability also for 40 ammo of course." I think it's a good idea, however how about also adding a top mounted mg to the Panther Ausf D? It's the only one without it, maybe remove one of the inside mg's to compensate for this?

Also this, "Flank speed ability to be totally removed." Why is the flank speed ability being totally removed from the tigers? I guess adding to all of the panthers kind of makes up for it, but still wondering why they are losing it.

And last this bug, that has been confirmed by a few other people as well. I haven't got any word back from devs or anything, so bringing it here as well. Quite an annoying bug and not being able to delete the unit means it sits there all game being useless and taking up population.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=951

Thanks!

[Warhawks97]

Tigers are not gonna lose flank speed as it seems.

Removing one "inside" MG (coaxial/hull) of Panther D in exchange for an added top mount isnt balanced. Atm this "inside" MG´s - called hull and coaxial- are mostly crap. If any MG on Tanks deals significant damage then its the Top mounted MG. So the Anti inf power would be greatly increased. I am not against it in exchange for cost increase.


I have no strong opinion on top mounted MG´s on stubby Tank IV´s. They are weird anyways. Bouncing from time to time 76 shells, then being penetrated by quad cal 50 and so on.

We would find cons and pros but generally, since core units like panthers are shredding inf very well already idk about this change. Also its the most powerfull HE round in game so far.

I havent had that bug yet oO.

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

I Really like the idea put mg top gunners on all panzer 4 atleast on f2. F2 is in my opinion a useless panzer 4... it has weak armor And has nothing against inf do not Forget that any sherman has a topgunner right? So, f2 is kinda expensive pe still use the old Price somehow o.o And yea i know now Comes some allie Players saying this would be "op" But adding it only one panzer the f2? rly? you guys will not die because of it ist just in General that it has some anti inf:) And as said do not Forget any sherman has a 50.cal!

[Wake]

I Really like the idea put mg top gunners on all panzer 4 atleast on f2. F2 is in my opinion a useless panzer 4... it has weak armor And has nothing against inf do not Forget that any sherman has a topgunner right? So, f2 is kinda expensive pe still use the old Price somehow o.o And yea i know now Comes some allie Players saying this would be "op" But adding it only one panzer the f2? rly? you guys will not die because of it ist just in General that it has some anti inf:) And as said do not Forget any sherman has a 50.cal!

The Panzer IV Ausf F2, E, and D are the worst Panzers, and almost not worth building because of how thin their armor is. 2 bazooka hits can sometimes destroy them outright, if not cripple them. 3 hits from a bazooka definitely blows them up. They can also be penetrated by a normal 75mm M4 Sherman. This is in comparison to the Panzer IV H and J which can actually deflect rockets from a bazooka, and M4 Shermans are useless against them.

I would be in favor of adding a top MG42 to the F2, because it is just a shitty tank in general. But only if it returns to its previous price of 500/70. The Panzer IV Ausf D is perfectly OK right now because it is very cheap, costing 400/40 which is actually the same price as an M4 Sherman. I would, however, support adding a top MG42 to the Ausf E, since that would solidify its role as a true infantry killer, and like the counterpart to the Sherman. Since it has such a bad main gun and terrible armor, any tank or AT gun used against it will win. It also costs 460/50.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Some thing which I mentioned long time before came to my mind. It's about defence doc fragmentation granade which have been ruined by Wolf for unknown reason, fix it back please, that thing is way too stupid and frustrating, you never can activate it because it's basicly difficult to place squad so that all 6 men will be in cover, especially when you do it rapidly beeing under fire, then you try to activate an ability, one guy does 1 step left\right and suddenly squad cant throw granade anymore. This happens EVERY single time, sometimes there is no enough cover for 6 men, sometimes cover gets destroyed right before granade throw, sometimes soldiers start moving by themselfs because something exploded nearby. This makes no sense and simply cant be like this, especially if we will look at fire nades/combat engeniers super splash nade, none of them requires any specific conditions.

And I honestly thing that wolf ruined it just because of description misinterpretation, I don't belive that such crap was intended by original devs.

[Warhawks97]

I Really like the idea put mg top gunners on all panzer 4 atleast on f2. F2 is in my opinion a useless panzer 4... it has weak armor And has nothing against inf do not Forget that any sherman has a topgunner right? So, f2 is kinda expensive pe still use the old Price somehow o.o And yea i know now Comes some allie Players saying this would be "op" But adding it only one panzer the f2? rly? you guys will not die because of it ist just in General that it has some anti inf:) And as said do not Forget any sherman has a 50.cal!

The Panzer IV Ausf F2, E, and D are the worst Panzers, and almost not worth building because of how thin their armor is. 2 bazooka hits can sometimes destroy them outright, if not cripple them. 3 hits from a bazooka definitely blows them up. They can also be penetrated by a normal 75mm M4 Sherman. This is in comparison to the Panzer IV H and J which can actually deflect rockets from a bazooka, and M4 Shermans are useless against them.

I would be in favor of adding a top MG42 to the F2, because it is just a shitty tank in general. But only if it returns to its previous price of 500/70. The Panzer IV Ausf D is perfectly OK right now because it is very cheap, costing 400/40 which is actually the same price as an M4 Sherman. I would, however, support adding a top MG42 to the Ausf E, since that would solidify its role as a true infantry killer, and like the counterpart to the Sherman. Since it has such a bad main gun and terrible armor, any tank or AT gun used against it will win. It also costs 460/50.

The cal 50 is way weaker as top mounted MG42 (actually 34) which is maybe even the strongest MG you can find in game (high accuracy, very high bullet damage, MG34 rof and more bursts etc). I think that need to keep in mind.

If we add Top mounted to F2, then back to 500/70. Also the gun would get buffed in the "L/48 standardisation" project (damage buff and pen to certain extend).


There are also 3 Tank IV armor types:

- "tp_armour_axis_panzeriv_ausf_d" used by Tank IV D. The 75 sherman has 120% pen chance against it at max range. The 76 even more.

- "tp_armour_axis_panzeriv" used by so far all other tank IV´s except H (and J?). The sherman 75 have just 37,1% pen against it as max range. And thats simply wrong as the E and actually also the F2 had just 50 mm armor and thus penetrationable by 75 mm shermans at up to 1000 meters. Even the 76 mm gun has just 67,5% pen chance against it although it could pen these 50 mm armor at any distance. So the F2 (in case getting top mounted) would become way better than 76 sherman (and maybe even easy eight). Zooks have atm 100% pen chances against them.

- "tp_armour_axis_panzeriv_skirts" used by H (and J even if not even skirts upgraded iirc). The 75 mm sherman has 31,8% pen against it at max range. Those are further lowered by Tank IV H/J special 0.8 received penetration modifier. So pen drops to 25,44%. The 76 gun has 62,1% which is reduced by 0.8 modifier which drops pen to 49,68% at max range.
Bazooka has 80% pen modified with 0.8 which drops to 64% pen. The M6A3C has 100% pen vs this type modified with 0.8 which makes 80% pen.


That might help to really understand how the units do really perform.

[MarKr]

An info update: So far Wolf approved these:
- Remove Stormtrooper squad from Tiger Ace call-in, reducing the call-in cost by 200MP
- Reg5 get "airborne" armor type (harder to hit while moving), after Vet unlock in CT they also get the defensive bonuses in cover (same as Gebirgs get by default)
- M16 HT gets minimal attack range of 5 (same as most vehicles)
- M16 HT gets its price increased (I will post the new price when I know it)

Wolf said he would think throught the other changes during weekend so I'll let you know about the rest when I know more.

[Warhawks97]

An info update: So far Wolf approved these:
- Remove Stormtrooper squad from Tiger Ace call-in, reducing the call-in cost by 200MP
- Reg5 get "airborne" armor type (harder to hit while moving), after Vet unlock in CT they also get the defensive bonuses in cover (same as Gebirgs get by default)
- M16 HT gets minimal attack range of 5 (same as most vehicles)
- M16 HT gets its price increased (I will post the new price when I know it)

Wolf said he would think throught the other changes during weekend so I'll let you know about the rest when I know more.

thx. 325/30 or 35 for M16 seems ok and 300/25 or 30 after tank depot upgrade.
The Reg 5 will become interesting. Sounds promissing. I just hope that AB type and def bonus wont make it being super soliders that simply run over everything. AB type reduces received accuracy while moving (so during attack) and def type almost entirely removes suppression and reduces taken damage and received accuracy further. Wuhu:D

And pls, pls, the stuart Drop cost to the suggested values to become finally at least a little bit usefull and cost effective.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Ye, reg.5 will be really interesting, can't wait to see how Luft will show itself against masses of AB or Inf.

P.S. How this discussion regarding sone new maps ended?

[MarKr]

OK so for the things you guys mentioned on the last few pages - Wolf's decisions, so final:
1) Tiger Ace call-in without Storms, but cheaper (-200MP) - yes
2) Swap of Jumbo and Calliope in command tree + price reduction (Jumbo 750MP; Calli 650MP) - yes, but Calli probably for 700MP
3) Luft doc Pios cost drop by -100MP - cost drop yes, but only -40MP; no other changes
4) Changes about Reg5 already mentioned
5) Luft Flak 88 barrage ability - no
6) Option for Luft infantry to pick up weapon from ground - no; apparently there is some bug connected to certain weapons being picked up by Fallies :/
7) HE mode upgrade cost increase while HE/AP mod cost switch decrease - yes; costs not decided yet
8) Jeep and WH Schwimm durability reduction - yes; amount of reduction not certain yet but hopefully to bring it on par with PE Schwimm
9) Weird behavior - WH vehicles in static mode being harder to hit - yes, will be changed to actually being slightly easier to hit
10) Barrage cost changes - no
11) RL deflection damage removal - waiting for clarification (will be decided later)
12) Hotchkiss rockets effectivity increase - yes, will be buffed a little bit
13) Pershing - yes, something will be done (not sure what exactely yet, though )
14) M16 HT price - yes; probably 350MP 35F basic, 320MP 30F after reduction
15) US/WH/PE AT HT range reduction to 60; +5 range in camo - no
16) Panther G for TH - no