Discussion about vehicles and armament

[Warhawks97]

I just had a talk with figree about the Puma and if it should come earlier. We debated a bit. He said the Greyhound beats the 50 mm Puma in 1 vs 1. Both require two shots to kill each other. First i said its not true bc i oneshot recces with the 50 mm Puma and stuart tanks. Also i added that i can fight shermans with a Puma but less likely a with a greyhound vs Tank IV.


So i went through the datas and well, it got surprising:


1. 50 mm Puma deals 175 to 280 damage against Greyhound, but 250 to 400 damage against Stuart tanks and chaffes. The penetration is assured. Greyhound has 300 MP, Stuart 350 and Chaffe 400 HP. That does mean that in 1 vs 1, the greyhound stands better chanses vs 50 mm Puma as Stuart does.
2. The 75 mm gun from sherman and chaffe deals 175 to 315 damage. The Puma has 310 HP. That means that Puma can quite well withstand 75 mm shots unless they trigger max damage.
3. A 37 mm shell from pak 36 or any 37 mm causes max 175 damage on greyhound, but 200-250 to stuart.
4. The chance that a stubby 75 mm oneshots a stuart tank is higher as the chance to oneshot a greyhound.
5. A Stuart or any US 37 mm gun deals 140-175 damage vs Puma. Puma has 310 HP.
6. A Puma will never take more than two hits to kill a Stuart (except you get several unlucky red crits). But a Stuart might take three hits to take out a Puma when triggering twice low damage.


That brings me to the conclusion that the only advantage a stuart has over greyhound is its ability to bounce 37 mm shots. But when it comes to survivability against weapon with save or almost save pen, the Greyhound has a better chance to survive.
A Puma will never take more than two hits to kill a Stuart (except you get several unlucky red crits). But a


Why is that?

All guns in game have a base damage. Against tanks this damage is modifier with factor 5, vs vehicles with factor 3.5. That causes this weird situation.
So in general, vehicles that have same HP or roughly equal HP to light tanks have better chances to surivie bigger guns.



I think its worth a discussion.

[Walderschmidt]

Maybe we should standardize gun damage/armor damage reduction based on mm throughout the mod?

This is definitely worth a discussion.

Wald

[Walderschmidt]

Or maybe differentiate between AT 50mm/tank 50mm as sometimes shorter barrels/less charge in ammunition was used to make the recoil less harsh in small turrets.

Wald

[CGarr]

I'm all for standardization of damage for vehicles with the same guns (similar barrel lengths and calibers). We've asked for this before with the 76's but I haven't messed around with corsix enough to see other numerical discrepancies so I'm mostly going off of my experience in game. Being able to rely on guns of a certain caliber/length performing consistently from unit to unit would allow for better decision making by players when trying to deal with various levels of armored threats.

[Warhawks97]

Or maybe differentiate between AT 50mm/tank 50mm as sometimes shorter barrels/less charge in ammunition was used to make the recoil less harsh in small turrets.

Wald

in game germans use the same type of 50 mm gun on puma and AT gun. There is no stubby 50 mm. I think there has never been one. Stubby guns are made to loop shots and to kill soft targets. 50 mm rounds simply carry not enough HE mass. So there is no reason to create a 50 mm stubby gun or howitzer.