Make the 20mm & 37mm Great Again

[Walderschmidt]

So, .50 cals across the board got standardized and in some cases buffed to be more in line with the damage that .50 cals do.

So my question is, why not do this with 20mm guns since they feel like slightly better machine guns - hell, even the Flakvierlings barely feel like slightly better than one 20mm. Currently, they feel like they are underperforming given what I know about them and .50 cal having done a bit more homework.

For context:

Most US halftracks have up to 12mm of armor, M8 had up to 8-15mm of armor, Chafees had up to 25mm of armor (38mm on the turret), and M3/M5 Stuarts had up to 51mm/16-38mm (depending on source you use).

Perhaps you could give all 20mm two settings - AP and HE.

AP rips through vehicles while HE rips through infantry/buildings/damages tracks? A small timer between each to prevent hotswitching.

What do you guys think?

Wald

[Warhawks97]

Yeah, i was about to make the same topic. I would give AP and HE swap for 20 mm guns, 37 and 40 mm Bofors guns.


The single 20 mm is currently more behaving like a 40 mm gun while the quad 20 mm more like a HMG42 with AP rounds active.

[Walderschmidt]

Bump.

G

[CGarr]

I would support both of these changes, I was pushing the 20mm getting a buff when i suggested the turret gets slowed. Right now the armored car 20mm feels weak against vehicles and even inf, which doesn't seem fitting considering the same gun was used in an anti-tank role earlier in the war by the panzer 2. There are still plenty of allied vehicles and light tanks in the game that it could do reasonable damage to, and I think allowing it to do chip damage and eventually get mobility crits (maybe after a certain veterancy level) would keep the AP useful in the lategame. Meanwhile, the HE would do significantly more damage to airplanes, inf and buildings.

I think the ideal way to optimize ammo switching would be to have the tank use HE by default, and have an AP ammo ability available similar to HMG's. It would keep the vehicle's main role as anti soft-targets with some added temporary utility against tanks/vehicles at the cost of muni.

With that being said, If 20mm's were changed in this way I would keep 50 cals in the state they are in currently, so that both sides have vehicles capable of reliable anti-vehicle chip damage.

I could say similar things for the 37mm's and 40mm's, although they should honestly be even slower and more hard hitting. However, I think it is important that any possible added ability to damage medium and heavy tanks' mobility should come after a certain amount of veterancy, so these units aren't functioning as proper AT right out the gate. If not, I feel they might render some of the early AT vehicles in the game irrelevant due to their lack of utility.

[Warhawks97]

I could say similar things for the 37mm's and 40mm's, although they should honestly be even slower and more hard hitting. However, I think it is important that any possible added ability to damage medium and heavy tanks' mobility should come after a certain amount of veterancy, so these units aren't functioning as proper AT right out the gate. If not, I feel they might render some of the early AT vehicles in the game irrelevant due to their lack of utility.

The 37 mm flak 43 was a pretty fast one with a rof of 250 making it fire up to four rounds in a second. The Bofors was just half as fast.
But indeed, they should be hard hitting and AP/HE switch.

Esspecially the Bofors could make some good use of HE´s when fighting inf. And when firing AP it could threaten even rear armor of certain tanks.

[TheUndying]

I like the idea of having AP/HE on those guns. Bofors in particular feels a bit weak,compared to something like the quad .50 when it comes to anti-inf.

[kwok]

It's starting to sound like another 50cal-like change, which I think would be a nice change. But given that, I would think that the changed units should change in tier just like the 50cal otherwise it'll be another rush to these units. At least for the mobile ones like pumas and such. A change like this really would make other units like the 50mm puma obsolete, just as the 50cal basically phased out the 20mm HT or stuarts. Haven't seen those in replays in forever... just greyhound after greyhound.

[Walderschmidt]

^I'm okay with that. I barely use the 50mm anyway.

Wald

[kwok]

Okay.. well from a pure philosophical stand point, no. not okay with "that". from a community that bitches about adding more units but doesnt use the units already available. no.

[Walderschmidt]

^What new units have I bitched about adding?

This would make me use ones already in play more.

Wald

[CGarr]

I'd be fine with the autocannon vehicles coming later in the game if they killed inf faster and had more utility against vehicles, again it might tone down tank rushing a bit (which from what I understand is something you've been pushing for a while, Kwok). There'd actually be good reason to get the light vehicles rather than waiting for a medium tank. Keep in mind I'm saying this with the changes I suggested in my reply above, which I think might be a bit less dramatic in terms of how they would alter the game while still addressing the issue.

[kwok]

My main issue is the one that wald just kind of glossed over and said is okay by him but not by the entire community. It’s that it will make a lot of other vehicles obsolete just as the greyhound did. The greyhound is so much more reliable to killing vehicles than the AT halftrack and AT guns (yes yes I know you have another post on that). Just because Walder doesn’t use the 50mm puma doesn’t mean we should buff the 20mm cannons when the perfectly viable 50mm puma exists. Like maybe the answer is use the 50mm puma instead of the 20mm being able to reliably kill other vehicles. That’s the 50mm puma’s role.

[Warhawks97]

My main issue is the one that wald just kind of glossed over and said is okay by him but not by the entire community. It’s that it will make a lot of other vehicles obsolete just as the greyhound did. The greyhound is so much more reliable to killing vehicles than the AT halftrack and AT guns (yes yes I know you have another post on that). Just because Walder doesn’t use the 50mm puma doesn’t mean we should buff the 20mm cannons when the perfectly viable 50mm puma exists. Like maybe the answer is use the 50mm puma instead of the 20mm being able to reliably kill other vehicles. That’s the 50mm puma’s role.

20 mm vehicles (and basically all with such heavy autocanon armament) is multirole. They can fight inf and vehicles or should so. There are aterall differences:

1. canons do not take vehicles out outright. Their shots may bounce or whatever. That increases the chance to get killed in return, esspecially when enemie is similiar equiped.
2. The 50 mm gun as opposed to the 20 can take out vehicles instantly, significantly reducing risks to get killed and allows better hit and run tactics.
3. 50 mm can kill light armor and even shermans. Thus its a hardcounter to stuff like recce against which the 20 mm cant do much
4. 50 mm can use HE to clear emplacments. So its role as infantry support unit is far superior to that of 20 mm guns.


I think these are more than enough differences. On top of that i remember that there was a disucussion to make these units more doctrinal instead of reward.

[kwok]

1. They can do this today already.
2. Yes, it is intended for all to to keep it this way which is true currently today.
3. Is the 20mm meant to counter the recce? Because yes, this is true today.
4. It didn't seem like clearing emplacements was the focus of this topic at all but rather the ability for the 20mm to better destroy light vehicles.

[Warhawks97]

1. They can do this today already.

yes, and its ok. No one has a prob with it. What we actually want is that 20 mm are more unified and perhaps with switches to AP and HE. The quad 20 mm is an HMG with AP while single 20 mm like that of the HT act like mini-bofors guns.
So i wonder where you got that Puma thing from.

2. Yes, it is intended for all to to keep it this way which is true currently today.

Indeed. So there are differences that work well.

3. Is the 20mm meant to counter the recce? Because yes, this is true today.

sometimes you are lucky to pen it from close range or rear. But its not really a counter. The recce will lay havoc on your inf long before your Puma with 20 mm gets to kill it.

4. It didn't seem like clearing emplacements was the focus of this topic at all but rather the ability for the 20mm to better destroy light vehicles.

You asked for differences of 20 mm to 50 mm gun on Pumas. This is one important difference.

[kwok]

Hmmm warhawks, i can't tell if we are saying the same thing here. Are you saying that the 20mm should have an increase to penetration or just leave it as is? Like at what point should the 20mm AP be more effective versus how it is today? Because I feel like as of TODAY all four of your points are satisfied which means no change is warranted.

[Warhawks97]

I was asking me the same. When i said "AP" i should have mentioned that i call the current basic rounds to be the normal "AP" rounds bc thats what they will most likely be when they dont make boom. So my main point was that there should be HE and AP (AP=current standard) mode to toggle for all autocanons in game.

The second thing is a bit more common and similoiar behaviour among the 20 mm´s (The Puma and light armored car 20 mm feels different to the stationary and HT mounted one). And finally a fix to quads and duals.

But i do not want any special AP stuff for 20 mm with AP upgrade, timed duration and huge pen power bc that would make them really quite OP. I dont want these vehicles to eat light tanks in burst.

Edit: Looking at the original post it seems like flak 30/38 fired different AP than kwk 30/38? That might explain why the HT mounted flak feels a bit like a bofors

[MarKr]

My personal opinion on all this.

20mm / 37mm autocannons may not perform realistically but in the gameplay sense they perform quite well. They have some a purpose of infantry killers with some option to deal with lightly armored targets too. Yes, realistically these autocannons would make a short work of lightly armored vehicles but we have other units in the game to deal with these sorts of target.

Looking at the first post, this whole idea literarlly came up from ".50cals were changed to perform realistically, 20mm should too". At first sight a reasonable notion but .50cals were buffed because compared to Axis top mounted MGs, .50cals were a peashooters that wouldn't destroy a wet paper tissue. We were trying to get rid of the years-old "allies weaker but cheaper; Axis stronger but more expensive" stereotype and so we gradually introduced changes to even the sides. 50cals were one of the changes. We knew that they became a powerful tool so we changed the concept so that Axis vehicles come with pre-installed top MGs but .50cals need to be upgraded (at least for vehicles that don't have .50cal as the main gun) - so stronger gun but for additional ammo cost. The .50cals are now maybe (more) realistic but look at what it did to the balance - US always rushing Greyhounds because the combination of 37mm gun and top .50cal hardcounters enemy light vehicles so well that people don't even consider using any other avilable vehicles. Why use 57mm HT against vehicles when Greyhound is more reliable at this role? Why use M16 against infantry when Greyhound is more reliable at this role? There are some more tweaks coming for the .50cal in the next beta update to put the .50cals into a more balanced spot.

It is an example of how trying to achieve more "realistic performance" kicks the balance in the nuts and leads to obsolete units. Now you (community) are asking for another change to make something more "realistic in performance" but it will again mess up things and make units obsolete. E.g. 20mm vehicles are there as an early game mobile support for infantry. If these guns get buffed as asked (AP/HE switch) then they will need to come later in the game so there will be again gap for early game support for infantry. Currently the 20mm autocannons are quite good at killing infantry and can manage some light vehicles too. With AP/HE switch, the vehicle would probably be better against light vehicles, better against infantry but also better against buildings/emplacements. Would it be realistic? Probably yes. Would it be good for gameplay balance? I dare to say it wouldn't because it would create very universal units that would be capable of things that are currently the role of other vehicles, making these other vehicles obsolete. Do we really want to make units obsolete in times when some people keep crying to put in new units.

Then these mentions about "quads not feeling like quad 20mm". Do you really want these quads to have the performance equal to 4 single weapons? People are complaining how top-mounted .50cal or even a 50cal armored jeeps are making life for their vehicles miserable and you a unit that shoots 4 .50cals at once? With a 360° turret rotation? It will absolutely obliterate any light vehicles and infantry in the early game. Nobody would bother with Greyhounds anymore because this thing will outdamage it ten times. Same for Wirblewind (and this unit also has HE mode...). Again, OK from realistic point of view but not so much OK form gameplay perspective.

If the 20mm vehicles lose too easily to 50cal vehicles or have too much trouble dealing with infantry we can make some change against specific targets (to penetrate more often or deal more damage for example) so that they can perform adequately in their current role but I don't see any gameplay reason for giving them AP/HE switches. Quad 20mm could maybe get a bit more penetration to have easier time dealing with light vehicles but I don't think that from gameplay perspective them "behaving like slightly better MGs" is a problem.

[Warhawks97]

The 37 mm does behave both, balanced and quite realistic.

As for the 20 mm issue i just dont get behind it. How does it look fair or balanced when a single 20 mm can more or less snipe your light vehicle from max range with 3-4 shots with little chance for the caught vehicle to escape, while a quad, costing more than a single 20 mm, can not kill it so well.
No one asks for 100% realistic quad 20 mm. But its simply frustrating for probably most players to see a more expensive quad 20 mm, which require also a special build unit to be deployed first, gets outclassed by a simple cheap 20 mm gun build by a cheap starter unit.

Ask yourself, how many times have you seen a simple quad 20 mm being build by players in a real game? In any replay? Luftwaffe has probably been the most played and liked doctrine, yet normal stationary quad 20 mm were a very rare sight. Too much effort for too little power. It requires tons of MP (build and builder squad) and even CP unlock. Not even the Ostwind requires CP. A normal emplaced quad 20 mm costs almost as much as an ostwind.
Meanwhile defensive doctrine has been barely played (pre beta) and was boring to play for most. Yet the single 20 mm was deployed pretty much every time someone choosed this doc bc its a real area denial unit that snipes inf and vehicles.

The two types should be brought closer together. Single 20 mm shouldnt three shot light vehicles like 37 and 40 mm does. But the quad needs to get a buff to make the effort worth it.

[kwok]

Ask yourself, how many times have you seen a simple quad 20 mm being build by players in a real game? In any replay? Luftwaffe has probably been the most played and liked doctrine, yet normal stationary quad 20 mm were a very rare sight. Too much effort for too little power. It requires tons of MP (build and builder squad) and even CP unlock. Not even the Ostwind requires CP. A normal emplaced quad 20 mm costs almost as much as an ostwind.
Meanwhile defensive doctrine has been barely played (pre beta) and was boring to play for most. Yet the single 20 mm was deployed pretty much every time someone choosed this doc bc its a real area denial unit that snipes inf and vehicles.

Yeah i built two yesterday in the beta. wald has a replay. Let's be real.... the reason why it isnt used by luft right now is because the inf alone are one man armies with only a rush to panthers worth getting....How many luft players use the marder, the 75m halftrack, the stubby p4, or even the 20mm armored car... do luft players use ANYTHING except literally wasting 550mp infantry paradrop on top of AA and getting away with it only pumping mp into reinforcements until youve saved enough for a panther?

Also I 100% agree with Markr and not because he is on the dev team, we just both have the same opinion based only on what we've read here.

[Warhawks97]

So its fine that a single 20 mm rofl stomps any armored car in a few shots but a quad 20 mm killing a vehicle is absolutely unimaginable and breaks balance completely. Alright got it.

You are right, putting lots of MP into a single Para unit and keep pressing the reinforce button does makes sense and its true what you say. But why would you put like 700+ MP and fuel into a stupid HMG in 20 mm fashion?

I would even be fine when i would have to pay additional ammo for a quad if it would be any worth it.

[kwok]

So its fine that a single 20 mm rofl stomps any armored car in a few shots but a quad 20 mm killing a vehicle is absolutely unimaginable and breaks balance completely. Alright got it.

Glad you finally got the point... wish you got that back with the 50cal changes... (i know you're being sarcastic)

If the wirbel needs a price reduction to be viable for its current role then sure it can be price reduced. But we are not making 20mm cannons across the board "strong as a 50cal" just because that's how it was in reality. We learned that from tons and tons of balancing the 50cal.

[MarKr]

and breaks balance completely.

may I ask how does that "completely break balance"? Tiger tank coming from Barracks for no CP and for 300MP would be completely game breaking. You said yourself that people don't use the quad 20mm too much, so how can a nearly not used unit have such a fatal effect on game balance?

[Warhawks97]

So its fine that a single 20 mm rofl stomps any armored car in a few shots but a quad 20 mm killing a vehicle is absolutely unimaginable and breaks balance completely. Alright got it.

Glad you finally got the point... wish you got that back with the 50cal changes... (i know you're being sarcastic)

If the wirbel needs a price reduction to be viable for its current role then sure it can be price reduced. But we are not making 20mm cannons across the board "strong as a 50cal" just because that's how it was in reality. We learned that from tons and tons of balancing the 50cal.

The cal 50 became a cal 50 and multirole capable bc the axis 20 mm was mutlirole capable (except for the quad ofc).
And the only issue here is apparently the greyhound with its early cal 50. Would be bad if it gets completely reversed. The greyhound can be solved by delaying access of the cal 50 for this particular unit.


So basically the single 20 mm are super deadly, the cal 50 are at the right place, the 37 mm Ostwind is totally fine and the Bofors is doing its job just that it would be nice to have a ammo swap just as the 37 mm on ostwind does.


So its only the quad that is left out completely for whatever reason ever since which is sad.

I hope you are not going to turn cal 50 to "anti inf only" mode and trashing the single 20 mm just bc of your "multipurpose is not allowed" kind of thinking. Multirole always have their drawbacks as well bc they can "do everything but are no masters in anything".

And if we get through the forum over the past years i would argue that pretty much all have complained about the quad 20 mm being not competetive and just an expensive HMG at one point.

[kwok]

. Multirole always have their drawbacks as well bc they can "do everything but are no masters in anything".

Yeah.... This is exactly what we are going for but the 50cal has turned this into master of everything and 20mm changes will turn those inter master of everything. The greyhound literally sweeps dedicated AT vehicles consistently.