5.1.4 preview

[Warhawks97]

Sorry, i missread the stuff about firefly.

Its not just about Tigers. The 6 sec tiger (Tiger I) is perhaps less pushing. I have in mind all these vey big guns with slow reload times of like 5 seconds. They have range, rof, damage, pen, even mobility in terms of jagdpanther, armor and HP in their favour+ very good veterancy abilties to shoot even further or very fast in a row and thus bypassing reload times anyway more or less. So we have pretty much a very linear game: More expensive= all advantages combined. So besides being ranged nuker units that can absorb a hell much of punishment they also can deal these nuke shots faster as (in some cases) small vehicles can fire their tiny glass canons.

I mean just look at the jagdpanther. Approx 5 seconds reload time standard. With ambush and commander and vets it fires like every 2-3 seconds? From huge range. Even with a reload time of 8 seconds this kind of tank will knock out several tanks with ease before being even attacked or taking a scratch and with very good chances to take several scratches due to the HP pool.

The basic Panther has 7 seconds reload time and (unless using AP) lowest (with 17 pdr) damage of all the heavy guns we are talking about. Tanks with bigger guns quite often have better armor, range and damage and currently rof. The cost difference is, unless we take the King tiger as example, rather a small one.

Taking the last fact into acc: These nuker units increase in deadliness exponential with vet steps due to abilities unlike most of the mediums which get some passive boosts at best. Like in case you lose the engagment in the 3 vs 1 scenario you just wont be able to win via pure ammounts alone. They would kill you from distance far beyond your reach and if you get into direct engagment their reload times will be significantly lower. And even if the first 3 vs 1 is won by the three tanks, its then just one medium that has some vet step bonuses. In the next engagment you take that one out first and perhaps win the fight. The situation will then be same as in situation one.

I am not asking for medium tanks shooting every 4 or 5 seconds as they would then take advantages away from lighter tanks vehicles and AT guns. But somewhere between 5,5/6 seconds and 6,5 seconds.

A reason why i used tank IV´s throughout games so often was, besides the cost, the simple fact that i could provide better anti vehicle support to my infantry as i could have done with a panther. I got panther when the overall situation forced me to.

@Tiger: Did you use the only the manual shooting ability? Bc these do actually use a different gun in corsix. Ive been only checking regular ranges when units do not fire by manual shooting/direct fire.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@Tiger: Did you use the only the manual shooting ability? Bc these do actually use a different gun in corsix. Ive been only checking regular ranges when units do not fire by manual shooting/direct fire.

That could be a thing... Maybe the Jackson actually has more range only with the direct fire ability!

@MarKr
I think what Warhawks is basically trying to tell you here.. is that tanks with big guns don't need the fast reload, they could get a slight range increase if needed but eventually slower reload. So, about the Firefly he didn't contradict with what he said earlier; as it should have more reload time surely.

And as you proposed earlier, 6 or 7 seconds basic reload time would be fine for the Firefly.. more preferably 7 seconds. The static position would simply allow the Firefly to shoot faster every 5 seconds with slight range increase as usual, and the strange feature of "shoot faster when enemy is further" could be just removed entirely rather than tweaked at all.

However, at the same time.. if you do that to the Firefly, then you should change other big cannons too, such as the JagdPanther and maybe Elefant as well.. just as suggested before! You could also go ahead and increase the reload time of Tiger1 and Pershing from 6 to 7.5 or even 8 sec but eventually +5 range. You know what? I think it would be fine if KT and SP would reload at 9 sec, their range could be also 75 instead of 70 and so on.

[kwok]

Can the puma evasion be nerfed for the sake of light vehicle standardization? The only reliable way to hit the damn this are bazookas I feel.

[MarKr]

OK.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Can the puma evasion be nerfed for the sake of light vehicle standardization? The only reliable way to hit the damn this are bazookas I feel.

I would never support that...
Greyhound is hard to hit too, and Staghound, Recce as well, or bigger stuff such as Cromwell.
You can overrun Paks with these units just the same way Puma would overrun Allied AT guns!

[Warhawks97]

Can the puma evasion be nerfed for the sake of light vehicle standardization? The only reliable way to hit the damn this are bazookas I feel.

do you mean the accuracy of allied US heavy at guns against Puma_type TT?


@Tiger.

Axis 75 mm AT vs Greyhound: Modifier not moving: 1, Moving modifier: 0.8, max range accuracy: 0.65, ambush bonus: 1.5

1x0.8x0.65x1.5= 78% accuracy

Allied heavy AT vs Puma: Modifier not moving: 0.82, Moving modifier: 0.6, max range accuracy: 0.65, ambush bonus: 1.5

0.82x0.6x0.65x1.5= 47,97%

Allied heavy AT gun vs other vehicles such as sdkfz 222 (PE scout car and wheeled 20 mm): Modifier not moving: 1, Moving modifier: 0.6, max range accuracy: 0.65, ambush bonus: 1.5

1x0.6x0.65x1.5= 58,5%

Basically this means that Axis heavy AT gun is as good vs vehicles as the medium AT guns.

Note: Axis 75 mm reload speed: 4,28-5,45 seconds, 17 pdr 5-6, US 6-7 seconds
That means that Axis 75 shoots faster as the US 57 mm which means that the axis heavy is way better in countering vehicles as the allied medium AT

Note 2: 17 pdr has max range basic accuracy of 0.85. So you can make your own calculation here.



@Markr: Stolen Axis AT guns are hyper effective vs axis vehicles. They suffer no moving accuracy penalties at all.
@Markr 2: The firefly is really strange. Probably its also taken from vcoh. Regarding reload times: Ask yourself: Jagdpanther can reload in max 4,5 sec, min 5,5 seconds. The cost arent that much out of the line compared to normal Panther. It has more range, damage, HP, has vet ranged shot, can pen and kill any tank in a shot, has special resistance to arty, can activate smoke for free and has ambush which makes it shooting reloading within like 3,5 seconds.
A stuart tank has a reload speed of 3,5 seconds. Do you still think that looks somehow fair to medium Tanks? Sure, Jagdpanther is a dedicated tank destroyer but....The King Tiger with 6 seconds is already very good when you consider the range of the gun and when you compare it to the units supposed to counter it: The Jacks with 7 seconds.

Having such tanks so vastly superior in terms of rate of fire makes them literally unbeatable for any medium tank, even when you suggest numbers. Idk if you want that mediums get on the long term afterall replaced by the bigger tanks or that you want that they will always only be countered by arty and planes.

Having the tiger to shoot as fast as medium tanks is one thing, but units like Jagdpanther?

[Krieger Blitzer]

When it comes to vehicles vs AT guns, then I think it's not right to compare it with pure numbers.
There are a lot of other things to be taken into account...

For example, the 37mm and 57mm AT guns have hard time hitting Puma sometimes.. true, but they penetrate it rather easily.
While the Axis 37mm AT guns can hit the Recce easier.. nonetheless, hard time penetrating it on the other hand.
So "harder to hit" for Puma is equivalent to Recce good armor! And that was just 1 example.. not forgetting that Recce is available probably even earlier than Puma btw, I can say that Allied light vehicles are already too difficult to catch, I think light vehicles are all balanced now.

Greyhound is also very good with 50.cal and apparently accurate gun vs inf.
And the accuracy of the 75mm PAK against the Greyhound is irrelevant anyway I guess, because just like when u face the 76mm AT gun.. both the Greyhound and Puma will quickly flank these things faster than the AT guns could ever aim and shoot them at all in the first place...

So the Puma does not need any nerf, not to mention that the 75mm Puma has no turret.. unlike Greyhound and Staghound. Making the 75mm stubby Puma easier to hit, would be a significant nerf then.

[Shanks]

changes seem good, we will see how they work, good work

[MarKr]

Jagdpanther can reload in max 4,5 sec, min 5,5 seconds. The cost arent that much out of the line compared to normal Panther. It has more range, damage, HP, has vet ranged shot, can pen and kill any tank in a shot, has special resistance to arty, can activate smoke for free and has ambush which makes it shooting reloading within like 3,5 seconds.

You compare Jagdpanther to Panther...Panthers are available in 3 doctrines, JP in one so the chances are that opponent will not need to face several JP from several players unless more than one Axis player picks TH doc - that is probably the better HP and resistance to arty (or maybe vCoH values, I don't know), it has more damage and range than Panthers, true, but Panthers have 75mm kwk42 guns JP has 88mm PaK43 gun - all PaK43 guns have these stats. Killer shot is unlocked at Vet2 (iirc) and costs 100 ammo. Yeah, the smoke could maybe get some price tag. The reload times might go up, but if so then everyone will be like "why JP has longer reload while other tanks with same guns don't?" (and yes, this IS what I would hear the next second, look for proof of this statement in this topic ) so I will need to change the others too, at this point all heavy tanks would get lowered efficiency so they will need more rebalancing maybe in terms of costs or performance, then we will hear why lighter guns have such long reload times when heavier guns have similar and there will be demands for changing that too, if that happens then all balance in early game vehicles will go out of window because everything will shoot faster, which means that stuff will die faster too, which will lead to more camping in early games because people will be hesitatnt to move anywhere because of fear of losing units which in early game might cause their loss of entire game etc. etc. etc....sooo you basically want me to change all this because "JP has short reloads"?

For example, the 37mm and 57mm AT guns have hard time hitting Puma sometimes.. true, but they penetrate it rather easily.
While the Axis 37mm AT guns can hit the Recce easier.. nonetheless, hard time penetrating it on the other hand.
So "harder to hit" for Puma is equivalent to Recce good armor! And that was just 1 example.. not forgetting that Recce is available probably even earlier than Puma btw, I can say that Allied light vehicles are already too difficult to catch, I think light vehicles are all balanced now.

It is interesting how you compare these cases. What about the situation of 76mm, 75mm and 17 pounder guns? 76mm/17 pounders have still hard time hitting Pumas, while 75mm has no problem penetrating Recce.

75mm Puma is a different thing - the 20mm puma can be used to drive past defensive AT positions and destroy them because you know you have very good chance of not getting hit by them. Once you are behind them, you kill the crew because you can circle around and thanks to the fast turret rotation you can keep shooting . The 75mm versions are not used this way. Your comparisson to Greyhounds is also not objective - the armament differs in efficiency vs different types of targets and also Puma-type vehicles are still harder to hit while moving (check hawk's calculations).

[Warhawks97]

I dont want to derail the topic any further or whatever.

Just the point is like ExE said. Range, damage/pen/accuracy etc and rate of fire. Everything is good for a certain use. Like imagine all AT guns have same accuracy vs vehicles and rof. Why should anyone go for the lighter guns? Yes, rate of fire which is important when you fight vehicles that are hard to catch. Why building anything else when the heaviest is simply the best in all regards.

I think certain units should have some kind that makes them specifically usefull in fighting against certain threats and based on overall performence the costs would be adjusted.

When speaking of the jagdpanther in particular now. Which sane player would take a tank, based on the reload times, to attack this tank. Nobody would use tanks against it at all unless he is in a very favoured position (like the target is moving due to arty strikes or infantry rushing at it etc).
Like would player really decide now: Oh, this tank has 7 seconds reload time instead of 4,5. I am now making a head on attack on this tank. The same goes for SP, KT, Elephant or whatever kind of heavy gun.

So the overall situation for the medium tank player that is required to attack one of these tanks wouldnt change at all. Just those who use such units would have to take just a tiny bit more time to decide whether to rush into a tank formation or not and how many tanks to engage at once.

On top of that i figured that a few of these heavy guns do not really hold an accuracy advantage over lower tier guns. The Panther does but others not. So here accuracy at max range could be improved for example.

For me its just: "Oh, i drove with my massive expensive tank into a dangerous spot"... "doesnt matter, you will shoot them all within 10 seconds."

Its this kind of "favouring pure cost over cautios use in egagments".

[MarKr]

But things have their use but the use is simply based on the phase of the game. Since you talked about the AT guns, then the light guns are useful in early game vs early vehicles. Why do they need to shoot fast(er)? By the time the game shifts to medium vehicles the light guns are already unreliable and even if they fired faster their poor penetration vs medium targets still makes them obsolete in that phase of the game. So if they are made to shoot faster it will only make life miserable on light vehicles in early game because they will more likely get destroyed.

Similar goes then to "medium tier" AT guns - they become needed vs medium tanks as they have better penetration than the light guns. They reload for longer time but have better chance to actually damage the target but once the heavier units enter field the focus moves to heavier guns because they can deal damage more reliably.

And if you think about it - the main purpose of tank destroyers is to destroy tanks and they should be able to make short work of tanks of same or lower tier. So when you ask "Which sane player would take a tank, based on the reload times, to attack this tank." then the answer really is "nobody" because you want to send units vs their direct counter. It is sort of like asking which infantry you should use to directly attack HMG position, unless you use some abilities or unit combination, you will most likely end up retreating.

I understand what you mean - weaker things could be kept viable in later game by having some advantage (in this case higher rate of fire). But if the rate of fire changes by + - 1 second, what will change? it will shoot faster but the difference is so small that it will not make a difference unless you bring a lot of them (not sure what is "lot" here...maybe 3 or 4?). But even if so - more units are more micro heavy so I think this factor will lead people towards "less but stronger" units anyway.

Bottom line for me is that I would be for increasing reload time on JP and Firefly to some reasonable value but I don't want to start some across-the-board rework of all reload times in the game because I don't believe it will have the effect you hope for.

[kwok]

<333 markr

[Krieger Blitzer]

It is interesting how you compare these cases. What about the situation of 76mm, 75mm and 17 pounder guns? 76mm/17 pounders have still hard time hitting Pumas, while 75mm has no problem penetrating Recce.

I already said that these big caliber guns would take forever to aim and fire at such fast vehicles anyway...
So the accuracy of these AT guns vs those vehicles, is nearly irrelevant after all. I mean that fast armored cars from both sides (Allies and Axis) would usually flank these heavy AT guns a lot quicker than these AT guns would have any chance to shoot them in the first place.

I played a game today, and I overrun 1 Hetzer, as well as 50mm Pak with 2 Recoil-less Jeeps from Armor doc... My jeeps were too fast that both the Hetzer and the PAK simply missed their shots! And the 2 jeeps then successfully killed the arty piece behind the lines, it was a HotchKiss.
So please, don't you ever touch the Puma for the sake of god...

Bottom line for me is that I would be for increasing reload time on JP and Firefly to some reasonable value but I don't want to start some across-the-board rework of all reload times in the game because I don't believe it will have the effect you hope for.

Alright, that's fine I guess!
JagdPanther and Firefly would be enough for now... No need to change any others accordingly. Would u do it the way it was suggested though?
I think the best way to increase the reload for these 2 tanks in particular, would be as follows:

Same suggestions as before, but perhaps more briefly and in more detail.. anyway, I put in spoiler as it was alrdy mentioned many times before...

Spoiler: show

Lowering the cone of fire for the JagdPanther.. with +5 more range and 7 sec reload instead of 5 seconds currently.
However, with camo.. it should stay at 75 total range, not 80 range. So, the camo ability will no longer provide +10 range but only +5 range!
Smoke ability would also cost some ammo.

Firefly should maybe have basic reload of 7 seconds, and with static position; more range as usual but 5 seconds reload.
The feature of "fire quicker at further targets" could be deleted.
Eventually, the Firefly could be also slightly cheaper... Maybe from (550 MP/80 Fuel) to (450 MP/70 Fuel) or so.

Lastly, i would just like to correct a little mistake here...

JP has 88mm PaK43 gun - all PaK43 guns have these stats. Killer shot is unlocked at Vet2 (iirc) and costs 100 ammo.

Veteran Shot ability for JP costs 100 ammo, available at level.3 and with 90 range btw.

[Warhawks97]

But things have their use but the use is simply based on the phase of the game. Since you talked about the AT guns, then the light guns are useful in early game vs early vehicles. Why do they need to shoot fast(er)? By the time the game shifts to medium vehicles the light guns are already unreliable and even if they fired faster their poor penetration vs medium targets still makes them obsolete in that phase of the game. So if they are made to shoot faster it will only make life miserable on light vehicles in early game because they will more likely get destroyed.Similar goes then to "medium tier" AT guns - they become needed vs medium tanks as they have better penetration than the light guns. They reload for longer time but have better chance to actually damage the target but once the heavier units enter field the focus moves to heavier guns because they can deal damage more reliably.

And thats what i think about td´s. Get the jagdpanther when its needed which is in my opinion ranged power and guranteed penetration vs any target and not light tank style quick shooting against whatever. If you dont need it like when enemie uses just a few shermans anyway: Get a hetzer or so.

Thats how i am used with US TD´s. I dont get a M36 "just bc its better". In various cases its better to get M10´s with their faster shooting gun. In others the Jackson when pen is more required. Why cant it be similiar with hetzers and Jagdpanther?

And if you think about it - the main purpose of tank destroyers is to destroy tanks and they should be able to make short work of tanks of same or lower tier. So when you ask "Which sane player would take a tank, based on the reload times, to attack this tank." then the answer really is "nobody" because you want to send units vs their direct counter. It is sort of like asking which infantry you should use to directly attack HMG position, unless you use some abilities or unit combination, you will most likely end up retreating.

The fact that the JP can oneshots any unit easily anyway enables it already to make a short job of many enemie tanks as it doesnt need a second shot. That it shoots this fast has nothing to do with the purpose of the unit but rather with "saving the idiot" from his own mistakes.

I understand what you mean - weaker things could be kept viable in later game by having some advantage (in this case higher rate of fire). But if the rate of fire changes by + - 1 second, what will change? it will shoot faster but the difference is so small that it will not make a difference unless you bring a lot of them (not sure what is "lot" here...maybe 3 or 4?). But even if so - more units are more micro heavy so I think this factor will lead people towards "less but stronger" units anyway.

This is like saying: The difference between Stuarts rate of fire and those of a sherman is not noticable. 4,5 seconds vs 7 seconds is a difference.

Bottom line for me is that I would be for increasing reload time on JP and Firefly to some reasonable value but I don't want to start some across-the-board rework of all reload times in the game because I don't believe it will have the effect you hope for.

you dont have to. The CW daimler for example has a reload time of up to 6,5 seconds with his small gun. But making it shooting as fast as a stuart would be quite balance breaking. So thats not what i am asking for basically.

So yes:

I understand what you mean - weaker things could be kept viable in later game by having some advantage (in this case higher rate of fire).

Just this. The game is already linear enough sometimes: Starting units->replaced by mid units->replaced by late units.

[MarKr]

I already said that these big caliber guns would take forever to aim and fire at such fast vehicles anyway...
So the accuracy of these AT guns vs those vehicles, is nearly irrelevant after all. I mean that fast armored cars from both sides (Allies and Axis) would usually flank these heavy AT guns a lot quicker than these AT guns would have any chance to shoot them in the first place.

Which only shows how stupidly weird these units are. They combine extreme speed, low price, good dodge chance and firepower. Normally if you combine forces to get some balanced combat unit you put together infantry and some AT unit (AT gun or vehicle). AT unit protects infantry from vehicles and infantry protects the AT unit from infantry. Puma makes this impossible. It has crapload of rec.accuracy modifiers that make it very hard for AT guns to hit, so it can approach RELATIVELY safely and once it gets past the AT gun, it has firepower to kill the protecting infantry and also the crew of AT guns while Puma itself cannot be destroyed by small amrs fire.

I played a game today, and I overrun 1 Hetzer, as well as 50mm Pak with 2 Recoil-less Jeeps from Armor doc... My jeeps were too fast that both the Hetzer and the PAK simply missed their shots! And the 2 jeeps then successfully killed the arty piece behind the lines, it was a HotchKiss.

Exactly what I speak about - Jeeps can be destroyed by small arms fire. Pumas cannot. They are fast and hard to hit by AT units but infantry can destroy them even without any abilities, even more so the RL Jeep which can do very little to the infanry in return.

This is like saying: The difference between Stuarts rate of fire and those of a sherman is not noticable. 4,5 seconds vs 7 seconds is a difference.

It is a difference on a paper but what difference is it in the game? Stuart is simply not going to take out PIV in 1v1 because PIV will always one-shot it, so what does it matter if the Stuart can shoot at PIV 1 or 3 times if it will not help at all? If you build enough number of them to take out PIV then the price for the number of the light tanks will exceed the price of the PIV so why would you invest into this force that will require more micro on your side if you can invest into a medium tank that has better chance against PIV in 1v1 and will require less micro in the combat?
Stuarts can be used before the medium tanks arrive to go after vehicles, or even later but vs infantry.

you dont have to. The CW daimler for example has a reload time of up to 6,5 seconds with his small gun. But making it shooting as fast as a stuart would be quite balance breaking. So thats not what i am asking for basically.

Maybe I should not get another beer because I don't get it again...You write a list of reasons why it is bad for JP to have low reload speed in combination with its other features. I say that I would be for increasing the reload speed and you say it is not needed?

[Krieger Blitzer]

Puma makes this impossible. It has crapload of rec.accuracy modifiers that make it very hard for AT guns to hit

Trust me.. in all the games I play, often I see vet.3 Puma, vet.3 Recce and vet.3 Staghound.. usually Greyhound reaches vet.2 easily as well.
Puma is absolutely fine as it is now, there is no balance issue with it... If you allow AT guns to hit it easier then u r only forcing the WH player to use more arty whenever he encounters AT guns, thus more camping I'm afraid.
Those who complain about the Puma can still argue that it's unfair how the 75mm PAK does not suffer much accuracy penalty against Allied vehicles, whereas Allied high caliber AT guns suffer a lot of accuracy against Puma... However, I might also argue that all the Allied high caliber AT guns have HE rounds to protect themselves against infantry.. whereas Axis high caliber AT guns don't! So what? o.O
Complaining about the Puma based only on some pure numbers is simply just not valid in my opinion, there are many other aspects to be considered.

you dont have to. The CW daimler for example has a reload time of up to 6,5 seconds with his small gun. But making it shooting as fast as a stuart would be quite balance breaking. So thats not what i am asking for basically.

Maybe I should not get another beer because I don't get it again...You write a list of reasons why it is bad for JP to have low reload speed in combination with its other features. I say that I would be for increasing the reload speed and you say it is not needed?

Well, ya.. to be honest Hawks just confused me here a little bit concerning this one as well, as I expected he would actually approve!
Hawks, so are you fine with the suggestions in the spoiler box I posted above? Clear answer plz ^^

[MarKr]

Trust me.. in all the games I play, often I see vet.3 Puma, vet.3 Recce and vet.3 Staghound.. usually Greyhound reaches vet.2 easily as well.

I trust you...but how is this relevant? Nobody said that it is impossible for these units to get veterancy levels.

Those who complain about the Puma can still argue that it's unfair how the 75mm PAK does not suffer much accuracy penalty against Allied vehicles, whereas Allied high caliber AT guns suffer a lot of accuracy against Puma... However, I might also argue that all the Allied high caliber AT guns have HE rounds to protect themselves against infantry.. whereas Axis high caliber AT guns don't! So what? o.O

Again, how is this relevant to the overall situation that is being discussed here? HE shots of allied guns will not help you hit Puma more easily. It helps vs infantry but if infantry passes behind the AT then HE is useless to you because the crew will die before they can rotate and fire the gun. We're talking about a specific situation where a unit can be abused.

[kwok]

Err... I have one more request. Can the LT glider drop be fire and forget? I know a lot of players get frustrated cuz they try to drop the glider, the green smoke drops, and then they think it's safe to move off BUT WAIT IT'S NOT! The glider never drops if a player moves the LT too quickly soon after the green smoke drop. I'm definitely not the only one who has done this on accidnet.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Trust me.. in all the games I play, often I see vet.3 Puma, vet.3 Recce and vet.3 Staghound.. usually Greyhound reaches vet.2 easily as well.

I trust you...but how is this relevant? Nobody said that it is impossible for these units to get veterancy levels.

Those who complain about the Puma can still argue that it's unfair how the 75mm PAK does not suffer much accuracy penalty against Allied vehicles, whereas Allied high caliber AT guns suffer a lot of accuracy against Puma... However, I might also argue that all the Allied high caliber AT guns have HE rounds to protect themselves against infantry.. whereas Axis high caliber AT guns don't! So what? o.O

Again, how is this relevant to the overall situation that is being discussed here? HE shots of allied guns will not help you hit Puma more easily. It helps vs infantry but if infantry passes behind the AT then HE is useless to you because the crew will die before they can rotate and fire the gun. We're talking about a specific situation where a unit can be abused.

My point is; NONE of these units are over-performing in any possible way.. and none of them is currently under-performing either.

There is nothing abusive with the Puma currently, if the WH player is reluctant enough to rush 17pdr or 76mm AT guns with his infantry due to their HE rounds then the only way would be using the Puma for its mobility and maneuvers, otherwise.. arty would be the only safe solution then! Specifically as long as these Allied high caliber AT guns have HE rounds against inf, since it's not always possible to flank AT guns with inf units due to several HMGs protecting it, that's of course in addition to the HE rounds by these AT guns themselves...
Allies have Recoilless Jeeps, 37mm or 57mm AT guns and AT rifle boys to counter the Puma early on, AT boys can fire 360 degrees with good rof too!
Recce is often still more dangerous actually, comes too early.. and most of the times Axis would have no solid counter yet.

You could maybe restrict the Pumas only to Blitz doc, since that "maneuvering" is supposed to be one of the Blitz doc core tactics in the first place.
So perhaps Terror could have something else... Not sure what exactly could ever replace the Puma for Terror though!
Def doc has Gepard... So maybe Pz2 for Terror? Hmm, but there is no Pz2 in Bk Mod currently.. unless u borrow it from Afrika addon maybe.

[MarKr]

Err... I have one more request. Can the LT glider drop be fire and forget? I know a lot of players get frustrated cuz they try to drop the glider, the green smoke drops, and then they think it's safe to move off BUT WAIT IT'S NOT! The glider never drops if a player moves the LT too quickly soon after the green smoke drop. I'm definitely not the only one who has done this on accidnet.

Well, maybe. But the glider is equivalent of FHQ of other factions and it already has an advantage because it does not require an empty building (though it used to be possible only to use it from a building). FHQs also take some time to establish so giving to CW an option to get FHQ with a single click and no delay on that is one more advantage in this field.

[mofetagalactica]

sorry @mark but heavy tanks having more rof than medium tanks are the most stupid shit i ever saw, this is in the only game where i see heavier tanks reloading faster than light and medium tanks. You just need 1 shoot to fking destroy an incoming attack of 3 medium tanks, also saying that they don't get stuck with each other cause IA pathing and maplike, if you destroy the first one incoming at you then the enemy chances to kill your heavy with his mediums drops inmediatly.

They should be like this maybe:

Light tanks ROF : 3 - 5 sec .
Medium tanks ROF : 5,5 - 7 sec .
Heavier tanks ROF : 8 - 10 sec .

[MarKr]

sorry @mark but heavy tanks having more rof than medium tanks are the most stupid shit i ever saw, this is in the only game where i see heavier tanks reloading faster than light and medium tanks. You just need 1 shoot to fking destroy an incoming attack of 3 medium tanks, also saying that they don't get stuck with each other cause IA pathing and maplike, if you destroy the first one incoming at you then the enemy chances to kill your heavy with his mediums drops inmediatly.

They should be like this maybe:

Light tanks ROF : 3 - 5 sec .
Medium tanks ROF : 5,5 - 7 sec .
Heavier tanks ROF : 8 - 10 sec .

Have you read the rest of the stuff? If you put 3-5 seconds reload on light tanks, then people start crying why only medium tanks and not all weapons of same type. Then you will have Stuarts shooting every 3-5 seconds, but also Greyhounds, Staghounds, 2pounders on Daimlers and Tetrarchs, Axis 28mm and 37mm AT guns etc. This means that these units wil be more effective vs HTs in early game. Since Axis have less light tanks available in early game, then this would provide HUGE buff to allies in early game. Not to mention that Stuarts can activate HE mode and shooting an HE shot every 3-5 seconds will wreck Axis infantry in early. Same goes for Tetrarch CS. What about 75mm stubby guns on HTs? HTs are light vehicles, but the gun can easily one-shot light vehicles while 37mm guns rarely one-shot light vehicles. Yet the same gun is mounted on some medium tanks too, should it reload for longer time there?

Medium tanks - again, longer reloads than light vehicles but Allies have more units that use the light guns and light guns have chance of penetrating medium tanks (not a big chance but still can do it) then you would build 3 light vehicles and with the RoF you would eventually get some rounds through. Axis players will cry why such bullshit units can kill their more expensive medium units and why Axis have no real way of doing the same to Allies.

Heavy tanks are similar in this - you build 3 medium tanks and will be able quite easily destroy the heavy because it will take forever to get some shots off of the heavy gun. Every Axis doctrine has some heavy unit which will become way less effective since destroying even 3 medium tanks will take forever. Then you will need to depend on medium tanks and not all doctrines have access to PIV H/J; F2 is maybe on same level as Shermans 76 or actually a bit inferior due to lack of top MG. If all you would need to destroy Axis heavies is 3 medium tanks which are available in every doctrine of Allies, then why should Allies keep the abilities that currently give them options to destroy Axis heavy tanks (airstrikes, offmap arty etc.)?

Also your "division" of reload times is based on type of tank, not strength of the gun. So since Churchills are "heavy" tanks, their 6 pounders would reload for 8-10 seconds, same for the 75mm guns while Shermans would reload their 75mm guns 5,5-7 seconds? Even if you put the Churchills into the "medium" category, then 6pouder, which is inferior to US 76mm gun will reload the same time, US 76mm gun will reload the same time as 17pounder mounted on Firefly (also medium tank), 90mm cannon on Jacksons will reload for 5,5-7 seconds too because those are definately not heavy units either. Actually what about TDs of Allies? They are really not "medium" tanks either, should those guns shoot every 3-5 seconds? How will people *cough*Tiger*cough* react to this when one Achilles will destroy 2 his Tigers before they even spot it.

What about portable AT guns? They have no "weight category"... Should they simply shoot faster too? One AT position will then easily repel attack of several vehicles.

With the increased efficiency of vehicles, infantry will lose some of its effectiveness too.

How will you deal with the changes in effectiveness? Price changes? In which way? Some other adjustments to compensate? What adjustments will that be?

It is not as easy as just saying this:

Light tanks ROF : 3 - 5 sec .
Medium tanks ROF : 5,5 - 7 sec .
Heavier tanks ROF : 8 - 10 sec .

[Krieger Blitzer]

Actually what about TDs of Allies? They are really not "medium" tanks either, should those guns shoot every 3-5 seconds? How will people *cough*Tiger*cough* react to this when one Achilles will destroy 2 his Tigers before they even spot it.

I think ExE explained this rather well, he also said something similar to what Seha has proposed on a different topic in the past.

Reload times can be set as relation to range and gun caliber, actually without having to rework too much stuff.. and at the same time without breaking game balance. So, my reaction would be; it highly depends on how things would work!

If the Tiger1/Pershing for example would have around 8 seconds reload and 70 basic range, then I am fine if Achilles/Hetzer would have 4 or 5 seconds reload and 60 basic range, even with +5 range for both TDs after camo. Eventually, I would be also fine with 10 seconds reload for KT or SP if they would have 75 basic range... While a Sherman or Pz4 would have 5 seconds reload with 60 basic range, it's not very complicated to balance.
I think it's more simple than how you look at it.



Anyways though, I think the way how you are currently doing it.. is also fine after all.
Just the JagdPanther and Firefly need adjustments as suggested. Hawks seem to be agreeing with this too, despite he has confused us a little bit when he apparently contradicted himself, but let's see how he is ought to clarify that...

[Warhawks97]

@markr: I´ve got really confused. If you dont mind about longer reload for units like JP and those with massive, far reaching high pen/damage gun, nice. I was out that night btw and drunk a bit before posting.

@mofeta: Stuart has 3,5 reload time already. Greyhound is afaik at a similiar level. Its true that we have to keep a look at the overall unit performance. But also a bit on what kind of gun is it and what their role is. In case of JP and all these 88/90 mm guns it is quite obvious i would say. dealing as much damage as possible from a distance right with the first shot with good chance to penetrate the targets. And thats why i think JP (this unit in particular due to all the other aspects this unit has in its favour) should be shooting almost as fast as a stuart tank.

@Tiger: When you say that a Puma that is easier to hit by AT guns leads to more axis from axis side: I can tell you that this is the very case for allied over ages. I am one of those who seeks the decision before the tanks role out. Thus i used and still use Greyhound, M20 and Puma with 20 mm extensively. Usually in tag teams and infantry. And here the Puma has many advantages over the other types. Cost, dps, efficency vs inf as well as vehicles, turret rotation. It took me a lot of moving arround an at gun in order to knock out the AT i just passed with m20/M8. Simply bc of the low rotation of guns and machine gun. Puma is doing its job much faster. It was also much easier to get not hit due to the explained tt´s.

To your other stuff: yeah, i share the opinion. I was just very confused by all the talk here.

What i would like to see is for all heavy AT guns to have basic max range accuracy against non moving vehicles and a 40% drop when moving. Basically the TT of US heavy AT guns vs PE vehicles. That way accuracy wouldnt be like 80% but also not below the 50%. Just see my calculation.



@markr II: The heavy gun/tank quick reload vs mediums is like it is with rifles vs a unit like grens. With the changes planned as now we would have the previous situation. Grens can either use their far superior ranged combat power or they run stupidly into rifles and still win bc they do not only have better damage/accuracy but also better rof. Having mediums with weak guns (not saying mediums in general: e.g firefly) shooting faster would make it like rifles vs grens is atm. Take advantage of your far superior ranged combat power (damage,pen,accuracy, armor, HP) or drive stupidly into the formation and getting shelled. The range or the ability to fight very effective from range is a huge advantage already, if not the advantage. Simply you dont need to get close and thus less likely getting targeted by units behing behind the target unit. The other way arround is more risky simply bc you would have to get closer, to be effective. Thus a retreat is much harder (all or nothing) and more risky to run into further anti tank weapons.

Anyway. Apparently we havent had so different views on it. I think we got our view points now.

[Mr. FeministDonut]

I hope we get this patch soon, instead of talks, so we can proof those words