Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3515
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Jan 2019, 19:01

MenciusMoldbug wrote:The Hetzer to me has always been one of those 'broken' and abusable tanks you get as PE. I never really mentioned it all that much because everything in PE costs so much that you usually get 1 hetzer for every 2-3 tanks/vehicles an allied player gets.

Reason I find TH the best doctrine in the game is because if resource limits were not a problem, there's a lot of tiny abuses that snowball together to make it overtly too strong. Low detection radius' on their TD's means infantry have to get right next to them to spot them; in the meantime a PE player can spam mark target on whatever is approaching his tank and mark target buffs stack as well. So double mark target is 40% more accuracy against that one unit. I have gotten armored cars (non-reward) with 60+ inf kills roaming around with broken flank speed/overdrive never getting caught by anything because I stack mark target buffs on enemy infantry and they get absolutely shredded.


I abused this mark target a lot. Same btw goes for US M20... i got two of them to double mark powerfull inf units. But regarding this matter, its really damn hard when two hetzers mark your inf squad supposed to kill the hetzer just to get shred outright by a single 20 mm car sitting behind.

The flank speeds need a general rethinking. I use this sdkfz 222 myself and its so fucking cartoonish. There can be a bazooka guy in front of you, aiming and within these two secs you can rush out of its range in reverse gear.


Camouflaged units also work in a really weird way in that some shots that are meant to hit them don't because they are 'invisible.' COH 2 had the same problem with their own OKW JP4 as far as I remember before they patched it and the same problem persists here regarding all camouflaged units. You can test this pretty easily by ambushing a Hetzer and then shooting PIATs with attack ground where it's ambushed. I have seen these PIATs do no damage, not even give the hint of 'penetrating' or 'deflecting' on the target rather than just hitting the ground or some weird stuff going on that is hard to describe without actually seeing it yourself. Weapons with mass AOE damage circles work out ok against ambushed stuff but everything that does not have those huge AOE circles get real iffy vs cloaked stuff.


Never tried this out, but its true. Forcing ambushed TD´s with Zimmerit out of its cover is almost impossible. Ive seen hetzers sitting in a long tom barrage just to take scratches.


Zimmerit I have mentioned elsewhere so no point repeating here. The other two things to keep in mind is ofc the the number of ambush shots the Hetzer gets, which is the highest ambush shot numbers for any TD in the game. No idea why the reward JP4 gets 2 and costs more if it's about survivability bonus. Because the Hetzer is technically more survivable by having more ambush shots to work with. You can also abuse multiple ambush shot modifiers by shoot twice or once and waiting a bit to let the number 'reset' to fire again and not be revealed at all, maybe ever.



I would say its not intentional to have hetzer with 3 ambush shots. But generally, when time is not pressing or when i see the target gets immobilized by first shot, i do order a ceasfire to reset this timer.


Another bullshit is when you have like 3 76 tanks advancing a Jagpanzer and suddenly it goes invisible... and it gets visible again first when your own tank is so close that it cant shoot at it anymore. Broken shit sometimes. I have seen this happen so often and not seldomly, a outmaneuverd actually dead Jagdpanzer IV/70 kept alive and knocking out two e8 shermans right in front of it just bc it went "sudden cloak". I would make ambush abilties like these to be deactivated once revealed and re ambush would require reactivating the ability manually but it would have some cooldown to prevent these "mid combat" "right in front the enemie cloaking" stuff.


Hetzer is also using broken gun ranges that ups its penetration values far beyond what they should be. It's gun penetration is mostly 10% higher than the reward JP4 on range distances because of how they are numbered. This snowballs with it's triple ambush shot and AP rounds to pretty much counter all tanks in the game barring the Pershing. Even the Pershing can get knocked out if Hetzer gets lucky with its ambush shots because usually it only needs one or two shots to lucky-immobilize it. Then it can just wait for the ambush modifiers to 'reset' and fire again.



i mentioned it in the M1 garand debate where i talked about broken range brackets for certain guns.... many of them are set random it feels, let alone many of the AT guns. But the Hetzer beats everything.

I think Nashorn was also a candiate.. not sure though at the moment making this post.

Most guns should have something like 15/30/45/60... the max range modifier would met with the actual max range of the gun. Bigger guns could be set accordingly to their max range.

Hetzer is one of the very few tanks who can actually make "point blank shots" with its `20´short range bracket. Tanks with 10 range have virtually no chance to do so bc min range is 5....

Thinking about it, I liked Warhawks idea of having low member squads instead of having big ones because the big ones don't work with stuff like the infantry halftrack PE gets. PE infantry halftracks are meant to carry 1-2 squads that is 3 or 4 members strong because that's how many of firing slots they get when they are inside the halftrack. As long as you get hugely expensive squads; combo-ing them with the infantry halftrack is not going to work out because the risk of losing them is too great. I didn't like PE squads being 7 members strong late-game either because they are way too spaced out in some occasions and in others blob too hardcore in maps with weird obstacle placements.


thx that you like that idea.

Ultimately, in my privcate version, i did set them to 4 men standard bc 3 was really harsh to play and fatal losses occured to often early on. But with upgrade they went up to 5 men. This upgrade didnt require logistic company upgrade so you can bump up to 5 men quicker.

The good thing is that no squad costs more than 300 MP when i think out of my head. The heavy assault squad was 280 mp or something, grens 240 and pios 260. The cost remaind exactly same after 5 men upgrade.
That would be a faction identity. Who can get elite squads for not more than 300 MP? non. And you can use elite abilties more frequently.

The prob with 7 men squads that are supposed to be elite is that they are expensive as fuck. You gain firepower per squad but you lose too much on a tactical level. You either get them at front or back at base to reinforce. And a squad loss (lucky arty shell) cuts a huge whole into your lines.
Also i made all squads serving special purposes instead of all coming with same armament so far (usually k98). The assault squad got an stg right away and mg42 and stg as upgrades, the normal grens could upgrade the full squad with G43 and the assault pios started with 2 stg and 2 mp40 (but less hp than assault grens of course).

Further changes were dropping build time for grens in order to get sufficient numbers early on to prevent getting instantly overruned.
Also the faster cap upgrade boosted the ss squad and heavy assault squads more. Those went up to 175% cap rate (compared to rifles 150%) in order to make them special, hard beating, fast attacking and turning them into real assault grens that can overrun enemies.


Idk if anyone ever played World of warships... but there japs fighter squadrons from carriers are smaller but they have more squadrons. And often this helps them to dominate the US carriers... its not the sheer numbers but the ammount of tactical options that makes you win.
I used this principle for PE and thats why i like PE in vcoh as a faction a lot more.

I would also ask for a further sniper rework based on higher aim times and changing their camouflage stuff to match this because I still feel snipers are a bit broken when they come in numbers. like over 4+ snipers on the map with an M20 vehicle running around scouting for pesky spotters and the like. Makes the game a bit too frustrating and stressful because there's no real 'easy-way' to counter a sniper other than getting a lucky artillery hit or strafing them to death. Using other snipers is also pretty RNG depending on enemy sniper vet level and what cover they are behind; as I've seen my sniper miss an enemy's one like 9 times before he finally hit him behind a wall. A sniper rework would also be needed if PE squads were to be transformed into lower numbers/cheaper in cost because of how easy it is for snipers to kill squads out-right by themselves (especially with the rapid sniping ability). The problem would be of course is how many people are used to big elite squads of PE and don't want that changed. Because I seriously believe this is what hampers PE the most from being too weak or too strong.


totally agree.



Viper wrote:
from realistic point of view. 8 detection radius is funny of course. but the jagdpanther costs 1000mp and 180 fuel for 6cp. or 900mp and 160 fuel for 8cp. that is also funny. because in reality the jagdpanther was not more expensive than a tiger or a pershing.



The cost argument. Well, Jagdpanther is technically a Panther just cheaper design (same as Jagdpanzer IV is a cheaper Tank on Tank base).
This JP thing is a silly remnant from vcoh. Everything on it.

I would drop HP to 800 like normal Panther has, completely remove Zimmerit from Th doc, drop JP cost down to roughly (750/130) after mass prod upgrade (?)... and detection range like 15 or 20 so that inf has a realistic chance to clear up the path? (its a quite huge tank compared to hetzer).


So it would just become a Panther that can ambush with decent frontal armor, better gun and no turret.
But i would increase the upkeep, just as i would do with all panthers, esspecially fuel upkeep is a joke sometimes.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 26 Jan 2019, 23:11

A replay that better shows why I hate luft.

attachment=0]4p_le_paradis.2019-01-26.13-51-40.rec[/attachment]

I hope sgtsmith is okay that I posted this. He absolutely played really well and I made a lot of mistakes for sure. But still, I feel like a lot can be said about what went down this game
Attachments
4p_le_paradis.2019-01-26.13-51-40.rec
(1.87 MiB) Downloaded 6 times

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 415
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 27 Jan 2019, 01:00

why would anyone hate luftwaffe more than american airborne?
lets have a look:

hetzers/marder <-----> hellcat/wolverine.

airstrikes <-----> airstrikes too.

strong expensive infantry <-----> cheaper effective infantry

sd2 butterfly bombs <-----> off map mortar arty

leig18 by gebrigs & mortar/mg airdrop by falchirm <-----> 75mm howitzers, mg & mortar teams + anti tank guns airdrop

flak AA <-----> quad AA

wirbelwind <-------> quad halftrack

panzer4 <------> sherman

mortar halftrack <-------> mortar halftrack too

the only special things in luftwaffe with no equivalent in airborne are:

1. panther..........but people said it can be removed.

2. vampire.........luftwaffe is the only air axis doctrine. but allies have another air doctrine. royal air force with radio triangulation.

3. flak 88...........airborne dont have any equivalent to that but flak88s are historically luftwaffe weapons.

the special things in airborne with no equivalent in luftwaffe:

1. supply drops.......luftwaffe dont have anything similar.

2. flame grenades.......luftwaffe have volley grenades instead. but we all know flame grenades are more effective.

3. always 1 additional sniper.......airborne should always win the "sniper war"


so.......how is luftwaffe more hated than airborne? they look very balanced to me. maybe with exception of the panther. but only that.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 27 Jan 2019, 02:06

Maybe because:
hetzers are stronger than M18/M10 (don't come to me with "Hetzer costs more". Yes, it does but it has better armor, 3 shots from camo and stronger gun - that is why it costs more and that is why it is better)

AB airstrikes don't have "click here to send planes that auto-target tanks and kill any tank easily

AB infantry is cheaper but only effective after weapon upgrades which means you need to spend ammo on the weapons which means you have less ammo for abilities such as airstrikes

off map mortar arty needs soldiers in range, SD2 can be dropped anywhere. They also detrack vehicles and when they happen not to kill anything or when the target leaves the area, they stay on the ground, possibly damaging/killing something else

wirbelwind is stronger than M16, especially with HE ammo. It costs a lot more but still it is better.

You start comparing Luft to AB and when you come to Vampire you suddenly switch the comparison to RAF? :lol:

AB has no equivalent to flak 88 so the most effective unit to kill enemy tanks are the M10/M18 which are nowhere near the effectiveness of flak 88. You asked "why people hate Luft", the flak88 simply provides considerable AT protectionthe which US doctrines in general don't have, the fact that flak88 was historically used by Luftwaffe doesn't change anything about the reason why people hate Luft.

Luft doesn't have supply drops because they don't need them - they don't need to spend ammo on weapon upgrades so spending MP to get more ammo for their already strong planes and possibly fuel to get a Panther is kinda off.
Image

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 63
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 27 Jan 2019, 03:54

That said, I kinda frustrated I could not articulate stuff like markr or kwok. Or maybe its because dev/known player status gives them a kind of... credibility that I could never have. The point is you entire "luft is less/as broken as RAF/AB" shtick boils down to the same poor arguments that collapse under the slightest critical pressure.

1.) The Cost Fallacy. Cost is a seriously poor measure of anything in the game, other than maybe upgrades. The question is not cost, but cost effectiveness. Is this unit cost effective vs this unit? Does this upgrade/investment help my units become more cost effective? (not a logic that applies to all upgrades, but some.) Comparing the cost effectiveness of a hellcat/wolv vs hetzer... hetzer wins hands down, no questions asked, easily the most broken unit in the mod, especially with how the gun range and camo work/can be abused. It's not a fair comparison, and you bloody know it. If you don't, I have to ask how much you play this mod.

Goes the same for falls and Airborne, and here your argument is even shakier. Airborne are cheaper than falls IN MP, but that is THE ONLY THING they have going for them. Falls are cheaper in CP cost, better bonuses, better camo, better weapons that don't require investment, therefore, cheaper in munitions. Falls are, I'd argue, the most cost effective infantry in the game. the fact that the squad that is probably in 2nd place is gebirgsjäger is rather telling.

Same logic applies to Pz4 vs Sherman 76, Flak vs Quad AA.

2.) The Isolation Fallacy. Stuff can seem balanced if ignoring the wider battle space. Yes, you can compare the Sherman 76 to the tank IV, but its not a completely fair comparison. Not only do you have to compare the 2 units themselves, but also what they contend against in the wider battle space. So panzer 4: 57mm At gun, 82nd AT squad, Airstrike, Hellcat, Wolverine, Sherman 76. Sherman 76: 50mm pak 38, pak40, Falls shreck, girbs shreck, Panther, Panzer 4, 88mm, tank busters, airstrike, getting tracked by butterfly bombs, take your pick. Add to that the 4 being better in every way except cost vs the 76, and its not a fair comparison is it? If you widen this to the mod overall, you will find the PE AT options vs US are far more varied AND effective than can be said of US vs PE. (And i swear, I will re-install the mod and list this out.)

A similar logic can be applied to resources and therefore the effectiveness of things that rely on them, like airstrikes. Luft does not need as may upgrades as AB to reach full effectiveness, therefore their airstrikes, however more expensive or not, it's a moot point, are more available. They are also superior, in this case. Same can be said for things like upkeep costs, how Germans usually have lower ones, and dont come at me with "well its costs more". No. The initial investment is worth it because of a better cost effectiveness ratio, so the stuff dies less; the lower upkeep costs allow you to stockpile more MP while your, say, hetzer, is out killing anything allied. This allows to to potentially re-buy it immediately if you should (somehow) lose it.

3.) The false Equivalency; I'm gonna bring up 2 specific quotes:
1.) sd2 butterfly bombs <-----> off map mortar arty
2.) leig18 by gebrigs & mortar/mg airdrop by falchirm <-----> 75mm howitzers, mg & mortar teams + anti tank guns airdrop

1. butterfly bombs =/= off map mortar. The mortar is a timed arty presence. The bombs are a permanent one. For this reason alone the equivalency falls apart. The bombs can exact a much greater effect, and hinder the operations on any enemy doc, especially as it can secure flanks that american need to breach in order to have any hope of destroying things like hetzers.
2. No. just no. Everything you named in that point is of equal if not great effectiveness pulling from a more available munitions pool, costing less in CP. You wanna say "well I cant drop a Pak anywhere" ; you have the ability to build 88's and panthers; figure it out!

4.) Balance by omission fallacy. This requires some explaining, and has to do with the "the only special things in luftwaffe with no equivalent in airborne are:" and "the special things in airborne with no equivalent in luftwaffe:" Parts of the post.

just because its not there, does not mean it has no equivalent.

Luft does have the equivalent to a supply drop; it's called falls; they drop with their equipment, saving you from needing a supply drop to begin with. Luft does not have flame nades; but it has an equivalent ability that is nade' assault. The quality is, again, a moot point. GA will clear buildings readily enough, and in terms of area denial, Luft can do fine (hello butterfly bombs) without them. *1 addition sniper* (so hard to resist the urge to be tongue in cheek here). The reason US uses snipers is b/c its the only cost effective unit vs luft inf. Put. it. together.

as for the other side:
To use your own words against you: "gameplay over historical accuracy"; 88mm point gone. You drag in RAF, when comparing a completely different doc. Might as well compare the Panther to the firefly at this rate. The fact that you have to drag in RAF is telling.

Speaking about the Panther; I would hate to see it removed:
I would loathe the day Luft looks anything like RAF or AB. They share an airborne theme, nothing more. And that's all they should share. well that, and they should all be balanced, but lets take things one step at a time. Luft should keep the panther. they should keep the 88. I would love to see luft start off the game playing more like an Airborne doc, and evolve into a more anchored control doc (with elite inf, good tanks, and good defenses). But right now the early game struggle is not there. Or the late game struggle. It simply unlocks too much, too fast, for too little skill and effort. Too little risk. And you could say that's subjective, but the amount of vocal criticism says otherwise. It cost effectiveness is too high in too many categories of the battle space. It adapts to new situations faster the the docs opposing them. And that is the root of the issue. One i'm surprised isn't more obvious.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3888
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Tiger1996 » 27 Jan 2019, 09:48

First of all, it's quite hideous that I actually need to come back here and visit this forum once again.. but I think I have to post something here, since I can see so many crybabies around.. and a lot of B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T that has to be called out, heavily.

Death_Kitty wrote:If you don't, I have to ask how much you play this mod.

Funny how YOU are using this argument with other players.. but you keep coming back here vouching other mods such as Wikinger and also telling how much you don't like Bk Mod at all for as many "blab blab blab balance reasons" and so on, while at the same time stating yourself that you don't play Bk Mod anymore since years... Yet, arguing others of how much they get to play it to speak!!! just.. really?!

Well, now you CAN'T use this argument with someone like me on the other hand.. so here I am, wondering... How much DO YOU play this mod?
And if you are more interested in other mods such as Wikinger, then why do you keep mysteriously coming back here whenever a balance discussion about Luft doc is triggered? I thought you don't care about Bk Mod balance anymore... Or at least that's what you kept saying yourself all the time.

Anyways, most of what you said imply nothing but your extremely low PvP experience.. and your immense load of bias.
Thus, based on "how much do you play" I would then recommend that your post better be ignored to begin with...

Nonetheless, I will only respond few of your points...
- 76 Sherman is better than the Panzer4 F2 for very simple reasons; better mobility, 50.cal and suppression ability.. not to mention it's cheaper.
A lot better vs infantry than the Pz4 without a doubt.

Oh Wait.. that was probably the only point worth responding in your text.

Now.. back to the subject, I would like to join this discussion while throwing a few of my thoughts and counterarguments.
MarKr wrote:hetzers are stronger than M18/M10 (don't come to me with "Hetzer costs more". Yes, it does but it has better armor, 3 shots from camo and stronger gun - that is why it costs more and that is why it is better)

This is not accurate.. both Hellcat and Wolverine (which has flank speed) rely on high mobility, especially the Hellcat.. which can easily flank Panthers and Tigers exposing their weak rear armor. Something the Hetzer can't do against the Pershing, not to mention the Hellcat has very good HE rounds, while the Hetzer is completely clueless against infantry as it can't hit them with HE rounds or even rely on speed in order to escape!
And the armor won't really save you from Bazookas...

Hetzer also doesn't really have better gun.. 3 shots from ambush won't do anything against Churchill or Jumbo Shermans.

Therefore, I would say that Hetzers in comparison to Wolverine and Hellcat.. is very controversial.
You can't say Hetzers are better, neither could you say that Wolverine and Hellcats are better.. as I'd say both have advantages and disadvantages.

MarKr wrote:AB airstrikes don't have "click here to send planes that auto-target tanks and kill any tank easily

Hmm, and Luft doc doesn't have "click here to nuke everything" ability? The bombs can instantly wipe out BOTH infantry and tanks...
So, again.. you can't say Luft airstrikes are better.

MarKr wrote:AB infantry is cheaper but only effective after weapon upgrades which means you need to spend ammo on the weapons which means you have less ammo for abilities such as airstrikes

They don't need to spend ammo on weapons.. just snipers and flame nades, which can wipe out entire Luft squads with 1 hit btw.
However, even with upgrades requiring ammo.. supply drops exist for a reason.

MarKr wrote:off map mortar arty needs soldiers in range, SD2 can be dropped anywhere. They also detrack vehicles and when they happen not to kill anything or when the target leaves the area, they stay on the ground, possibly damaging/killing something else

SD2s are better, that's true.. but they also cost 120 ammo and long cool-down. Not to mention the AB off-map mortar barrage can be used against flak88s, de-crewing them out so easily.. and at this point, the Luft player can sometimes regret building the flak88 in the first place.

MarKr wrote:wirbelwind is stronger than M16, especially with HE ammo. It costs a lot more but still it is better.

Sorry? M16 is probably the best AA unit in the game.. are you comparing them 1v1? Or as Anti-Air units?
Quad is cheaper and easy to spam.. and super effective against planes and infantry.

MarKr wrote:You start comparing Luft to AB and when you come to Vampire you suddenly switch the comparison to RAF?

Hmm, he did not compare it with RAF doc.
Otherwise, he could have also compared Airborne with SE doc when he came to speak about flame nades.. but he didn't.

So, I believe he just meant that Allies still have sort of an equivalent.. but not everything is stacked in 1 doc, because Allies have 2 air docs.

MarKr wrote:AB has no equivalent to flak 88 so the most effective unit to kill enemy tanks are the M10/M18 which are nowhere near the effectiveness of flak 88. You asked "why people hate Luft", the flak88 simply provides considerable AT protectionthe which US doctrines in general don't have, the fact that flak88 was historically used by Luftwaffe doesn't change anything about the reason why people hate Luft.

AB doesn't have equivalent to Flak88s, but remember Flak88s are double-edged sword.. they are a "structure" and thus they can be captured and actually used against you.. in many cases, building a Flak88 as Luft doc, can lead to your very own defeat at the end.

MarKr wrote:Luft doesn't have supply drops because they don't need them - they don't need to spend ammo on weapon upgrades so spending MP to get more ammo for their already strong planes and possibly fuel to get a Panther is kinda off.

Well, and Airborne doc doesn't have anything similar to Flak88s because they also don't need them.. how about that? :P


I respect all the veteran players in this community, and I believe I'm far from being the best.. there are many great players in this community.
However, based on my humble experience... I would say that AB doc is MORE THAN CAPABLE of beating Luft doc in a 1v1 battle. in fact; the only thing that could make Luft doc survive in such a battle, would be the Panther tank.. although I don't mind if it's moved to another doc after all.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 415
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 27 Jan 2019, 12:20

Death_Kitty wrote:Comparing the cost effectiveness of a hellcat/wolv vs hetzer... hetzer wins hands down, no questions asked, easily the most broken unit in the mod, especially with how the gun range and camo work/can be abused. It's not a fair comparison, and you bloody know it. If you don't, I have to ask how much you play this mod.

i dont play too much. but my most recent games were twice 1vs1 games with "Walderschmidt" few days ago. i played allies and i won. but me and him are nearly on the same level. im not pro. it was hard games.

Tiger1996 wrote:
MarKr wrote:hetzers are stronger than M18/M10 (don't come to me with "Hetzer costs more". Yes, it does but it has better armor, 3 shots from camo and stronger gun - that is why it costs more and that is why it is better)

This is not accurate.. both Hellcat and Wolverine (which has flank speed) rely on high mobility, especially the Hellcat.. which can easily flank Panthers and Tigers exposing their weak rear armor. Something the Hetzer can't do against the Pershing, not to mention the Hellcat has very good HE rounds, while the Hetzer is completely clueless against infantry as it can't hit them with HE rounds or even rely on speed in order to escape!
And the armor won't really save you from Bazookas...

Hetzer also doesn't really have better gun.. 3 shots from ambush won't do anything against Churchill or Jumbo Shermans.

Therefore, I would say that Hetzers in comparison to Wolverine and Hellcat.. is very controversial.
You can't say Hetzers are better, neither could you say that Wolverine and Hellcats are better.. as I'd say both have advantages and disadvantages.

yes. statistically the gun is better but early churchill and jumbo make this advantage insignificant. so i agree. the gun is practically not any better.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 27 Jan 2019, 16:14

Viper wrote:yes. statistically the gun is better but early churchill and jumbo make this advantage insignificant. so i agree. the gun is practically not any better.
Oh, let's see the list of units against which the Hetzer is frontally effective (means that one hit can kill them or cause very severe damage most of the time) and even more so from ambush:
Chaffee, Stuart, Tetrarch, Scott, M10, M18, M36, Sherman 75mm, Sherman Croc, Sherman 76(W), Sherman E8, Sherman Firely, Sherman V, Cromwell, Comet. (these are present in all Allies doctrines - not all in one doctrine but in general no matter what doctrine Allies player picks, you can meet one of these in the field)
Now the list of units against which Hetzer is not so strong frontally:
Jumbo, Pershing, SP, Churchill, Churchill croc. (these are present in 3 docs, if we consider that the 75mm Jumbo is hardly any threat to tanks, then we could say that these are present in 2 docs only)

Now list of units against which a US 76mm guns are effective frontally:
Hotchkiss, stubby PIV, PIV F2, Marder III, Geschutzwagen, Nashorn(?)
List of units against which the US 76mm guns is NOT effective frontally:
PIV H, PIV J, Hetzer, JPIV L48, JPIV L70, Panthers, Tigers, KTs, Jagdpanther, Jagdtieger, Elefant, StuPa (these are present in all Axis doctrines - not all in one doctrine but in general no matter what doctrine Axis player picks, you can meet one of these in the field)

Do you see the thing? If you build Hetzer, the chances are that most of the things the opponent can throw at you, the Hetzer will be able to reliably deal with frontally and in case the opponent brings one of those that Hetzer cannot deal with frontally, most Axis docs have something stronger which can kill those tanks. On the other hand when you play as US, the chances are that the most things the opponent will throw at you, M10/M18 won't be able to realiably deal with frontally (and 2 out of 3 US docs don't have any stronger gun than the 76mm), thus they need to hit sides/rear and thus they have speed advantage to be able to actually hit the side/rear. And if anyone comes now with the "but Allies can rush you with zookas" crap, I swear that person will be the next on my ignore list.

It seems to me that people have this wrong feeling that "it is a TD, so it needs to be the same as other TDs". I have no idea why else would anyone try to compare M10/M18 to a Hetzer. Those units are TDs, true, but they have completely different approach, just as described above.
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 415
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 27 Jan 2019, 16:33

MarKr wrote:Now list of units against which a US 76mm guns are effective frontally:
Hotchkiss, stubby PIV, PIV F2, Marder III, Geschutzwagen, Nashorn(?)
List of units against which the US 76mm guns is NOT effective frontally:
PIV H, PIV J, Hetzer, JPIV L48, JPIV L70, Panthers, Tigers, KTs, Jagdpanther, Jagdtieger, Elefant, StuPa (these are present in all Axis doctrines - not all in one doctrine but in general no matter what doctrine Axis player picks, you can meet one of these in the field)

i think this list is very inflated. and far from truth. you made this up.

in the game. it is more like this:

Now list of units against which a US 76mm guns are effective frontally:
Hotchkiss, stubby PIV, PIV F2, Marder III, Geschutzwagen, Nashorn(?) PIV H, PIV J, Hetzer, Stug, Panthers, Tigers, StuPa.
List of units against which the US 76mm guns is NOT effective frontally:
JPIV L48, JPIV L70, KT, Jagdpanther, Jagdtieger, Elefant.


hellcat is a lot better vs tigers, panthers and panzer4. than hetzer vs pershings, churchills or jumbo.
wolverine and hellcat reload faster than hetzer too.
this is the truth.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3515
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Jan 2019, 17:22

Viper wrote:
MarKr wrote:Now list of units against which a US 76mm guns are effective frontally:
Hotchkiss, stubby PIV, PIV F2, Marder III, Geschutzwagen, Nashorn(?)
List of units against which the US 76mm guns is NOT effective frontally:
PIV H, PIV J, Hetzer, JPIV L48, JPIV L70, Panthers, Tigers, KTs, Jagdpanther, Jagdtieger, Elefant, StuPa (these are present in all Axis doctrines - not all in one doctrine but in general no matter what doctrine Axis player picks, you can meet one of these in the field)

i think this list is very inflated. and far from truth. you made this up.

in the game. it is more like this:

Now list of units against which a US 76mm guns are effective frontally:
Hotchkiss, stubby PIV, PIV F2, Marder III, Geschutzwagen, Nashorn(?) PIV H, PIV J, Hetzer, Stug, Panthers, Tigers, StuPa.
List of units against which the US 76mm guns is NOT effective frontally:
JPIV L48, JPIV L70, KT, Jagdpanther, Jagdtieger, Elefant.


hellcat is a lot better vs tigers, panthers and panzer4. than hetzer vs pershings, churchills or jumbo.
wolverine and hellcat reload faster than hetzer too.
this is the truth.



Markr is right. The 76 gun has less than 50% pen chance vs all the units he listed as "is not effective". And even from ambush the pen chance is just scratching the status as "effective" weapon with 62% pen chance vs Tank IV H/J

The Hetzer has 62,853% standard pen vs the best sherman (easy eight). i call this a significant difference.

So Us M10/M18 startegy ambush strategy against anything bigger than stubby tank IV: Hope.
make a test and count how many times a tank IV will survive the initial ambush shot which reveals the M10/18. I would say at least in every second case or more the Tank IV keeps alive and bounces perhaps the second non-ambush shot.

I will just leave this quotation:
"Hope is not a Strategy".


Then make a test and let a sherman (76) drive into an Hetzer ambush. I assure you that in at least 90% of the cases the two ambush shots will kill the sherman, not to mention the third shot.
And even if you feel the second shot wont kill a sherman, just make hetzer hold fire, let the ambush cool down and you get another two ambush shots without revealing your hetzer.

The hetzer can also take out a target like a vehicle without revealing which means the enemie remains unsure about what killed his stuff. M10/18 will always reveal itself outright after the first shot.

And more ambush shots means higher chances to pen churchills/jumbos etc at least once.



And flanking with Hellcat? :?: If my memories serves me right we just talked about SD2 fields that secure flanks...

Use Hetzer, two sd2 minefields in front of it on the left and right, a krad, gebis and vampire and they will be able to crush any attack that does not have much bigger numbers, no very heavy arty support or a churchill ace..... and if you have henschels at reserves, any attack with armor will fail.... and you need just 3-4 units of which two are just for reconassaince.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 27 Jan 2019, 18:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 27 Jan 2019, 18:05

Viper wrote:this is the truth.
No, that might be your perception of the "truth" but truth as in "real truth" are hard data - stats. Average chances, no separate individual instances where it happens once in a blue moon that 76mm gun kills a Tiger with one shot.

Hard data for units on my list is (chances listed without AP ammo or camo bonuses):
Spoiler: show
Penetration vs:
Hotchikss:
Any range 100%

Stubby PIV D:
Any range 100%

Stubby PIV E/F1/F2:
125%/105%/83.7%/ 67.5% - pretty reliable, even at max range over 65% chance

Marder III/Geschutzwagen:
Any range 100%

Nashorn:
Any range 100%

On the other hand the units you added:
Spoiler: show
PIV J (no skirts):
100%/84%/66.9%/54%

PIV H + J(with skirts):
0.92%/77.2%/61.6%/49.6%

Hetzer:
100%/84%/67%/54%

StuG (no skirts):
140%/117%/93.8%/75.6%

StuG (skirts):
130%/109%/87%/70%

Panther (Luft no skirts):
28.8%/24.1%/19.3%/15.5%

Panther (Luft skirts + Terror G):
27%/22.6%/18%/14.5%

Panther BK/Stupa (no skirts/ skirts):
32%/26.8%/21.4%/17.2%
30%/25.2%/20.1%/16.2%

Tigers:
41%/34.4%/27.4%/22.1%

So I would agree with StuGs, I forgot about them, the rest can hardly be considered as "reliable" performance.

Viper wrote:hellcat is a lot better vs tigers, panthers and panzer4. than hetzer vs pershings, churchills or jumbo.
First, you compare the performance of 76mm guns vs Tigers and Panthers (what the game considers "heavy tanks") vs 75mm gun Pershings, Jumbos and Churchills (which are other "heavy tanks") which I could understand, but what is the point of putting PIVs on the list when those are medium tanks?
Second, Hetzer vs Pershing, Churchill and Jumbo:
Pershing
34.25%/25.2%/22.4%/20%

Churchills
24.2%/17.8%/15.8%/13.9%

Jumbo
42.7%/31.4%/28%/24.9%

76mm gun on a Hellcat vs Tigers has a bit better chance frontally than Hetzer vs Pershing but the difference is the difference is what? 7%?. 76mm vs Panthers has about the same and sometimes even less chance than Hetzer vs Pershing. Chances to penetrate Churchills are pretty low, on the other hand Churchills have 6pounders and 75mm guns which are quite weak vs Hetzers so Hetzers can take sweet time to take a few shots. As you can see Hetzer has actually better chance vs Jumbos than Hellcat vs Tiger. So so much for your "this is truth".

Viper wrote:wolverine and hellcat reload faster than hetzer too.
Maybe M10/M18 has 4-5, Hetzer has 6-7...Hetzer, however, gets 3 shots from ambush - all 3 have camo bonuses. Which is arguably stronger than 1 second lower reload time.

This is the truth...
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 415
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Viper » 27 Jan 2019, 19:07

MarKr wrote:So I would agree with StuGs, I forgot about them, the rest can hardly be considered as "reliable" performance.

you should agree with stug, piv h, piv j, and hetzer too. based on the numbers. the 76 is effective against all these.
not only stug :!:

and 41% vs expensive tiger1 is not low at all. the 76 is available everywhere. and this is without hvap.
so i think the tiger1 can be added to the "76 is effective vs" list as well. or at least arguable.
also the tiger1 is easier to flank because the turret is slow and hellcat is fast.
if we imagine the hetzer had turret and flank speed. flanking pershing will be still hard. because pershing has fast turret.

MarKr wrote:First, you compare the performance of 76mm guns vs Tigers and Panthers (what the game considers "heavy tanks") vs 75mm gun Pershings, Jumbos and Churchills (which are other "heavy tanks") which I could understand, but what is the point of putting PIVs on the list when those are medium tanks?

i dont know. i did not add them but you added piv & hetzer in your "76 not effective vs" list and now the stats you shared is telling they should be in the other "76 is effective vs" list.......

MarKr wrote:76mm gun on a Hellcat vs Tigers has a bit better chance frontally than Hetzer vs Pershing but the difference is the difference is what? 7%?. 76mm vs Panthers has about the same and sometimes even less chance than Hetzer vs Pershing. Chances to penetrate Churchills are pretty low, on the other hand Churchills have 6pounders and 75mm guns which are quite weak vs Hetzers so Hetzers can take sweet time to take a few shots. As you can see Hetzer has actually better chance vs Jumbos than Hellcat vs Tiger. So so much for your "this is truth".

hellcat vs tiger has nearly same stats as hetzer vs jumbo. not better. but ok.

thanks for sharing the stats anyway.

but we should all be honest. im not here to "challenge" you.
i was wrong to add panthers and stupa in the "76 is effective vs" list. (tiger1 is agruable)
but you were also wrong to exclude piv h, pivj, and hetzer from the same list.

my general point was........
your list was exaggerated. now the numbers you shared can explain better how far the list is reflecting the truth. and how far it is right or wrong.

Warhawks97 wrote:Markr is right. The 76 gun has less than 50% pen chance vs all the units he listed as "is not effective".

less than 50% :?:

in his list, he said the 76 is not effective vs piv h, piv j and hetzer.

but the numbers say:
PIV J (no skirts):
100%/84%/66.9%/54%

PIV H + J(with skirts):
92%/77.2%/61.6%/49.6%

Hetzer:
100%/84%/67%/54%

so. i was right to say the list was inflated/exaggerated/inaccurate.
but i admit my correction of the list was not very accurate too.


the point of the story. the hetzer is not more superior than hellcat or wolverine. and is not worse. they are only different. but with similarities.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3515
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Jan 2019, 19:43

Ok, when you consider 41% as effective, then hetzers and guns alike are effective against everything but SP and churchills.... but the churchs have bad guns so...

and when do you see unskirted Tank IV J? almost never... thus its under 50%...

and under 50% is "Hope as Strategy"

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 63
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Death_Kitty » 27 Jan 2019, 20:37

I'm convinced that you just cant argue with these people. If someone like me makes a point, I don't have enough game experience. If someone like you guys post, and they cant use that argument, they will gloss over your good points, take stats out of context, just say "well its cost more" or say that an allied doc has something they don't, or vice versa. It's pointless. I.E. the fallacies I mentioned in my previous post. *shrug*.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2794
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby MarKr » 27 Jan 2019, 21:06

@viper:
The highest number is at the closest distance which is often so close that it cannot be practically used. So basically the second highest value is what you can in general count as the best you can mostly get. Also the combat is often about the first shot which is taken at about the maximum or the second lowest value. You should also keep in mind that 76mm gun has 41% chance to penetrate Tigers at the closest possible range, the range at which they are usually attacked has the chance between 27% and 22%. Before you get to the range where you have the 41% chance, the Tiger is most likely taking at least one shot at your unit too and from all the vehicles that have the 76mm gun all of them, except for 76mm Jumbo, get one-shot by Tiger's 88mm gun so you're unlikely to take your sweet time to fire several shots at the tank, also if you fire from ambush you only have one shot, the bonus penetration gets you from 22% to about 27%, if you buff it with AP you're at about 36% - in my terms this is not very reliable. If you turn it and have a look at Hetzer vs Pershing then with Ambush bonus and Wolfram active you're at about 33% chance at max range, which is less but you get to fire up to three such shots before you reveal your position, Hellcat only 1 so Hellcat is again in a disadvantage because statistically the chance to bounce off 3x in a row a 33% shot is about 3.5%.
Sure, it is most likely that if the player controls the tank and sees it is fired upon from ambush, he's most likely to drive back from the range and so you won't get to fire three times, but if the tank retreats, you can change your position without getting fired at, even if there are some tanks that most likely won't one-shot Hetzer (76mm Shermans, Cromwells...), the Hetzer does not need to run because the armor can withstand a shot or two. With Hellcat/Wolverine you get to fire once, quite likely bounce bounce off and the opponent can see you and take a shot at you so you need to get out of there because that paper armor won't save you, that is another reason why they have their speed.

In the end, it is about what you personally consider "reliable". If 41% seems to you reliable, then fine, 76mm Shermans are very reliable counters to Hetzers, PIV H/J and everything you wrote. On the other hand in the past years I never heard anyone say "OMG 76(W) Shermans, which are present in every US doctrine, are totally wrecking all my PIVs, Hetzers and Tigers!!!".
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 28 Jan 2019, 05:17

I don't think anyone was necessarily crying... I hear sound arguments on both sides. Because I also believe it's true that USA Airborne doctrine is one of the most powerful doctrines because it's designed just like a typical axis doctrine. But, a big reason why it's a little more forgivable for airborne doctrine to be the way it is is NOT because they are weaker in values (as both kitty and markr mentioned) but because the design of axis doctrines lets airborne be stopped. There isn't a gaping hole in axis doctrines as bad as allied doctrines that lets airborne predictably exploit. Meanwhile luft has ample tools to exploit any doctrine on the allied side in a predictable way. If you watch my replay, my opponent knew EXACTLY what I can and was going to do, but he didn't have the tools to stop it. This is where hopefully reworks come in. In what form, I don't know. That I'm still waiting for the answer too.

SnowLeo
Posts: 34
Joined: 15 Feb 2017, 21:08

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby SnowLeo » 28 Jan 2019, 18:24

I read the discussion and what I would like to ask. MarK the probability of breaking through the Churchill hetzer is 17.8% (would take the average distance) considered for each shot ? So every shot is a 17.8% chance of breaking through, right ?
I read the discussion and what I would like to ask. MarK the probability of breaking through the Churchill hetzer is 17.8% (would take the average distance) considered for each shot ? So every shot is a 17.8% chance of breaking through, right ? In this case, the total probability of penetration of the same Churchill mode ambush is: 11%, use the formula Bernoulli . Agree in this case it is quite different figures. Now look at 76 mm on the other hand: take the same 3 shots the probability of the event is 33%, i.e. the efficiency as we see is almost 3 TIMES higher. It is clear that such calculations should be carried out for all units. But to say that since hetzer can make 3 shots is not quite correct. Yes, he can make three shots, that's just the total probability of penetration of Churchill is 11%, not 35%... Let's say for a Jumbo this probability will be: 14,7%, while for the M26 pershing: 14%.
p.s : By the way, the above figures are reflected in the game. Often hetzer picking cherchill for that would to punch him at least once in the area of 7-10 shots.. And what is the probability of penetration pak40 M26, Churchill and Jumbo ? let's compare these figures? they fire two shots each.

p.s : By the way, the above figures are reflected in the game. Often hetzer picking cherchill for that would to punch him at least once in the area of 7-10 shots.. And what is the probability of penetration pak40 M26, Churchill and Jumbo ? let's compare these figures? they fire two shots each.
Last edited by SnowLeo on 28 Jan 2019, 19:50, edited 4 times in total.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 28 Jan 2019, 19:21

Your numbers might be right but I think your point of references are a bit skewed. Churchill’s and Hetzers are not comparable tanks in the sense that one is meant to be a tank destroyer, the other a durable support tank. The chances to penetrate a Churchill are intentionally low to accommodate its lack in mobility and power. But that doesn’t make it invincible (see my replay where Churchill’s are managed without Hetzers or panthers at all). A 76 gun is capable of penetrating a Hetzer because it isn’t meant to be hyper durable like a Churchill. It’s not even meant to go against 76 at guns because it’s original intent is a defensive ambushing tank destroyer (even though it’s used in multiple roles today).

Your comparison is like comparing the accuracy of an mg and a rifle. The mg is going to be significantly less but it’s role is entirely different. Yet in the situation of anti-infantry defense, the mg is definitely much preferred over a m1 garand until you want to take the guns into a different setting. I’d rather have garands to attack over an immobile Hmg.

SnowLeo
Posts: 34
Joined: 15 Feb 2017, 21:08

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby SnowLeo » 28 Jan 2019, 19:27

It is clear that the roles of tanks are different. All this is clear. I'm just talking about efficiency. In the specific case when talking about the fact that the Hetzer has the advantage of 3 shots. I just pointed out that it's not such a big advantage, that's all. compared to the acceleration of Wolverine and others ...

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 28 Jan 2019, 20:59

Okay fair enough. The Hetzer did have its flank speed removed. There was also a lot of talks about the Achilles and hellcats over performing. There are a lot of tanks people find working weird. I’m starting to feel people would rather play vcoh instead of bk.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3515
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Jan 2019, 21:15

SnowLeo wrote:It is clear that the roles of tanks are different. All this is clear. I'm just talking about efficiency. In the specific case when talking about the fact that the Hetzer has the advantage of 3 shots. I just pointed out that it's not such a big advantage, that's all. compared to the acceleration of Wolverine and others ...



3 ambush shots....

Sure, we dont see any advantage....


Advantages of several ambush shots:

1. You can take out several targets before being spotted (eg two vehicles)
2. You dont need to relocate immediatly once you fired against a target that dies from first shot
3. The first boucned? doesnt matter, one or two more shots available with all ambush boosts... as shown, in terms of probability one out of 3 shots will pen a pershing almost for sure
4. You can hold fire after first shot immobilized the target. Let the reveal timer reset and you can technically fire endless more ambush shots at the target as long as nobody comes for repairs and even then you can sit it out.



I am not denying that mobility is a huge factor but when i need a Gandalf moment:

"You shall not pass!"

I would definitely go for hetzer.
If you dont want to make a single step backward or if you just cant go backwards anymore bc behind you is the base, mobility doesnt help at all. Assuming you just damaged a panther/tiger/tank IV with first ambush shot and second normal shot bounces, you may have stopped the attack but had to retreat yourself and thus losing ground, even if its just a point. Several ambush shots increase the chance to no step back at all.

SnowLeo
Posts: 34
Joined: 15 Feb 2017, 21:08

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby SnowLeo » 28 Jan 2019, 21:19

Warhawks97 wrote:
SnowLeo wrote:It is clear that the roles of tanks are different. All this is clear. I'm just talking about efficiency. In the specific case when talking about the fact that the Hetzer has the advantage of 3 shots. I just pointed out that it's not such a big advantage, that's all. compared to the acceleration of Wolverine and others ...



3 ambush shots....

Sure, we dont see any advantage....


Advantages of several ambush shots:

1. You can take out several targets before being spotted (eg two vehicles)
2. You dont need to relocate immediatly once you fired against a target that dies from first shot
3. The first boucned? doesnt matter, one or two more shots available with all ambush boosts... as shown, in terms of probability one out of 3 shots will pen a pershing almost for sure
4. You can hold fire after first shot immobilized the target. Let the reveal timer reset and you can technically fire endless more ambush shots at the target as long as nobody comes for repairs and even then you can sit it out.



I am not denying that mobility is a huge factor but when i need a Gandalf moment:

"You shall not pass!"

I would definitely go for hetzer.
If you dont want to make a single step backward or if you just cant go backwards anymore bc behind you is the base, mobility doesnt help at all. Assuming you just damaged a panther/tiger/tank IV with first ambush shot and second normal shot bounces, you may have stopped the attack but had to retreat yourself and thus losing ground, even if its just a point. Several ambush shots increase the chance to no step back at all.



14% for you "for sure" ? Lol, after this, I see no point in continuing the dispute. It says that the probability of breaking in a series of 3 shots is ONLY 14%, but once for you it's for sure, I'll shut up...

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1659
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby kwok » 28 Jan 2019, 21:52

I don’t really know what the Bernoulli formula is (isn’t it applied in physics though? The thing that makes trains sounds go wooooooooOOOOOOOOoooooo as they pass by?) but in terms of probability I don’t think it works where chances go down when you get multiple shots. If the chance of pen is 17% and the shots is 3 then shouldn’t the probability be 1 - (1-.17)^3 = 42% that at least one will penetrate?

I’m not saying that’s a fair number, I’m just saying I think that’s the number and how you would do that calculation. Because I definitely personally killed Pershings and jumbos with Hetzers more than 14% of the encounters I’ve had.


Edit: hahaha so the thing that makes trains go wwooooOOOOOOoooo is not Bernoulli but the Doppler effect. I still don’t know what Bernoulli is. I guess I’ll find out while I’m here.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3515
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Jan 2019, 22:29

Ok, i understand nothing anymore.

whats this 17% and 14%??
what has bernoulli to do with bk?


The point is that it got said that 76 is reliable vs Tigers with a 22% pen chance at max range and slighlty more from ambush.
In return it means that hetzer is reliable vs Pershings and Jumbos which chances to get penned by hetzer is similiar.

This makes the hetzer pretty much effective against everything but churchills and pershings.... but churchills cant really threaten a hetzer with its gun so you got basically many chances to kill them or set ambush after ambush (re-ambushing) and simply use its armor untill ambushing again.

The M10/18 are more of a "hope to pen" something that is bigger than a stug and even if we count 40% as reliable, there are still plenty tanks left like panthers and bigger stuff that are above M10/18 leauge.


anyway, i lost the track what we are actually talking about? Hetzer means efficiency killing, M10 means hope, M18 means hope and dance.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 675
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: Poor Doctrine Design - Luft

Postby Shanks » 28 Jan 2019, 23:04

Shanks wrote:Do you remember this kwok?



an example of why luft is not OP, and it's fine, except for the panther


I made some mistakes, but I win ... I hope that Kwok does not get upset about this
Attachments
relic00050.jpg


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests