• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      ***Expected Outage Scheduled*** 7 day Notice   12/15/2019

      Next Sunday, December 22nd 2019 outage and cut-over will START AT 9AM PACIFIC TIME or 5:00 PM GMT. All services will be effected for 24 +/- hours as announced in our previous article. Game server physically relocated  Website and critical data relocated Configure the game server all critical services to new ISP's We appreciate everyone's patience and understanding during this transition, our goal is to minimize server downtime. Official communications/status will be posted via Axis and Allied Discord, and FaceBook during outage. ***Effective that day, server time will be considered Pacific Standard Time (GMT -8), not US Central (CST) as it is now.***
delems

Remove armored cars.

57 posts in this topic

Seeing how balance is completely skewed (allied ACs kill every panzer in every tier, axis AC can't even kill all tier 0 tanks) and have highly unrealistic movement, crossing all terrain at high speeds, let's just remove them.  Add IICs and Vikys instead (not sure for french).  This will also aide in keeping FRUs alive longer with no zooming ACs roaming around.

Once the armor/weapon audit is done and wheeled movement can be more properly modeled, they could possibly return.

So as to not completely lose the work done for the vehicles (232, Panhard, DAC), maybe allow the navy and air force flags 1 or 2 only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATR can also kill a DAC... 

 

The ACs aren't balanced, even still.

 

The 232 is for FRU hunting only, and well... a rifle takes it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, vasduten1 said:

The 232 is for FRU hunting only, and well... a rifle takes it out.

10 out of 881 times..

Panhard has been killed by German rifles 9 times (out of 716 deaths)

Daimler has been killed by German Rifles 1 time (out of 115 deaths)

So yes technically a Rifle can kill the 232.... but .... only 1.1% of total 232 deaths have been to rifles...... (at the time I posted)  Comparable to the death rates of other scout cars. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combat effectiveness aside, it's unrealistic for ACs to be hunting tanks. Every army had doctrine against that. Do that instead of your proper recon job (find the enemy but keep your distance, and retreat if you make enemy contact), and you'd be demoted and re-assigned to a less important role.

And, it's unrealistic for wheeled vehicles to be fast off roads. Movement "drag factor" should be based on mission-loaded ground pressure. Wheeled vehicles should be much slower off-road than tracked ones.

It'd make sense to remove ACs until the terrain tiles can have a secondary road net added to them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it made sense to remove the british heat grenade until we could have loadouts for all three grenadiers?

Yah.. no thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B2K said:

10 out of 881 times..

Panhard has been killed by German rifles 9 times (out of 716 deaths)

Daimler has been killed by German Rifles time (out of 115 deaths)

And that has nothing to do with the OP's point. 

 

Not. One. Thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

And that has nothing to do with the OP's point. 

 

Not. One. Thing. 

which is why the OP wasn't quoted.

Not. One. Word.......

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B2K said:

which is why the OP wasn't quoted.

Not. One. Word.......

False equivalence trying to derail the thread, nothing new from you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

False equivalence trying to derail the thread, nothing new from you. 

No, not equivalency - false nor otherwise....

I was replying specifically to an implication that rifles are killing 232's en mass - hence the specificity of both the quote and the reply to it.  The reality is that ~1% of armored car deaths are to rifles.  

Personally I'm all for the 234 (puma) coming into game, however they weren't produced until later in the war ('43), so would be a tier 2 or 3 item (if we're staying on a rough equipment-timeline tier system), which would do nothing for the issue in tier 0 or 1. 

There's a few other threads on this topic where I've stated similar... 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could alter the gearing of ACs so that they have awful speed off-road but have a great "road gear".

 

Also they could change the volume of the Pan and DAC so that they're actually detectable. All the experienced players know how to exploit this so just boosting it by an amount will curtail the unusual stealthiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the Allied LMG whine in reverse.  I like their stuff better so therefore it needs to be nerfed.  The game was not supposed to be built on similar capabilities and that is what added flavor to the game for a long time.  However, now that we are pulling weapons from the game like the British RG and holding weapons out of the game like the STG  44 and M1 Carbine because of a pre whine before the whine I suppose delems has a point.  The answer is to make another armored car a priority for the Axis like the .30 cal was for the Allies.

jwilly I feel your doctrinal pain.  However, WWII Online ditched realism a long time ago.  Real world doctrine is useless.  All that matters is the doctrine of WWII Online and its players.  Recon is useless in the game anyway.  You know where the enemy is coming from due to fixed spawn points.  If they could turn FBs into giant FRUs that are placed by HC once an FB is blown Recon may actually have purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, yes.  Remove more toys and make this already badly aging game more feature-poor.  That sounds like a lot of fun.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are certainly OP, I used to have a lot of fun driving a Scout car like a DAC or Panhard from another town and flank the enemy Panzers, I would kill many this way the STUG IIIG and tiger were the hardest but all other could get killed pretty easily.

I think this could be easily fixed by adding the PZGr 40 to the ammo of the 232, this way you could kill like 80% of the tanks with the 232 like the allies can with their Scour Cars to axis tanks.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pbveteran said:

They are certainly OP, I used to have a lot of fun driving a Scout car like a DAC or Panhard from another town and flank the enemy Panzers, I would kill many this way the STUG IIIG and tiger were the hardest but all other could get killed pretty easily.

I think this could be easily fixed by adding the PZGr 40 to the ammo of the 232, this way you could kill like 80% of the tanks with the 232 like the allies can with their Scour Cars to axis tanks.

I'm all for that.. if pzGr40 acted properly. Then we could get the AP rounds for the camle38.. would be very sweet to have a 25mm automatic gun firing AP rounds. We could tear UP some Axis armor with that... there would be little need for the mle34.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, stankyus said:

I'm all for that.. if pzGr40 acted properly. Then we could get the AP rounds for the camle38.. would be very sweet to have a 25mm automatic gun firing AP rounds. We could tear UP some Axis armor with that... there would be little need for the mle34.

That would make things once more unbalance.

The problem is Allies can kill tiger with DAC and Stuart from the side while the PZ IIIH, PZ IV D, 38T and IIC can't kill the Jumbo or the churchill or matty from the side.

While the axis can't with their 232 and Light tanks, on top of that due to only 50mm of Turret armor allies can also kill all PZ IV tanks from the front with light tanks and Scout Cars , axis don't even come close.

Allied AP AA would never be justifiable if they had access to this ammo from tier 0 and even with that Axis would at least need the panther, Stuart and Q2Pdr have 89mm and 75mm of penetration while the 20mm APCR PzGr 40 has 63mm.. PzGr is scalable on current Tier setting it only allows to kill the Sherman on the side and the Stuart both at 100m while Matty, Jumbo and both churchills could still not be killed, while the DAC can kill every Axis tank, even with that Allies would still retain an advantage.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical balance thread here:

"My side doesnt't have an AC that does what the other side routinely does."

 

Typical Allied responses:

"Sure, you should have something similar, but then CRS has to add X and Y to our side to balance it out."

"But then it's back to unbalanced."

Someone else:

"Maybe a better gun on the existing AC."

"OK, but it needs to act RIGHT and we can then add AP to our ATGs, (which already kill tanks-a-plenty,) and XMas wishlist, etc."

 

Unbearable.

 

 

 

 

Fine... 232s don't die all that frequently to rifle, i was exaggerating.

They are LAVs and are fine in that regard.

 

 

Still... not even the next tank up, the Pzr2C can kill other tanks.

I suppose its to counter the Vickers.

 

Anyhoo.... give us 50MM 234s!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pbveteran said:

That would make things once more unbalance.

The problem is Allies can kill tiger with DAC and Stuart from the side while the PZ IIIH, PZ IV D, 38T and IIC can't kill the Jumbo or the churchill or matty from the side.

While the axis can't with their 232 and Light tanks, on top of that due to only 50mm of Turret armor allies can also kill all PZ IV tanks from the front with light tanks and Scout Cars , axis don't even come close.

Allied AP AA would never be justifiable if they had access to this ammo from tier 0 and even with that Axis would at least need the panther, Stuart and Q2Pdr have 89mm and 75mm of penetration while the 20mm APCR PzGr 40 has 63mm.. PzGr is scalable on current Tier setting it only allows to kill the Sherman on the side and the Stuart both at 100m while Matty, Jumbo and both churchills could still not be killed, while the DAC can kill every Axis tank, even with that Allies would still retain an advantage.

You realize that the Jumbo is not in this game right?  The PzGr.40 ammo will go through all the shermans in the game and out perform any 25mm AA the Allies have by 20-25mm more or less.  The 20mm PzGr.40 ammo would have a shorter range to produce sufficient penetration.  HOWEVER there is a big difference when we are talking about allowing such heavy penetrating AP round in auto cannons vrs single shot rounds. Once you open that gate, there is a price to be paid. Especially later for the Brits when the Brits had a full auto 6pdr ATG.. All things being equitable the 232 with pzgr.40 would outperform the 75mm APHE and down with the exception of allowing it to be on part with the penetration we see with the fantasy HEAT round the German T0 stugB and P4D carry.

That's a little lop sided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stankyus said:

You realize that the Jumbo is not in this game right?  The PzGr.40 ammo will go through all the shermans in the game and out perform any 25mm AA the Allies have by 20-25mm more or less.  The 20mm PzGr.40 ammo would have a shorter range to produce sufficient penetration.  HOWEVER there is a big difference when we are talking about allowing such heavy penetrating AP round in auto cannons vrs single shot rounds. Once you open that gate, there is a price to be paid. Especially later for the Brits when the Brits had a full auto 6pdr ATG.. All things being equitable the 232 with pzgr.40 would outperform the 75mm APHE and down with the exception of allowing it to be on part with the penetration we see with the fantasy HEAT round the German T0 stugB and P4D carry.

That's a little lop sided.

 

I'm saying only give ammo to 232 and it should be limited like an extra 2 clips not the replace the entire AP rounds.. So the 232 would have AP, APCR(PzGr 40) and HE.

To put in perspective the 2Qdr and the Stuart can penetrate all Tanks tanks up to 1000m on the side except tiger and both can kill the tiger at 100m on the side.

The 232 can't kill all medium tankscan't kill any heavy tank Churchill, MA43 or Matty and this isn't asymmetrical gameplay when in real life germany was the side which had the most powerful ACs and the PZ IIIL/M was what would be comparable and historical comparable to the M5A1 stuart.

If you consider just the Allied vs Axis ACs and Light Tanks it's deeply unbalance and it could be easily seen as bias.. I always felt OP when using any of these just like with the British HEAT Rifle Grenade and still you can kill with a Pan/DAC/Stuart the PZ IV G frontally..

 

The PZ IV HEAT ammo is very limited the AP sucks and it's not OP in most instances it fails to connect probably the dispersion is significant and its the only round that you can compete with wasting will cost you.. It's not even comparable.. the PZ IVG and below is equal to the 57mm Crusader Tank.

 

The best solution would be replacing the 232 with the puma 234 but that is far fetched considering CRS current position.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 8:04 PM, pbveteran said:

 

I'm saying only give ammo to 232 and it should be limited like an extra 2 clips not the replace the entire AP rounds.. So the 232 would have AP, APCR(PzGr 40) and HE.

To put in perspective the 2Qdr and the Stuart can penetrate all Tanks tanks up to 1000m on the side except tiger and both can kill the tiger at 100m on the side.

The 232 can't kill all medium tankscan't kill any heavy tank Churchill, MA43 or Matty and this isn't asymmetrical gameplay when in real life germany was the side which had the most powerful ACs and the PZ IIIL/M was what would be comparable and historical comparable to the M5A1 stuart.

If you consider just the Allied vs Axis ACs and Light Tanks it's deeply unbalance and it could be easily seen as bias.. I always felt OP when using any of these just like with the British HEAT Rifle Grenade and still you can kill with a Pan/DAC/Stuart the PZ IV G frontally..

 

The PZ IV HEAT ammo is very limited the AP sucks and it's not OP in most instances it fails to connect probably the dispersion is significant and its the only round that you can compete with wasting will cost you.. It's not even comparable.. the PZ IVG and below is equal to the 57mm Crusader Tank.

 

The best solution would be replacing the 232 with the puma 234 but that is far fetched considering CRS current position.

So you would be for letting the DAC into T-0? then because by your logic about 232 not being able to kill tanks but the Pan (T-0), and DAC (t-1). The price would be to put the DAC into T-0 so the BEF has a AC that can kill tanks with comparable penetration. Nothing is for free... AP.40 penetrates like the 2pdr but will be on a auto cannon.

The 232 was never designed to be a heavy tank killer period. It can kill all the CRU series tanks, Vickers Pans and even the m10. That would be like demanding the Vickers to have some sort of Heavy tank killing capability. They where never designed to do that.

You STILL would have to allow for the AUTO cannons AP then. That opens the gates for the 25mm AA gun AP rounds which would pale in comparison penetration wise. The FLAK 30 already is the only ground based AA gun that has AP which can kill the Cru series tanks and the M10. Nothing is for free. It would also constitute another specialty round for the Axis.  The DAC for instance could be fitted with a squeeze bore gun and start punching holes into the Tiger tank with ease. That would be a BEF specialty round.. the French and Americans then could get HEAT for their Shermans and kill StugGs at any distance they could hit..

What absolutely kills me is your comparing the 57mm on the Cru3 with the P4G TANK... Why would you compare a gun tube with a tank? The 57mm on the Cru3 lacks the penetrating distance vrs the P4G, lower optic resolution, and only the only thing on the P4G you can compare to the Cru3 is that the 4Gs turret armor is as thick as the total frontal armor of the Cru3 and has a coax mg. Let alone the 4G over its history in this game has waned back and forth with the Sherman 75 at .95 kd to 1.05 kd. Even the CH3 has yet to have come close to .9 kd vrs the 4G.  The 4G owns the Cru3, I cannot even believe your argument is well thought out.  I remember back in the day when I was pretty new, I complained about the 2pdr ATG... and the Allies said... what about the 88. I said "doh!"  I can only believe this is a DOH! moment.

THE only solution is to replace the 232 in T3 with a new triad of ACs.

232 > PUMA

DAC > AEC

PAN > Greyhound.

The PUMA having the best frontal armor

AEC best gun

Greyhound... worst of the three but has an option of a commanders Pintle mount heavy MG and 5x sites.

The upgrades for the P3 series tanks would also come as a triad.

P3H > P3M

Stu > Chaffee

Cru2 > Cromwell.

These would be there to supplement or replace those tanks by T3 so they remain a viable lower end tank force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just look at the facts. (tank kills, non light or AC)

232 kills this map:  14

Panhard kills this map:  202

DAC kills this map: 56

Really, you are arguing with a 18 KD differential?  Show me one axis unit that has an 18 KD advantage...... (show me one with a 2 KD advantage.......)

You all need to read stats better imo, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, delems said:

Let's just look at the facts. (tank kills, non light or AC)

232 kills this map:  14

Panhard kills this map:  202

DAC kills this map: 56

Really, you are arguing with a 18 KD differential?  Show me one axis unit that has an 18 KD advantage...... (show me one with a 2 KD advantage.......)

You all need to read stats better imo, really.

You're comparing apples to oranges.  There is no current Axis equivalent.  That's the whole point of your OP, isn't it?  That since they aren't equivalent in ability, they should all be sidelined.

I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stankyus

Srry you are being bias and your arguments can't really be defended..

There is a clear unbalance of PAC and Dac with 232 I don't want them to be remove as Delems argues because they can be a lot of fun but a short term solution should be implement to fixed this very big gap, this is a very old wound between axis players and CRS.

I play warthunder I use and fought against 20mm Axis Pzgr 40.. it's deadly in close range especially when flanking but so is everything.. Tanking is about first shots and flanking, in WW2ol 232 with first shots and flanking can barely kill any AFV and the skill required is very high even between Scout cars and light tanks because you need short distances to even penetrate 20mm also the dispersion is very significant at around 200m.

The game won't become unbalance with a limited number of PzGR 40 rounds to the 232 because again tanking is about first shots and flanking. With a large battlefield as this and no invisible walls, weapon differences are greatly mitigated as long they are effective except 232 weapons are pretty much ineffective, the 232 is more similar to a vickers than a dac or pan..

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a confusing thread. so, in summary, don't removed armoured cars, just remove the players who  use them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.