goreblimey

TIER 1 armour BALANCE need looking at

185 posts in this topic

Quote

NAME ME AN ALLIED TANK THAT CAN SEE AND FRONTALLY  KILL A  3H or STUG at 1500m . 

I give ya that it wasn't 1500 meters but 1000 meters . 

Myself 3h on high ground, Allied player Stuart going down hill a bit , I have the drop on him at 1000 meters I shoot and hit him after the 3rd shot he finally finds me still fully functional and shoots back guess who lost his gunner after he hit me the 3rd time while he absorbs 5 plus more hits . If you guessed 3h you are correct. What I'm saying here is 1000 meters and 3h looses to the Stuart.

Other example I have for you ( it's not the 3h or Stug ) but Tiger over 1k I'm hull down behind a berm a Sherman and M10 on hill straight line of sight for me . Nail both of them none die but Sherman 76 takes gun out of Tiger .

Another good example I have is 4G vs M10 again high ground on my part M10 survives AP and HE rounds till he finally gets a shot on my turret and kills my gunner that encounter was at 1500 meters . 

Yes only one example is with the tank you have mentioned , but in all of these encounters I had the drop on them and I think you know that we BOTH know how to tank in this game . And not once did I win there.

All these were pre- audit  but these encounters are stuck in my head .

Kinda like the 4G vs M10 real close enounter let him go broadside nail him should have flamed but nope he manages to turn shoot kills my gunner that was an encounter at less the 100 meters . I think I nailed him 3 to 4 times 2 times engine twice turret . There was a time where I would not shoot at an M10 period cause it was so unreliable to know if you kill him or just said hey here I am shoot and kill me.

 

I think we all have these encounters in game . So it's real hard to specify what is truth and what is not , what mounts to lag ,packet loss or who knows what else.

I have also encounters where I left scratching my head and went like wow how did that happen , like getting a penetration shot on a S76 with pak36 from just off to the left and made his engine smoke , he did kill me . But it should have never penetrated only reason why shot at him was trying to distract him from camping a FMS.

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Just so its fair ill start hey

 

Tiger, Tiger 2, Panther, Stug. Jpz4- l/7o., Jagd Panther, Jagd Tiger, Nashorn......

Allied equivalents  ?

M10, Sherman 76, M36, pershing, Firefly, Achilles, and archer will all be able to work against tiger 1, Panther, Stug, jpz4, and jpanther (nashorn has basically no armor and could probably be killed by even a panhard 178).

 

M10 and sherman 76 can work even better when M93 shot gets added (assuming theres a way to prevent people from gaming supply of sub caliber rounds).

17pdr vehicles have enough penetration with their basic AP rounds to work against the tanks I listed at regular combat ranges.

90mm M3 is just about as good as the 88mm on the Tiger II so the Pershing and M36 should have no issue at all with nearly all German armor fielded during the war.

Sherman M4a3 76 has potential to even be the best tank to drive if it gets its stabilizer (it wasnt perfect for on the move shooting but it's still an edge no other tank would get).

 

Tiger II and JagdTiger are both vehicles that will clearly be better than allied equipment but ideally they should only be limited to a very few number of brigades.  In addition to that the cats in general should only be limited certain brigades and have less availability overall compared to other allied vehicles (especially the M10).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Blah...

This is STILL the same old argument we were having 10 years ago. Nothing ever changes around here. 

Same complaints. Same whines. Same bugs. Same lack of need changes stay in game. Same lack of fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If CRS goes ahead with this "hardcore timeline TO&E" stuff, say goodbye to the game. 

No SMGs for BEF during tier0? Really? Who, besides the Rats, thinks this is a good idea?  

You guys are on crack if you think this will fly...and if you apply this to equipment introduction times, you might as well pull the plug on the servers now. 

You can't go 100% historical if you want a game, that's just a cold hard fact.   

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the concept yet but if you want 'historicy' and 'gameplay', then consider this, from the other thread, it would allow to 'circumvent' the discrepancy by the player themselves

 

 

rH0McIy.png

Edited by nugx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, delems said:

***  I mean thats what you are spelling out.

Just cause you get the best tanks in tier 0, doesn't meant you get them every tier.

Maybe now you know how axis feels in the early tiers.....

Adapt and overcome like axis has had to do every tier 0 for the last 17 years.

 

Delems.. you understand what they are saying right?  This is NOT what the Axis have ever had to deal with.. with the exception of ONE map, the Matty map. Prior to T-1 entrance to the game. We IIRC had 6 RDPs where each town had something like 8 Matties per AB and it was a route.

What you have had to deal with in T-0 where balanced out with MORE tanks, 37mm APC rounds, fantasy HEAT rounds that where more than doubled... Not saying that was bad outside the over adjusted fantasy HEAT because the Game needed the ability to keep T-0 tanking somewhat balanced.  They are not suggesting that and also T-0 and even T-1 rarely wins a map. Maps are usually won in T-2 the majority of the time. We see T-3 mb 60% of the time and about half the time we hit T3 we actually get a RDP before the end of the map.

So they are suggesting we fight .. in T2, Tigers and StugGs. With Cru3s and LEE tanks (as Merlin Stated) where the S75 and M10 would be a T2.5 RDP. However the Allies would ONLY see the CH5.. A CS tank in T3 where the Axis can potentially get the Panther and most likely the PZH. The ALlies would not See the CH7, S76, M36 or Firefly until T 4.5. 

Given the fact that ATM most maps end in T2.. the allies would only see their heavy hitters mb 10% of the maps played... yet the Axis will still get their beloved Tiger every single map.. in which we probably will never get beyond with S75s and Cru3s.  How can you even level a TIT for TAT.. hahahahaha response to the complete nonscense. You realize it will destroy, friggen upend the game and nobody will get to have fun anymore.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Delems.. you understand what they are saying right?  This is NOT what the Axis have ever had to deal with.. with the exception of ONE map, the Matty map. Prior to T-1 entrance to the game. We IIRC had 6 RDPs where each town had something like 8 Matties per AB and it was a route.

What you have had to deal with in T-0 where balanced out with MORE tanks, 37mm APC rounds, fantasy HEAT rounds that where more than doubled... Not saying that was bad outside the over adjusted fantasy HEAT because the Game needed the ability to keep T-0 tanking somewhat balanced.  They are not suggesting that and also T-0 and even T-1 rarely wins a map. Maps are usually won in T-2 the majority of the time. We see T-3 mb 60% of the time and about half the time we hit T3 we actually get a RDP before the end of the map.

So they are suggesting we fight .. in T2, Tigers and StugGs. With Cru3s and LEE tanks (as Merlin Stated) where the S75 and M10 would be a T2.5 RDP. However the Allies would ONLY see the CH5.. A CS tank in T3 where the Axis can potentially get the Panther and most likely the PZH. The ALlies would not See the CH7, S76, M36 or Firefly until T 4.5. 

Given the fact that ATM most maps end in T2.. the allies would only see their heavy hitters mb 10% of the maps played... yet the Axis will still get their beloved Tiger every single map.. in which we probably will never get beyond with S75s and Cru3s.  How can you even level a TIT for TAT.. hahahahaha response to the complete nonscense. You realize it will destroy, friggen upend the game and nobody will get to have fun anymore.

Basically. 

I don't know what madman/men are even contemplating doing this, but it's pure insanity. 

Only the biggest, hardcore biased dolts on the Axis side would like this. The rest of us see this as an unmitigated disaster. 

PS: The old Rats sort of tried this last time, with the m10 vs the tiger. It WAS a disaster. No other way to put it. 

Edited by Mosizlak
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current team always discusses reviewing changes that are best for gameplay. Sometimes the changes are tinkered with to fit them into the gameplay, variable timers for example had tweeks, as did the fuse timers for bombs. So if something makes it in and we experiment rest assured we always watch the big picture. We are constantly learning, as this game takes a true life of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

The current team always discusses reviewing changes that are best for gameplay. Sometimes the changes are tinkered with to fit them into the gameplay, variable timers for example had tweeks, as did the fuse timers for bombs. So if something makes it in and we experiment rest assured we always watch the big picture. We are constantly learning, as this game takes a true life of its own.

Lets not forget the past or we are bound to repeat it...   The old M10/Cru3/Tiger/StugG debacle was an attempt at doing historical entrances and it was an abject failure and destructive to the game.  There was a reason why we dropped the Max Tiger numbers to 2... that same reason why we kept the Matty at two.. well with the exception of the Matty.. for some reason its still treated as if they are powerful force multipliers and have been kept at 2.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fufubear1f said:

History is a lot more balanced tech wise than I think a lot of  you guys realize.

Not when it comes to the armor tiers in this game if they "rebalance" the tiers. 

You wanna fight tigers and 3gs with crusaders3s and Lee tanks? LOL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the number of tiers might allow for better fine tuning.  I would also recommend removing old equipment as the tiers increase.  It makes little sense for most of the tier 0 tanks to be available in tier 2.  Remove the old equipment and increase the availability of the new equipment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blakeh said:

Increasing the number of tiers might allow for better fine tuning.  I would also recommend removing old equipment as the tiers increase.  It makes little sense for most of the tier 0 tanks to be available in tier 2.  Remove the old equipment and increase the availability of the new equipment.

I just don't see how you "fine tune" tigers vs anything else except the s76 and church7.   With numbers? Germans have had obscene numbers of tigers for a long time now, with no mentioning of curbing their numbers. 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk enough about all the deployment dates of gear etc to know how 'big' an issue this will be really.

But, clearly, just because axis may get Tiger in tier 2 (this just an example), maybe they only get a couple per ARM flag?  Or maybe just 1 per flag?

No reason any axis tier/time period where it has an advantage the gear can't be adjusted, just like mattie in tier 0, few of them.

 

And not sure what you whinging about, your armored cars take out a Tiger easy, seen a Dac roll and flame 2 in seconds.

I haven't seen a 232 take out a Stuart or sherman lately, have you?  (not to mention any other allied tank)

 

Regarding brits w/o SMGs; it's all a matter of numbers imo.

germans also didn't have SMGs in poland, but squad leaders did in france.

So, if tier 0 is 300 brit rifles and germans get 270 rifles and 30 SMGs, not sure that really kills the game that much. (just making up numbers for example)

Of course, even I would say no to 200 rifles and 100 SMGs for germans if british got no SMGs.

Also, might not have to go completely historical, maybe give brits 290 rifles and 10 SMGs, so they at least have a few, even if they really had none.

 

Lets see how it looks as they deploy it, then modify as need.

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


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

Not when it comes to the armor tiers in this game if they "rebalance" the tiers. 

You wanna fight tigers and 3gs with crusaders3s and Lee tanks? LOL. 

It's pretty even there too.  The tiger and 3g would be countered by the M10.  

 

The only imbalance would be KT and JT but those were basically unicorns.  The Germans had a grand total of 8 or something for the entire Normandy campaign.  Most would be sent to the east.

 

Ideally these special units like tigers would only be certain heavy armor brigades anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the m10 a counter? You're talking about giving the allies 3 tanks that are inferior to the axis tanks in the same tier. 

The Lee is pretty much garbage vs tiger/stug. A 37mm in the turret, which will be useless vs the tiger and stugG. A 75mm in the hull with a limited traverse. 

Crusader has the 6lber, which will be good for flank/ambush shots. Crusaders gets annihilated vs the long 75mm/88mm. 

M10 has the only gun worth a damn vs the tiger and stug, but will die from as far away as you can hit it. 

How is that even? 3 allied tanks that are worse than the axis tanks in  just about every way? Are they gonna give the allies a huge advantage in tank numbers? Because they have NOT done that in the past when it comes to tanks.  Besides, we all know what will happen. Players would rather have a shot to spawn a good tank vs having access to many bad tanks. Who wants to be fodder like that? 

I'm having legit flashbacks to the tiger vs m10 discussions before the laucnh lol. Every single sane person knew it would be a disaster and every single side biased tool thought it was fine. Launch time came and it was a disaster lol. But hey, screw history, let's try it again...

Edited by Mosizlak
2 people like this

Share this post


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

Increasing the number of tiers might allow for better fine tuning.  I would also recommend removing old equipment as the tiers increase.  It makes little sense for most of the tier 0 tanks to be available in tier 2.  Remove the old equipment and increase the availability of the new equipment.

The DLC the devs have placed in game means t0 armor will be available all campaign.

I think its short-sighted but it is what it is.

Share this post


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

How is the m10 a counter? You're talking about giving the allies 3 tanks that are inferior to the axis tanks in the same tier. 

The Lee is pretty much garbage vs tiger/stug. A 37mm in the turret, which will be useless vs the tiger and stugG. A 75mm in the hull with a limited traverse. 

Crusader has the 6lber, which will be good for flank/ambush shots. Crusaders gets annihilated vs the long 75mm/88mm. 

M10 has the only gun worth a damn vs the tiger and stug, but will die from as far away as you can hit it. 

How is that even? 3 allied tanks that are worse than the axis tanks in  just about every way? Are they gonna give the allies a huge advantage in tank numbers? Because they have NOT done that in the past when it comes to tanks.  Besides, we all know what will happen. Players would rather have a shot to spawn a good tank vs having access to many bad tanks. Who wants to be fodder like that? 

I'm having legit flashbacks to the tiger vs m10 discussions before the laucnh lol. Every single sane person knew it would be a disaster and every single side biased tool thought it was fine. Launch time came and it was a disaster lol. But hey, screw history, let's try it again...

The Majority of axis tanks would be Pz3s and pz4 F1s.  The tiger would be a unicorn and the stug wouldn't be that much more common either. The crusader would be the best "line" tank (meaning excluding the top stuff like tigers and co) in tank on tank combat since the 6 pounder is better than the pak 38 (well its 5cm kwk38 in this case) and the Lee might be awkward to use for some.

 

Lee is arguably no worse than the stug.

 

M10 is the counter because of the gun. The 76mm gun allows the m10 to deal with any German tank of the time from the front.  If they find a way to implement sub caliber rounds without exploits you can balance the M10 even more by playing with the amount of M93 it will receive.

 

That's 2 very common allied tanks that are worse than the Tiger that will be far from most common vehicle.  The M10 will effectively have parity with the Tiger.  The line tanks will all be fairly even.  You can play with numbers but imo it shouldn't be anymore than a 2-1 advantage for the top equipment (maybe until stuff like KT and JT).

 

The allies wouldnt be spawning as fodder because the odds of seeing the tiger would be fairly slim.

Share this post


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

Lee is arguably no worse than the stug?   You totally lost me there...Have a nice day. 

Look at it like this.

Both are casemates  for their main guns 

The stugs 75mm has the edge in penetration and it's a lower profile

The Lee has a turret with a 37mm gun.

 

A stug will deal with all allied stuff from the front but is screwed when it gets flanked.

The Lee will struggle with the top armored stuff but when its flanked by faster pz3s it can still fight back with the 37mm.

 

That's my thought process when I said Lee is arguably even with stug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 11:18 PM, jwilly said:

What will be the "historical" end of the British/French/German development spectrum for tiers after 0...actual history, or historical capabilities? What if the actual history was brought about by war-events that haven't yet happened in that WWIIOL campaign?

You would be surprised at how equal both the budget and production numbers remain between the active participants between US, Brit, and German forces throughout the war. So for the most part I don't think we'll have to worry about that till later tiers. But by keeping the budgets and costs the same or an average overall budget and equipment costs throughout all tiers, there are no real shortage other than that caused by RDP effects. With the French we have to extrapolate because in YOUR war, the French do not have to capitulate. We want to stick to debut dates as much as possible as that mimics the personality of the forces for all combatants. I think the biggest difference will have to be in the obsolescent regime where we'll probably have to negate or refund the effect of some obsolescent machinery on the budget to some degree because to take them out kills the lower rank and DLC players, but to leave them in in at full strength and counting against the budget could negatively harm the purchasing of newer equipment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2018 at 4:07 PM, stankyus said:

Ok, so if that is the case for the plan, now sell us the idea toward the TO&E and numbers for how this balance is going to work.  No since in being shady about just selling the idea, I want to know exactly how it plays out.  Simply because the potential for Not seeing the S76/CH7 or Up and coming Firefly/achillies until t4.  Seriously the Panther could even be a T3 tank.. and we will be left with 75mm armed Shermans, 6pdr tanks, and some thin skinned TDs..  I mean thats what you are spelling out.

Well, I guess you better be there participating in the planning once we publish the historical baselines and start the discussion... S!

Share this post


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

Lets see how it looks as they deploy it, then modify as need.

Exactly. We are going to be in no rush and work it out as best we can with Y'all here first, then we can phase it in if not at first in campaign then possibly over Intermission, but definitely tweak as needed to make it as globally accepted as possible. I'm sure we wont please everyone, historians and red-vs-blue balancers alike, but if they are both grudgingly ok with and evenly disgruntled after it all, we probably got it about right. (that last parts a joke for those of you that took it seriously)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HATCH said:

Well, I guess you better be there participating in the planning once we publish the historical baselines and start the discussion... S!

If our, meaning Allied and Axis, voices matter equally and if you actually listen to the playerbase. 

(Moz, WTH purpose does a comment like that serve in a discussion such as this? With that kind of attitude why should we take another thing you say seriously. Might want to think about that before acting like an idiot. All reasonable discourse will be welcome.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fufubear1f said:

History is a lot more balanced tech wise than I think a lot of  you guys realize.

Sometimes.

(1) The British were on track in may 1940...contracts issued, construction plans in place, new machine tools received and sitting in storage awaiting installation...to cease production of the two pounder gun in all but one production line, and the corresponding carriage, and begin production in August of the six pounder.

There was a delay in availability of longer-reach drill/lathe machines for bore finishing and rifling, so there was to be a short version of the six pounder for the first six months of production, with a barrel length slightly greater than that of the two pounder since those existing barrel-lathe machines were to be retained and adapted to the greater caliber, and that length was their upper limit.

Cruiser tank production was to be converted immediately to the six pounder, along with towed AT gun production. To that end, the two pounder carriage factory also was changing over to the quite different six pounder carriage.

Infantry tanks were to be converted over later. In the meantime, the one remaining two pounder production line would support that tank production.

The BEF equipment losses during the defeats and retreats culminating at Dunkirk caused all of those plans to be put on hold, because of the desperate need to crank out any ready-to-build gun ASAP to be able to defend against the expected German invasion of Britain.

Then equipment losses in North Africa caused a further delay.

The historical plan, though, was for the first towed six pounders to reach the BEF in November 1940, and for towed two pounders to be relegated to the Home Guard by mid 1941.

(2) The Germans could have begun production of the 50mm L/60 gun sooner, but (a) the German high command thought that the 50mm L/42 in upcoming tanks and the PaK 36 37mm respectively were quite adequate. Presumably they were unaware that the British were about to introduce 57mm gun armed cruiser tanks. (2) the German high command had limited production capacity for high quality gun barrel steel, and chose to allocate a substantial percentage to warship gun production.

(3) The British had a quite-effective-for-its-time HEAT RG in 1940, and a so-so frag RG. The French had built 150,000 of their Brandt HEAT RG before May 1940, and that ordnance was sitting in warehouses due to bureaucratic delays in training troops in its use. They had an effective frag RG, plus were about to convert over to RG use of their already-in-the-supply-chain 50mm frag and smoke mortar rounds, via a new rifle firing adapter. The Germans did not have any RG system in 1940. The 30mm system's weak frag and smoke rounds weren't fielded until 1940. The Luftwaffe's own HEAT RG introduced for Crete was pretty much a failure, and the original 30mm system's HEAT RG was too weak to be useful. The Germans didn't have an effective HEAT RG in the field until 1942.

(4) OTOH, the Germans had a sticky-attachment "sapper" HEAT device in development in 1940...the HHL-1...and maybe could have fielded some late in that year if there'd been a combat need. Certainly that weapon family was available to be fielded in 1941, though not historically visible due to the infrequency that year of situations where its use was called for. The British, French and later the Americans never had a comparable weapon.

(5) There were substantial technical differences between the capabilities of the panzerschreck, bazooka and PIAT. The panzerschreck's ammo was in such short supply that troops were ordered to use it only against tanks that could not be killed some other way. No development work was put into making the rockets lethal against infantry. The bazooka OTOH was "infantry artillery", commonly used as an anti-infantry ordnance projector. A substantial majority of ammo sent to the field was firing against targets other than enemy tanks. The development of a WP round was in specific response to infantry requests for even more anti-infantry lethality for pillbox clearing. The PIAT was always considered a multipurpose infantry "gun", with its heavy HEAT round plus an HE round with as much blast as a 25 pounder shell, and a massive WP round for incendiary, smoke and fortification-clearing uses.

Edited by jwilly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.