Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

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
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 30 Oct 2018, 21:28

Great call markr, yes, there will be post about this! I do mean it with all due respect, and wont insult or disparage markr in any way. He is a good m8. Now, to tear into some of the things said:

"But even if we neglect this range factor, OK, so Shermans were designed to go after PIV and StuGs and objectively the Shermans were better. Realistically speaking (and also according to the "economy" argument), a Sherman cost back then (when converted to USD; at least if this source is to be trusted) about the same as PIV (cca 46 000 USD), StuGs were cheaper (cca 33 000 USD) so Axis would have their main medium tanks as expensive as US theirs, but noticeably weaker - who will ever build PIVs?" -markr

This is how I read this post: Axis pz4 has to be better then sherman, and because axis have alternative to pz4, unlike allies, who will keep building sherman even if shit, pz4 needs to be good so that axis keeps building it...(-_-)

My real problem with the logic here is that shermans are so much worse than they need to be. There is no excuse to cripple a tank just to get use of a different one. My real problem here is that shermans suffer from the same problem as the rest of US (but it is getting better), and to quote me this time:
"TL:DR : US units compared to German units:
Do less damage
Less penetration
die faster
have less armor
get less value from their upgrades
have worse doc unlocks for such a "specialized" faction
lack the cost/cost efficiency to make up for above. " - Death_Kitty (that's me). SO WHAT IS THE POINT?

Now don't get me wrong... the 50 cal buff is great. But I would like shermans to have an advantage... SOMEWHERE in the mod. All I ask, is to give Sherman a bit more health, end the era of endless 1 hits (I'm sorry but german TD's are a PAIN to de-track, turn on a dime at the speed of light, and have stacks of ambush bonuses that seem to be going up to infinity), and let them fire accurately on the move. I'm not asking for 100% accuracy, just not a 1-20 chance when my Sherman fires once-a-year. I think it would make for a challenging and engaging change in gameplay, for both US players, who are encouraged to rush and flank german tanks, especially TD's, and axis who now have the added fun of needing to do more than park a vehicle with a big scary gun and watch it tally up the kills.

And why are we so paranoid about nerfing axis... it's like there is a...bias in the community or something...

"who will ever build PIVs?"
EZ. How about we include consequences of not having a turret! You want to heavy into TD's, that's fine, but it should be easier to de-track them. That would be a good reason to build something with a turret. I would also no mind the Pz4 wrecking the sherman if the 2 are at max range and stationary. I think there is plenty of room for asymmetric balance. It just takes a bit of will and creativity.

P.S. I figure i should say this, but I have a clear US bias. That is pretty obvious. I make no effort to hide my contempt for axis, especially PE and especially Luft. So why listen to me? That's up to you. But when I do play axis, i feel disgusting. It feels like I have the counter to everything allies can throw at me days before it even pops up. I just want that feeling to go away so I can actually get some enjoyment out of this mod again.

I acknowledged that parts of US are better now (new rifles were a pleasant surprise), and I don't think the faction if far from being balanced. But it does need some larger changes, not just tweaks, and parts of axis need to be toned down. (hello StG, hello FG, hello 88, hello luft. among many other things)
Last edited by Death_Kitty on 30 Oct 2018, 22:46, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Warhawks97 » 30 Oct 2018, 21:41

The sherman 76 (including e8 ) got HP buff from 636 to 700 HP.
Shermans got also way more resistant to 50 mm and 75 mm guns and they accelerate faster and have higher top speed than tank IV´s.
Tank IV´s (and many axis tanks with big guns) also lost their reload speed advantage.
In this patch all special AP rounds dont boost damage anymore. Before only axis and CW got a damage boost from ap while 76 got non and 90 mm even a damage drop.
This means that tank IV wont have up to 750 damage with AP anymore and stays at 600 damage which drastically drops one-shot chances vs shermans.

The accuracy davantage on the move would be a nice thing to add though and if at least the 50 mm armor tank IV´s would get penetrated by 76 guns so that the 76 can serve its role as offensive tool effectively, that would be great.

That PIV logic is one i cant understant either. I mean i wouldnt mind to fully replace all Long barreld tank IV´s with H/J versions or at least the terror tank IV. They can be cheap, easy in upkeep and early avaialable but beatable buy US Top tier tank in two out of three docs. The tank IV is just a place holder actually in all docs.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 30 Oct 2018, 22:49

Thank you. I think some people confusing making a tank beatable and less cost efficient make it useless. News flash, making the germans weak at certain points of the game is not a horrible balance decision. In fact its a good one.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby MarKr » 30 Oct 2018, 23:18

Death_Kitty wrote:This is how I read this post: Axis pz4 has to be better then sherman, and because axis have alternative to pz4, unlike allies, who will keep building sherman even if shit, pz4 needs to be good so that axis keeps building it...(-_-)
I am not 100% sure what you meant here, though I have a feeling you read it wrong. My point was that you complain that "Shermans are crap and cannot beat PIVs while anything can beat Shermans" (not a direct quote but basically what you say) and so you want to change the situation to "PIVs are crap and cannot beat Shermans while anything can beat PIVs" - so you have a problem with Shermans being "useless" and your solution to it is to turn another unit useless so that Shermans are better?

So that is my point - you want to make a sort of useless unit useful by making a sort of useful unit useless. I would rather make Shermans more useful without making another unit useless. On the other hand there is this:
Death_Kitty wrote:All I ask, is to give Sherman a bit more health, end the era of endless 1 hits
When I was writing this reply you'd edited the post already and crossed this part - it is interesting because this was "all you asked for" and now you crossed it out because Warhawks pointed out that it has been changed already, so...what is the point of this topic if all you wanted is already there? :? :D

Anyway...
Death_Kitty wrote:EZ. How about we include consequences of not having a turret! You want to heavy into TD's, that's fine, but it should be easier to de-track them.
Detracking is a form of critical which cannot be changed for specific units individually but applies globally to all units with the same "critical type". So if you make "TDs easied to detrack" then all Axis tanks, including all versions of PIV, Ostwinds, Wirblewinds, StuGs, Panthers, Geschutzwagens and many others will be easier to detrack, so technically speaking you would still have same chance to detrack a JPIV as a PIV and so the "consequence of not having a turret" is not really there. Yes, technically speaking the PIV has better chances to kill something when it is detracked due to the turret but in the game immobile unit is usually dead, no matter if it has turret or not.
So...not really all that EZ.

Death_Kitty wrote:I would also no mind the Pz4 wrecking the sherman if the 2 are at max range and stationary.
I am not sure how you want to achieve this. Sure, the "stationary" thing would be about accuracy on the move where Shermans could have less penalty but if you want the PIVs to have advantage at range when not moving then it means that the PIV would need to have better penetration against Shermans at max range (which it already has) and it would require the Sherman to stay still, but at the same time if the player knows that at max range the PIV is stronger and at the same time he knows that he does not suffer such sever accuracy penalty on the move then he would be crazy to stay still and not move closer - and at this point the PIV won't "wreck" it because the scenario changed from "both are stationary" to "PIV is stationary but the Sherman is closing in" and in this situation you would want the Sherman to have advantage.
So PIV would be able to "wreck" an immobilized Sherman but most fights would end with Shermans winning, thus PIVs would be waste of resources and people would rather go for jagdpanzers and it would lead to the
Death_Kitty wrote:park a vehicle with a big scary gun and watch it tally up the kills
simply because it is safer and cheaper.
Image

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 00:11

MarKr wrote:
Death_Kitty wrote:This is how I read this post: Axis pz4 has to be better then sherman, and because axis have alternative to pz4, unlike allies, who will keep building sherman even if shit, pz4 needs to be good so that axis keeps building it...(-_-)
I am not 100% sure what you meant here, though I have a feeling you read it wrong. My point was that you complain that "Shermans are crap and cannot beat PIVs while anything can beat Shermans" (not a direct quote but basically what you say) and so you want to change the situation to "PIVs are crap and cannot beat Shermans while anything can beat PIVs" - so you have a problem with Shermans being "useless" and your solution to it is to turn another unit useless so that Shermans are better?

So that is my point - you want to make a sort of useless unit useful by making a sort of useful unit useless. I would rather make Shermans more useful without making another unit useless. On the other hand there is this:
Death_Kitty wrote:All I ask, is to give Sherman a bit more health, end the era of endless 1 hits
When I was writing this reply you'd edited the post already and crossed this part - it is interesting because this was "all you asked for" and now you crossed it out because Warhawks pointed out that it has been changed already, so...what is the point of this topic if all you wanted is already there? :? :D

Anyway...
Death_Kitty wrote:EZ. How about we include consequences of not having a turret! You want to heavy into TD's, that's fine, but it should be easier to de-track them.
Detracking is a form of critical which cannot be changed for specific units individually but applies globally to all units with the same "critical type". So if you make "TDs easied to detrack" then all Axis tanks, including all versions of PIV, Ostwinds, Wirblewinds, StuGs, Panthers, Geschutzwagens and many others will be easier to detrack, so technically speaking you would still have same chance to detrack a JPIV as a PIV and so the "consequence of not having a turret" is not really there. Yes, technically speaking the PIV has better chances to kill something when it is detracked due to the turret but in the game immobile unit is usually dead, no matter if it has turret or not.
So...not really all that EZ.

Death_Kitty wrote:I would also no mind the Pz4 wrecking the sherman if the 2 are at max range and stationary.
I am not sure how you want to achieve this. Sure, the "stationary" thing would be about accuracy on the move where Shermans could have less penalty but if you want the PIVs to have advantage at range when not moving then it means that the PIV would need to have better penetration against Shermans at max range (which it already has) and it would require the Sherman to stay still, but at the same time if the player knows that at max range the PIV is stronger and at the same time he knows that he does not suffer such sever accuracy penalty on the move then he would be crazy to stay still and not move closer - and at this point the PIV won't "wreck" it because the scenario changed from "both are stationary" to "PIV is stationary but the Sherman is closing in" and in this situation you would want the Sherman to have advantage.
So PIV would be able to "wreck" an immobilized Sherman but most fights would end with Shermans winning, thus PIVs would be waste of resources and people would rather go for jagdpanzers and it would lead to the
Death_Kitty wrote:park a vehicle with a big scary gun and watch it tally up the kills
simply because it is safer and cheaper.

*eagerly rubs hands together*

1.) no. what i am saying is sherman cant easily kill pz4 while everything kills sherman, lets not make everything kill sherman. I can see how your german bias would get you mixed up though.
2.) I don't pretend to be up to date on what the mod is doing (since i left). I tried getting all the bonuses straight in my head a while back and gave up. I had not had a chance to play the new beta and had not realized the health boost and nerf to penetration had stopped the pz4 from 1 hitting the sherman.
3.) De-tracking in reference to things like stickies and arty... and i see no issue here. You want to park a big gun and rack up kills, i should be able to de-track it and kill it if you leave it there too long. German tanks should also be easier to track. Their grenades already do that plenty to american and CE tanks, so it should apply vice versa.
4.)"park a vehicle with a big scary gun and watch it tally up the kills" is already easier and cheaper, it just takes some tech to do. The problem is Germans have been flooded with unlimited options to deal with any threat US presents. You seem to have this obsession with keeping the sherman weak to keep the Pz4 viable which i think is, im sorry, utterly stupid. Perhaps if the pz4 goes out of favor, its not the fault of a Sherman 76 that can actually kill something, but the fact that german docs are too general, no? How about a German doc that is actually missing some tank destroyers in return for having stupidly powerful infantry, or something along those lines. Not every german doc needs stug, pz4, hetzer, jagdpanzer, on top of all the other stuff they get. Perhaps make the pz4 the only early game option. I dunno. but this: "So PIV would be able to "wreck" an immobilized Sherman but most fights would end with Shermans winning, thus PIVs would be waste of resources" is not a reason not to buff the 76. At least make it equal to the panzer 4, and slightly cheaper.

Like I mean come on: Sherman 76 stuggles with:
- hand held at, from nades to rockets, which are present on almost all german infantry
- Pz4, which out-performs it
- german tank dystroyers, which most of the time it cant pen from the front, assuming it does not die to the ridiculous ambush bonuses
-german monster tanks
-german pak
-german emplacments, like the 88.
- hell, even a well microed puma can cause problems. (silly when you think about a greyhound vs a pz4 though)

So my question, other than "what is the point?" Is what on this list can be made less egregious. My main idea is to increase accuracy on the move, to help it flank and destroy enemy armor with hopefully some improvement in effectiveness, but something tells me this wont be enough.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby MarKr » 31 Oct 2018, 00:40

*facepalms in realising that without more details this leads nowhere and so leaning back and sipping tea while writing a reply*
@Death_kitty: I would like to get more constructive here so I need to know what exactly you want, thus let me just ask this (and I specifically mean Death_kitty, so I would like to ask others to let him answer first) - what is your vision of the 76mm Sherman? What would you change about it so that it performs as good as you immagine it? I already know about the "accuracy on the move" but that will hardly make it so much more better as it seems you would like it to be, so what else? Penetration? What chances against PIV H/J, JPIV L48 and StuG at what ranges? Damage? How many shots would it take to destroy these targets? Costs? How much would they cost with these new changes? Or perhaps changes of effectiveness of these units against the Sherman? Again, what exactly? Penetration, damage, cost etc.?

I would like to see the details of what you want. Because without them I only know that you "want better Shermans" but I can only guess what that means because for someone "better Sherman" is +5% penetration globally but for someone else it is 100% penetration against PIV H at any rage. So without knowing exactly you want I cannot really address any specific things.
Image

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 00:58

ok. Good call. let me ask some questions first.
what is shermans(76) current pen chance vs pz4, and jagdpanzer and max then medium range, while stationary, and while moving. assume clear target, no modifiers.
What is current penetration and damage of the gun compared to jagdpanzer and pz4 (w long gun) in above situations
in terms of hits to kill, equal for all tanks mentioned. 2-3. (note: none of the tanks mentioned here should 1 shot sherman AND vice versa.)

kwok
Posts: 1335
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby kwok » 31 Oct 2018, 01:18

Lol so many crusades. This should be good.

Markr I know you said let death kitty speak first but I’d hope to at least lend some perspective so this convo doesn’t drone on due to philosophical differences.

My question for death kitty before even talking about how the Sherman would be balanced is what is the sherman’s Role? What should it be balanced for? You compare Shermans to stugs but why? Why not compare Shermans to the short barreled p4 which are near the same cost, because following the logic laid out so far the short barreled p4 is lacking and needs to be buffed as well.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby MarKr » 31 Oct 2018, 01:24

I am not at my PC anymore so I cannot tell you untill tomorrow.
However why do you need to know the current stats? Can't you just say what your vision is? I mean, you need to have some idea of what the chances should be, something like "vs PIV at max range the penetration chance should be 60% and going up to 100% at the closest range" I doubt your vision is "the pen chance should just be higher than now" :? You already did it with the damage (number of pen.shots needed to destroy a tank depends on damage an you said "2-3 pens to destroy opponent" without knowing the damage values), can you do the same with the pen stats?

Anyway:
1) pen chances are never modified by movement so stationary/movement makes no difference
2) without boosts (AP, camo etc.) you already usually need at least 2 penetrative hits to kill Sherman with PIV and vice versa
3) one-shot kills are specific criticals that have very low chance of triggering (depending on circumstances less than 5% or less than 10%) with each penetrative hit. This is present for all tank guns no matter at what tank they shoot and will NOT be removed.
Image

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 02:03

My vision in so far is that of the main battle tank, similar to the pz4, but not so easily countered. For the purposes of this thread, im going to put the 76 sherman in the same box as the stug III, jagdpanzer, PanzerIV H/J: these are the tanks that I would like the 76 to compete against (for reference, the E8 (kinda), hellcat and m10 would also be grouped in the same "sphere"). That is the armor that I see in this battle space that will concur with each other. the 75mm sherman and stubby pz4 are both anti-infantry tanks so they wont be talked about here.

Now with that out of the way: my vision for medium american armor is focused on closing distance in going into a medium/close range brawl with german tanks where they would have an advantage. To that end:
-German vehicles penetrate more reliably at max distance
-Shermans have more reliable hit chance while moving, to keep them dangerous as they move in
-tank 50 cal supresses infantry as hard as MG-42 on one of these armored units, to allow them to ward off rocket attack in some capacity, plus can pen half tracks, ensuring a brawl goes poorly if halftracks/tanks are caught by surprise. (presumably, this is what the new beta does. more testing needed)
-note: removing the overabundance of infantry AT would go some way to solving this. related issue i guess, covered in last crusade.
-shermans gain some sort of bonus to reward them for going into medium/closer range, to make them more survivable or reduce chance of being hit/damage, i.e the advantage I was talking about in the beginning. (probably the most extreme bit here.)
Last edited by Death_Kitty on 31 Oct 2018, 05:22, edited 1 time in total.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 170
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby The New BK Champion » 31 Oct 2018, 05:11

Yeah, I love the idea of changing this mod from interesting and versatile battle of different factions with their own specific ups and downs into boring chess game where all factions are mirrored and basicaly the same. Kitty you sound awfully like you actually want to play Men of War instead of BK, you know?

Also please stop accusing markr of being axis biased cuz you have no bloody idea how much allies have been buffed in the span of the last 10 patches.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 05:23

I have no clue as to how you came to that conclusion... I'm not trying to get the sherman to be a clone of the panzer 4. And I very well aware that allies have been buffed in the span of many patches... that does not make the game balanced. Playing this mod a couple years back i became painfully aware that someone of the mod team (and a good chunk of the community) had a strong axis bias. (though i apologies for losing my head with that statement) I struggling to see... in what way do i want to make everything like chess, i.e. the same? What, I want to make US as viable as Axis, is that is? Because everything in this thread has been focused on asymmetrically balancing the sherman to be different than the panzer 4, so that they could both be viable in different situations.

Thing is, when one factions's units is a list of ups, and another is a list on downs "interesting and versatile" is the last phrase id use. Looking at the versatility of armor, and how people rush to Pershing almost every single time, or how interesting it was to have rangers be part of every single doc, or how versatile Sherman was at getting countered by everything, you may have a point...but i feel like our visions... differ.

But yeah, me calling markr biased was rude, and I'm sorry for that. The fact he got confused because I wrote out my rant so poorly is my fault. I hope my later post have cleared that up.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2478
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby MarKr » 31 Oct 2018, 08:55

Pen. of PIV H/J(also JPIV) v 76mm Sherman:
111%/82%/73%/65%

Pen. of 76mm Sherman v PIV H/J:
92%/77%/61%/49.6%
(chances are significantly higher against PIV F2 and the short barrel PIV)

Pen. of 76mm Sherman v JPIV L48 (PE):
90%/75%/60%/48.6%

Pen. of 76mm Sherman v StuG (skirts):
130%/100%/87%/70%

So Axis already have "more penetration at max range". Except for StuGs, they have more penetration at any range but at the max range the difference is most noticeable.

They have same accuracy and on the move same accuracy nerf.

I don't think .50cals should suppress as fast as top MGs on Axis tanks. The change to .50cals makes a difference between the top MGs of factions where the Axis ones suppress faster but are less useful against armored vehicles while the US ones can penetrate light vehicles but are a bit less effective against infantry. However the .50cals shoot more bullets per burst now which also means generating more suppression and gaveing more chance to hit infantry so the change actually made them more deadly to infantry and increased the suppression potential a bit too. Not to mention that the hull and coaxials got some buffs too so they can sometimes kill infantry too (especially when the infantry is out of cover).
So overall you would want to make the .50cals suppress faster, along with the current hull/coaxial buffs to be more effective against infantry and at the same time lower the ammount of anti-tank weapons available to infantry...any infantry meeting 75mm Sherman will have a really bad day.

I don't know what you mean by "to allow them to ward off rocket attack in some capacity" especially in connection to .50cals - no unit in the game targets rockets in-flight (it is not even technically possible as far as I know) so this is not happening.

Halftrack penetration is already a thing.

When Shermans get closer their penetration against targets is higher, making them harder to hit when they move (while so strongly encouraging usage of Shermans on the move) would only lead to "why my tanks always hit the dirt when shooting at Shermans?" from the side of Axis. Also the Axis players would know that their advantage is at distance this means that once the Sherman gets past this maximum range, their (the Axis player's) advantage is gone, this would leave the player with two options:
1) remain stationary and pray for a miracle where the next shot disables the Sherman because if it doesn't, the PIV is lost because the Sherman has the advantage
2) start reversing to keep the distance; however on the move losing a lot of accuracy while Sherman retaining more accuracy, also Shermans are faster so they would be closing the distance anyway, putting the PIV again into a disadvantage
So the PIV, JPIV and since they have the same guns StuGs too would only have advantage in a small window of opportunity which would be the first shot at max range - if the shot does not immobilize the Sherman the Axis unit (whichever of those mentioned) is (most likely) lost.
You complain that in armor doc everyone rushes for Pershings but this would lead to most people on Axis side just rushing for heavy tanks as soon as possible because there would be no effective counter to Shermans which suddenly be found everywhere - PIVs and StuG III would be about the first shot (if it fails, the unit is gone) JPIVs and StuG IVs would be camped somewhere in camo because from camo they have bonuses which would make the first shot more likely to count - similar would go for for AT guns.

I would maybe be willing to give a shot to the different accuracy nerfs when on the move but I wouldn't really touch penetration or damage values.
Image

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby seha » 31 Oct 2018, 10:42

Death_Kitty wrote:P.S. I figure i should say this, but I have a clear US bias.

Death_Kitty wrote:I don't pretend to be up to date on what the mod is doing (since i left)

Death_Kitty wrote:I had not had a chance to play the new beta

so.
1.you don't have any idea about the updates happened to the mod as you say.
2.you admit you are not objective and biased to US.
3.you don't even play the new versions.
4.still, you claim something is weak.
serious or troll?
Death_Kitty wrote:You seem to have this obsession with keeping the sherman weak to keep the Pz4 viable which i think is, im sorry, utterly stupid.

im sorry, but your topic is utterly stupid.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Warhawks97 » 31 Oct 2018, 15:51

kwok wrote:what is the sherman’s Role? What should it be balanced for? You compare Shermans to stugs but why? Why not compare Shermans to the short barreled p4 which are near the same cost, because following the logic laid out so far the short barreled p4 is lacking and needs to be buffed as well.


I wouldnt, their roles were never the same. Shermans were supposed to be able to take on anything which comes close to the after war MBT idea.
Its a myth with that "shermans only vs inf, td vs tanks". TD were last line of defense and getting activated whenever germans made breakthrough. However later TD´s got often used like normal tanks.

Sure, the main job of tanks is not to take on enemie tanks bc for that you have cheaper stuff like anti tank guns. That thinking was along all factions except on british in the early stage like north africa.
Tanks main role was to break through weaker defensive parts, encircle enemies etc. Doing so would also mean to be confronted by enemie tanks as well which required an armament to deal with them.


Getting more specific now: Tank IV was orginally a pure support (supporting Tank III´s as well as inf) tank able to loop HE over a certain distances into enemie defensives, killing AT guns etc, or simply soft targets. Later all german tanks got converted virtually with guns that did better against armor since germans needed anti armor weapons virtually everywhere when T34 started to show up in always greater numbers since end of 41 and mid 42. Sherman was never "so specific" and got simply up-gunned with the time (the idea for 76 guns was already there in april 42 but since 75 did very well against all german tanks in north africa the pressure wasnt huge to implement them asap).


In game that means that shermans are always supposed to handle any threat. However the 75 wouldnt be able to beat anything bigger than old tank IV types from the front. German short barreld units (Tanks and HT´s) are always supposed to deal with soft targets while longer barreld tank IV´s are more or less the counterpart to any shermans.


Death_Kitty wrote:My vision in so far is that of the main battle tank, similar to the pz4, but not so easily countered. For the purposes of this thread, im going to put the 76 sherman in the same box as the stug III, jagdpanzer, PanzerIV H/J: these are the tanks that I would like the 76 to compete against (for reference, the E8 (kinda), hellcat and m10 would also be grouped in the same "sphere"). That is the armor that I see in this battle space that will concur with each other. the 75mm sherman and stubby pz4 are both anti-infantry tanks so they wont be talked about here.



I wouldnt use such a box that mixes tanks (more or less MBT) with dedicated TD.

The Jagdpanzer IV´s arent overperforming at all. They had thick armor, slopped and no turret which means less weak spots.


If you read above, sherman was never this "anti infantry only" design as british or early german tanks were which were sepperated in anti tank and anti inf tanks that support each other.

And i wouldnt generalize things like myths and vcoh does: "US must always come close and flank."
It is always very depending on what enemie you face. I see no point to be forced using flanking vs Tank IV´s which show up in the same ammount and thus covering each others flank. But i do see the point in flanking tigers and bigger tanks. I think thats obvious.





MarKr wrote:Pen. of PIV H/J(also JPIV) v 76mm Sherman:
111%/82%/73%/65%

Pen. of 76mm Sherman v PIV H/J:
92%/77%/61%/49.6%
(chances are significantly higher against PIV F2 and the short barrel PIV)

Pen. of 76mm Sherman v JPIV L48 (PE):
90%/75%/60%/48.6%

Pen. of 76mm Sherman v StuG (skirts):
130%/100%/87%/70%

So Axis already have "more penetration at max range". Except for StuGs, they have more penetration at any range but at the max range the difference is most noticeable.



That i can bounce from close/mid ranges from tank IV´s with 76 guns is already stupid enough, or lets say that there is such a high chance.
And the pen chance vs these 50 mm armor stubby Tank IV´s doesnt goes higher than approx 67% either (also nonsense).





What i think about all this:

Throughout game stages the german short barreld Tank IV´s and III´s role is pure support and anti inf (soft targets), thats obvious. They are avaialble very early but thing is that many of them cost hell lot and come quite late currently

I would remove the tank IV D (BK doc) with its 30 mm armor entirely (a 1939 version which didnt see any action this late in the war). There would be only E/F models (and if possible somehow earlier available) by moving them all to the second WH building and second HQ upgrade needed.


The following sherman 75 would outlcass them and are multirole tanks. They come later than short barreld tank IV´s and have early on higher upkeep than german stubby tank IV. The 75 along with 57 mm AT gun would be effective counter weapons to these units.
The longer barreld 75 mm Tank IV´s would be the counter to the 75 mm shermans, however having 15-20 % pen chance for the sherman 75 against them would still seem fair. Tank the long 75 mm tank IV gun would keep its current pen stats.


The long barreld Tank IV´s would pretty much all be H/J versions except for Luftwaffe that stays with F2 and SE losing its long barreld tank IV.
These Tank IV´s would require 1 CP to unlock (except Bk doc J version that would thus need two in current set up for for low cost).
They are the gap holders and multirole tanks.

The 76 comes after that and outclassing the tank IV´s in many aspects like pen, mobility, accuracy on the move, HP etc. I speak about approx 75% pen vs Tank IV H/J whie those keep their current pen stats.


Now this is the time when factions main difference comes into play. While up to this moment US payed more upkeep and having their shermans more expensive or just as expensive to build as a Tank IV, those grow in numbers from now on with the help of supply yard. Bc first now we reach that moment when this building lays the ground for the later stages of the game. So while US reached top tier and expands its army, WH goes one step further and brings up its next tier medium tank: The Panther. Yes, the Panther as a medium tank as it actually was.

The mistake we have is that we treat Panthers as some sort of heavy elite tank and the Tank IV as medium. Thus the tank IV stays this good bc it must be since it is the only medium tank while panther is considered as "better alternative" to Tigers and generally as heavy tank.
We should start considering the Tiger as something "own", as heavy tank or the first heavy tank of many and not just "a tank in a long tank line of tanks".
The Panther would become the main stay of german Medium tanks in late game and more a replacment for the tank IV (which would still serve a effective support role) and not the Tiger.

The unlock line for german Tanks wouldnt be proggressively going from Tank IV to Tiger to Panther and instead dividing into Tiger line that is followed by KT while the Panther would be another unlock from Tank IV. Both require tank IV unlock but from then on there are two ways, either Panther or Tiger and finally KT and ace.

The Panther cost would drop down from 770 of the BK version to lets say 700 or 680 MP (and a slight fuel cost reduction) for the BK version for example. However the HP would drop from 800 to 750 like churchills currently have and slightly higher fuel upkeep (its currently insanely low).


Ultimately the german tank accuracy would suffer more on the move than shermans does. Meaning that at the end the effective accuracy would be lower on Panthers (and others) as for Shermans while moving while in Panther (and others) has better accuracy while not moving.


Tank IV´s would ultimately be the gap holder and effective jack of all trade unit without being some sort of "mini-tiger". Effective and early mid game tank and late game support. But kind of "outdated" to newer sherman tanks and Panthers.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 31 Oct 2018, 16:08, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 16:02

seha wrote:so.
1.you don't have any idea about the updates happened to the mod as you say.
2.you admit you are not objective and biased to US.
3.you don't even play the new versions.
4.still, you claim something is weak.
serious or troll?
im sorry, but your topic is utterly stupid.



1.) no, I just lose track of the number changes behind the various abilities. Like ambush stacking.
2.) I'm not objective. And i be very surprised if you said you were. US is my favorite faction, I'm sure you have yours. Does bias need to be taken into account when talking about balance... yes. Does it invalidate it? No.
3.) No, i just said i have not played the new beta yet. I play a couple of games each time BK mod moves up a version. (And as of now I have played the beta)
4.) Nope. no troll. Really my balance complaints from the 3 threads Ive posted in can be summed up in a couple points:
-make shermans (76) better somehow, which the 50 cal buff probably already does, but im not sure because its not in this beta, so I couldn't test it, but im sure the buff will be sufficient. Better accuracy on the move would be nice too, and maybe a small penetration buff vs panzer4 (like 5%).
-reduce StG and scoped G-43 availability
-reduce German hand-held AT/nades and make stickies better
-maybe some buffs for AB.
-and kwok is doing a much better job addressing luft's issues then i could ever hope to.
That is it. I mean, the 50 has been improved, rangers have been improved, rifles are much better than when I played the mod at first, so full credit there. That knocks out like... half my list. So where is the troll? I do get aggressive when balance crusading, sorry, but I label these threads for a reason.

And to reply to markr: Like I said earlier, I'm sure the 50 cal buff will be fine, if it makes it more deadly instead of suppressing, fine. More accuracy on the move and a slight pen buff would be very nice. The main issue with the 76 is that at max range when you engage German tanks, half the time you will bounce, they will pen you (and if that doesn't, a puma usually will), and then some AT gun or tank destroyer will finish off the tank before it fired again. If you try to flank a jagdpanzer, german infantry will eat you alive, and have suppressed your supporting infantry already through StG galore. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? But at this point, reliance in AP rounds and m10/hellcat is rather oppressive. I just count on axis penetrating if not destroying at least a Sherman at first contact now. This is where this is coming from, just so you know.

Honestly, id love to see the 76 be superior to the panzer 4 (and just the pz4), but that isn't happening. Id say removing fast access to things like heavier tanks would still see people building panzer4, as germans have a lot of stuff on the allies: again, better infantry weapons, better hand-held AT, better heavy tanks, better support abilities, the 88, and dont get me wrong, that is fine, I just feel like it would be better for gameplay if shermans and pz4 penetration tables were reversed, and then we fix the problem of the pz4 being "useless". I dunno, maybe having a turret and a couple of mg's might make it worth a buy still.

And also on a side note, I love how you guys call the panzer "tank 4".

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 63
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 31 Oct 2018, 18:16

One thing to keep in mind is that in BK, the US gun with the best moving accuracy modifier is the M18 (hellcat) which only loses 15% accuracy while shooting on the move (compare to a normal 76 sherman which loses half its accuracy on the move).

The only buff I would like to see on shermans really is their moving accuracy increase by a lot. US is always on the aggressive with their tanks since they don't have good chances to win at range. They should not be brutally punished if axis tanks just keep reversing on back to their base while stopping and firing at them because easy eights lose too much accuracy trying to shoot and move.

kwok
Posts: 1335
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby kwok » 31 Oct 2018, 18:19

Warhawks, your response to my question is EXACTLY what I was looking for and what I’m afraid is not being considered. Units should be balanced on intent of role. So comparing Shermans to stugs to me felt like comparing pumas to stuarts. Even if it’s the 76 Sherman. I see those as very different tanks to stugs and even panzer 4s to an extent.

And thanks death kitty for complimenting my luft doc essay Hahahaha. Feel free to make a supporting comment on the thread so it gets read by devs more seriously ;).

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby seha » 31 Oct 2018, 18:42

Death_Kitty wrote:4.) Nope. no troll. Really my balance complaints from the 3 threads Ive posted in can be summed up in a couple points:
-make shermans (76) better somehow, which the 50 cal buff probably already does, but im not sure because its not in this beta, so I couldn't test it, but im sure the buff will be sufficient. Better accuracy on the move would be nice too, and maybe a small penetration buff vs panzer4 (like 5%).
-reduce StG and scoped G-43 availability
-reduce German hand-held AT/nades and make stickies better
-maybe some buffs for AB.
-and kwok is doing a much better job addressing luft's issues then i could ever hope to.
That is it. I mean, the 50 has been improved, rangers have been improved, rifles are much better than when I played the mod at first, so full credit there. That knocks out like... half my list. So where is the troll? I do get aggressive when balance crusading, sorry, but I label these threads for a reason.

axis infantry without stg is dead meat. g43 is already rare.
stickies are already good and available for many units, stickies should not be 100% immobilize tool.
some buff for airborne 82nd to have passive camo. only thing i agree with.
but if luftwaffe get nerf. raf and airborne must get nerf too. all air doctrines should get nerf. not only luft.

shermans already got too much buff in the past and i think they are balanced with panzer4 now.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 20:08

seha wrote:
Death_Kitty wrote:4.) Nope. no troll. Really my balance complaints from the 3 threads Ive posted in can be summed up in a couple points:
-make shermans (76) better somehow, which the 50 cal buff probably already does, but im not sure because its not in this beta, so I couldn't test it, but im sure the buff will be sufficient. Better accuracy on the move would be nice too, and maybe a small penetration buff vs panzer4 (like 5%).
-reduce StG and scoped G-43 availability
-reduce German hand-held AT/nades and make stickies better
-maybe some buffs for AB.
-and kwok is doing a much better job addressing luft's issues then i could ever hope to.
That is it. I mean, the 50 has been improved, rangers have been improved, rifles are much better than when I played the mod at first, so full credit there. That knocks out like... half my list. So where is the troll? I do get aggressive when balance crusading, sorry, but I label these threads for a reason.

axis infantry without stg is dead meat. g43 is already rare.
stickies are already good and available for many units, stickies should not be 100% immobilize tool.
some buff for airborne 82nd to have passive camo. only thing i agree with.
but if luftwaffe get nerf. raf and airborne must get nerf too. all air doctrines should get nerf. not only luft.

shermans already got too much buff in the past and i think they are balanced with panzer4 now.

1.) So all axis squads need StG to be viable? StG not over-represented? get outta here.
2.) looking at shrecks, fausts, and AT nades that germans get, your telling me that stickies compare? Maybe not a 100% immo chance, but a pretty darn high one, considering they an upgrade and require you to get very close to a vehicle that most of the time has an mg42
3.) Why? As far as im aware, AB does not have stong tanks. Or emplacements like the 88. Or a goddamn stuka patrol. Nor does it drop with the ridiculously powerful Fallshirmjager. You actually have to put multiple CP into AB before they become powerful. Falls come with shreck and 5 FG right off the bat, and you want to tell me that somehow AB also needs a nerf? And you accuse me of being out of touch.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby seha » 31 Oct 2018, 20:55

Death_Kitty wrote:1.) So all axis squads need StG to be viable? StG not over-represented? get outta here.

yes. not over represented. what squads have stg?
grenadiers (only 2 for 50 ammo but 3 for terror doctrine). assault grenadiers. assault pioneers. storm troops.
it will be over represented if volks had them or pioneers had them or panzer grenadiers had them or luftwaffe infantry had them too.

or what do you want? grenadiers running around with pistols :?: or you want them to upgrade mp40 when sten, grease, and thompsons are available for no cost? mp40 is a weapon for medicore units. elite units will be overpriced if they get no stg.

Death_Kitty wrote:2.) looking at shrecks, fausts, and AT nades that germans get, your telling me that stickies compare? Maybe not a 100% immo chance, but a pretty darn high one, considering they an upgrade and require you to get very close to a vehicle that most of the time has an mg42

you should maybe start to play some pvp and stop whining.
when you do that you will learn it is easier to approach a tiger with infantry than to approach a high explosive sherman with infantry.
you will learn it is sometimes harder to kill a staghound than to kill a king tiger.

Death_Kitty wrote:3.) Why? As far as im aware, AB does not have stong tanks. Or emplacements like the 88. Or a goddamn stuka patrol. Nor does it drop with the ridiculously powerful Fallshirmjager. You actually have to put multiple CP into AB before they become powerful. Falls come with shreck and 5 FG right off the bat, and you want to tell me that somehow AB also needs a nerf? And you accuse me of being out of touch.

you think you need strong tanks or 88s to win? airborne have better planes. better and faster and more resistant to anti air guns.
i will just repeat this..................
The New BK Champion wrote:you have no bloody idea how much allies have been buffed in the span of the last 10 patches

yes. as he said. you have no bloody idea about the current game balance.
if you dont play pvp. at least watch good players playing and you will learn airborne beat luftwaffe most of the time.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Death_Kitty » 31 Oct 2018, 21:10

1.) Wow. ok. not sure where this is coming from. Yeah sorry, no, tell me about people who buy other upgrades for their infantry when StG is available. Tell me about how grenadiers are specialist infantry... wait no, they are mainline, especially for certain docs. Tell me about how Luft has FG-42 instead of StG, which is arguably worse. And tell me about how assault pios and grens do not make up 2/3 or PE basic combat infantry. The problem isnt that a few squads have an StG. The problem is that its half the squads, and its mainline units so they are used MORE.
2.) In what universe is the tiger alone. Sure a lone tiger is easy to kill than a supported staghound. But you forgot to mention that bit didn't you. You'd know that tigers controlled by competent players are not usually alone if you played PvP.
3.)ok. lets see what i actually said: "as germans have a lot of stuff on the allies: again, better infantry weapons, better hand-held AT, better heavy tanks, better support abilities, the 88, and dont get me wrong, that is fine".

The problem with luft, is as kwok wrote, its too well rounded, lacks depth, and gives you almost the full potential of the branch at the first unlock. AB may have fast planes, but their paras don't start off as strong as luft does, and they are missing HUGE parts of US tanks i.e. Hellcat, Jackson. There is a clear trade off for AB strengths. Where is luft's exactly? It's not in infantry, it's not in tanks, it's not in defenses, it's not in off map.

also: I know how much allies have been nerfed/buffed/reworked. I'm saying its not enough. I know luft can be beat by AB. Its just harder for AB to win than it is for luft. also dont pretend that Allies only got buffed over 10 patches and that axis got nothing but nerfs, come on. We both know better.

CGarr
Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby CGarr » 08 Nov 2018, 04:04

I think the stubbyp4<sherman75<normalp4<sherman76<=e8<=panther succession model for medium tanks is ideal for balance when considering the stages at which these tanks come out and their high availability. The changes i would like to see in BK to allow for this damage model would go as follows.

1. making the stubby p4 available in tier 2.
It is a slow tank so at T2 it shouldn't be too hard to counter with AT guns and bazooka's and would be an interesting alternative to the HT's due to it's significantly higher damage potential at the cost of speed. I think most people have more trouble dealing with the stubby 75mm HT's and cars than the stubby p4 when using greyhounds. Additionally, it would give the american light tanks and British light vehicles with little johns more utility than they currently have, as these units are pretty much only useful for dealing with light vehicles currently because nobody builds the stubby p4's due to the other T3 tanks being much more useful at that stage of the game.

2. Sherman changes
While an accuracy bonus on the move would make sense for the 75mm shermans, I think it's a pretty low priority fix as they fill their intended role within the medium tank succession model and they have a good amount of utility in game considering how well they deal with infantry. 76mm armed shermans on the other hand do require one fix in my opinion. I find that the 76mm has trouble doing anything to panthers, which doesn't really make sense considering both historical armor values and the panther's intended role. The panther is a medium tank, and as such should perform similarly to other medium tanks of the same tier (in this case the highest tier of mediums, so 76mm armed shermans and fireflies).

However, in blitzkrieg, the 76mm shermans seem to have a significant amount of trouble penning the panther even with it's AP shot activated. This doesn't line up with the medium tank damage model i presented, as they should at least be able to kill it with their their high velocity guns and high pen ammo. The chance for a panther to pen a sherman even with their normal APHE shot (AP shot ability is not necessary to kill shermans) is very high, which makes sense. As such, I think the 76mm should have an equally high chance to penetrate the panther (with AP, the current non AP pen can stay if the AP shot gets buffed) as their 76mm guns in unison with their APCR ammo should sail straight through the panther's armor. This brings me to my last point.

3. Panther changes
Considering the panther is a medium and not a heavy, it should be on the same tier as the best mediums in terms of both performance and cost rather than being lumped with heavy tanks. As such, I believe that alongside the penetration increases for the 76, the panther itself should be made cheaper to supplement the fact that it would be easier to kill (maybe somewhere around 110 fuel and 700 mp) at the cost of an additional health drop to make it a reliable 3 hit kill assuming the shots penetrate (as opposed to 2 like the sherman because it is still a heavier and more expensive tank even with this change), as currently i find my panthers often surviving even 3 penetrations from 76mm shermans.

Alternatively, if the BK team prefers to treat it as a heavy then it should retain it's current cost and have a health value that requires it to reliably take 4 penetrating 76mm shots from a sherman to kill. Making panthers die in less penetrating hits is not necessarily needed (although it would fit the medium tank succession model i presented a bit better and technically make sense since it is a medium and not a heavy), so if the team and playerbase prefers the tank to be a heavy then it shouldn't die as fast as a medium. However, for the paid AP ability to still be a expensive gamble rather than what is essentially a confirmed pen for it's axis counterpart(panther's AP shot) is simply ridiculous, and no matter how many penetrations it takes to actually kill them, Allied players should still be able to pen and reliably kill this tank with AP if they play their cards right rather than gambling on whether or not the fucking AP shot will pen after already having gambled on the chance to flat out miss the thing (even though its the size of a fucking building), the life of at least one of their tanks, and the chance that their penetrating shots are not eaten by the engine or main gun instead of actually finishing the fucking thing off.

Conclusion
I suggest that in order to achieve better balance between allied and axis mediums, three things must happen. The pz4 with stubby gun should be moved to T2 for all axis doctrines that have axis to it, the penetration of 76 mm shells (to be clear i am talking about the AP shot ability, not standard shells) against panthers should be pretty much guaranteed (this conclusion was reached by considering the cost of the ability, everything the allied player is putting on the line when using it, and the performance of it's axis counterpart, the panther's AP shot), and the BK community / dev team need to decide if they want the panther to be more in line with mediums or heavies, as right now it has the advantages of both tank types without having any of the disadvantages other than cost.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3084
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Nov 2018, 14:15

1. Agreed, and only E/F models, not the D that could get removed. But the Tank IV armor need to get weaker bc even the US 76 gun has just about 67% pen chance vs these stubby Tank IV´s.
2. When it comes to gun power it was historcially like this Axis 75mm L/70 (Panther), CW 17 pdr gun (76,2 mm) and finally the US 76 mm gun. The US 76 pen power is more comparable to Tigers 88 gun but not Panther gun. CW and axis adopted high performance guns which in return had a shorter life span and thus had to get replaced more often. US stayed more on the long living guns.
Also we run into technical issues. AP rounds are not independent values/weapons and instead modifiers that boost the basic pen values. But this again would affect all other targets as well. Like the APCR would have to boost the basic values by like 5 times or even 10 to ensure guranteed pen vs Panther. But that also means that this boost applies to any other target the tank shoots.

And historcially the HVAP could pen Panthers frontal armor but not guranteed and "only" at about 700 meters. The Panthers frontal armor was effectively better than those of the Tiger I. It was also depending on the quality of steel. Late War production Panthers had cracking armor plates due to lower quality.

Thus coming to point 3:

I would keep the Panthers frontal armor or perhaps just slight nerfs to it against 76 guns.
However it is already different to Tigers and other heavies. Heavy tanks do have much better rear armor values and thus tiger can bounce for example 75 sherman shots pretty well, even from rear shots. Thus it can boucne shells better when they come from all directions.
The Panther cant and thus a flanking 75 can already become a huge threat (thus also even a chaffe light tank).

So i agree that we should handle Panther more as the german late game medium and main tank that replaces Tank IV´s rather than tigers. The HP can drop down to 700-750 HP (from 800) as well as its cost. The 76 could perhaps get slightly (but really slightly) better pen chances. Like the HVAP pen chance for 76 reaching roughly 35- 40% at max range.

User avatar
seha
Posts: 197
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: Why shermans need to be s**t, a reply to markr (balance crusade)

Postby seha » 08 Nov 2018, 18:47

sherman easy eights are everywhere in late game. if they get accuracy buff. the sherman spam should be less. panther ausf.g is a bit overpriced by the way. it was only unique from other panthers when it had the scope upgrade but now it doesn't. and panthers generally should not be weaker or there will be no difference between panthers and panzer IVs with skirts. conclusion..... now shermans and panzers are balanced and nothing need tweaking.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests