Ok. Hold on guys
@Tiger: Again. Somewhere you argued that 76 cant reload faster bc it can kill tigers while tank IV cant. I proved the opposite. That tank IV can kill pershings just as good (for several reasons i dont want to mention again).
Tank IV´s are not the main counter to pershings, but they can kill it. Shermans are not a main counter to tigers (which instead are 17 pdr/arty/planes/off maps/inf/AT guns/etc). If they encounter, then either from far superior position or by accident. Nobody goes along and says: "Oh, tiger over there, i will build 3 76 shermans". This is garbage. So the 7 sec reload have nothing to do with this kind of "balance".
On top, as i already showed, how fair do you think is it in strategy games, to get veterancy levels just to meet the standard performences of your opponents. Everybody would avoid a fraktion which veterancy lvls are practically not rewarding but rather neccessary.
So the 7 sec reload has to do with encounters such as medium TD´s and axis medium tanks like stugs or Panzer IV in particular.
And here, mofeta is right when he says that this is one major reason for 90% of the defeats or, the other way arround, victories.
That a hetzer could for example kill 7 shermans on its own was related to the huge reload speed gap(s).
@Red: Yes, 76 shermans are garbage unless you go armor doc with huge cost drop and sandbags. And even then the efficiency is questionable.
I doubt anyone would like to see Tank IV J/H being such garbage in TH doc just bc they cant buy them for a cheaper cost.
Also, i have pen chance for max range. US 76 vs tiger is 0.41(TT)x0.54(Pen drop)x1.54 (AP shell boost).
What are the differences for special AP?
US in general boost more, but the guns have generally weaker standard penetration values. For the 76 the boost is 54%, for 90 mm its over 70%. However, they dont increase damage, the 90 mm loses some damage power instead.
Axis boost usually by 33% the pen and their damage by 25%. However, their guns usually have better standard pen values and lose far less over distance.
CW boosts pen more than axis but less than US. Damage increased also by 25% like axis. Their standard pen values are way better than those of US 76 in general. Their pen loss over distance is about that of the 90 mm.
Fun fact: 17 pdr that uses AP shells deals more damage than US 90 mm that uses AP rounds. Thats bc of of the damage increase for the 17pdr and the damage loss of the 90 mm. On top, CW pays just 50 amm to activate AP. So CW ap shells are the best and most worthy to upgrade.
Thus, the achilles outperforms the standard M36 by far when AP shells are being used. The ambush bonuses for the achilles are also much better than those of the M36. Let alone the range advntage (M36 is the only TD not getting range boost in ambush actually).
Thats enough info for AP shells. If you have more questions, just ask.
Tiger1996 wrote:Well then, cheaper Pz4 and cheaper Tigers.. better 76 Sherman and 57mm AT guns... If that's how you want it.
57's can stay as they are i would like to see them as deadly like those 50mm honestly, but i would like something between pz4's and shermans (main battle tanks) being more close to each other, in stats and price. I dont know what this have to do with the tiger since its not a main tank but wathever you already know...
cheaper Tank IV´s, well, i think i stated it often enough. Why not. More expensive shermans? Since 76 shermans are garabage atm, they would stay in terms of their current basic cost. Perhaps slightly more expensive. Same for normal M4. The e8 is quite costly for standard cost already.
Also less massive cost drop. Just like in inf doc where the cost drops are less drastic then in older versions, i think we could do something similiar for shermans, too. Like E8 basic cost will keep arround or slightly above 400 MP after cost reduction. Just general performence improvments (armor vs 50 mm guns, reload speed etc etc.).
And no, the 57 shouldnt be as good as 50 mm right now. Rather the other way arround. Otherwise the game would stall too quick when 57 becomes as good or better as the 50 mm currently is. The Tank IV´s would face the same issues shermans have: Not able to really overcome the slightes defense.
The 50 mm shouldnt be better, if at all, against shermans as the current 57 mm is against Tank IV´s.
Also i think, the armor difference between basic sherman and MA3 shouldnt be as huge as it is currently. The standard sherman is too much like a light armored vehicle. Barely better than a stuart or M10.