Yeah, something like that would be great. Displaying AP value from max range and increasing as it gets closer seems like a very odd way to do it IMO.
M5A1 vs Panter G
- Thread starter ViruzDeath
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
TBF the current system worked fine for 5 years in wargame with no complaints about it being "odd" or "hard to understand", a tool with the AP ranges would be rather hard to do as we have 3 different max ranges for AP weapons in the game of 800m, 1km and 1.2km. As it is the unit cards pretty full, I personally dont see a need for that to change as is, max range is the only thing you need to know and that every 100m=1AP, very simple formula to add AP to find your effective range.
IMHO something having "worked fine" for 5 years in a different franchise is a poor excuse to not improve upon a mechanic and instead let it stay counterintuitive. The Men of War games were able to deal with different gun ranges and displaying penetration at range intervals. War Thunder, despite all it's horrible flaws, at least got that bit right, and as an added bonus, that's how it's shown in all historical documents regarding AP gun performance. At least in all the documents I've ever seen.
All this armour and AP value abstraction is fine, just scale it and display it in a way that makes sense so that we don't get unhistorical and unrealistic gun performance.
All this armour and AP value abstraction is fine, just scale it and display it in a way that makes sense so that we don't get unhistorical and unrealistic gun performance.
The System, as it is now is fine for me. You have to play to your tanks strengths, like: you shouldn't go in close ranges with your Panthers, try to flank german tanks with Stuarts, M4A1/M4A3(75)Ws and go into closer ranges, and so on. To cap the max AP value could be a solution, but there would be another time the question of how to Balance this correctly.
Without changing the entire system and drawing new difficulties in balancin, why not simply decrease the armor value of the Stuarts gun?
Without changing the entire system and drawing new difficulties in balancin, why not simply decrease the armor value of the Stuarts gun?
the question is not weither an 37mm gun could technicaly in perfect circumstances destroy an Panther. the question should be: how often can sth. like this happen. and i feel the answer is: really really really really rarely.
now lets see how often that happens in the game: really really often.
so there is some Problem. in my eyes at least...
After the first stream, it was clear that this game was riddled with issues.
Unless you don't have a statistic or somewhat like an overview on how often this really happens, you shouldn't draw such conclusions.
And i have a tip for everyone, who wants to avoid such situations: Don't drive your Panthers in Areas, where you either don't now, what is in there or ou know there could happen some Close quarter Actions against other tanks. The Panther is layed out as a Long range heavy hitter, that sholdnt get to close to allied tanks, that could penetrate it at some Point, even if it is unrealistic.
Therefor it is in Beta.
And yet AP limits were put on Machine gun (KPTV) and cannon's in war-game RD due to complaints of muh super tanks getting killed at close range. This weapon's with ap limit is never indicated in unit cards.
The T34 in one of the latest patches was given a fixed AP value of HEAT as opposed to a increasing penetration as range closed AP. It also had it's range reduced in the war-game series from 1925m to 1500m.
Even in war-game there were complaints of super cheap light units knocking out "super heavies", and several steps were taken to counter act this including increasing the frontal armour coverage from 30 deg to 45 deg between EE and ALB
Unless you don't have a statistic or somewhat like an overview on how often this really happens, you shouldn't draw such conclusions.
And i have a tip for everyone, who wants to avoid such situations: Don't drive your Panthers in Areas, where you either don't now, what is in there or ou know there could happen some Close quarter Actions against other tanks. The Panther is layed out as a Long range heavy hitter, that sholdnt get to close to allied tanks, that could penetrate it at some Point, even if it is unrealistic.
Therefor it is in Beta.
Please stop with this "you dont play right, use your tanks accordingly". A M5 simply can't penetrate the angled frontplate of a Panther and that is what happens in this game.
Because KPTV vehicles cost something like 1/12th the cost of tanks they were killing and were spammed, Stuarts dont have that, they cost at most what, 1/3rd the cost of the german vehicles and aint that spammable, at least not without completely destroying your own ability in phase C.
Again, becaust the T34 was spammed and abused by people going at a serious speed down roads, you dont have this in steel division.
I wouldnt call the stuarts super cheap, they dont cost 1/10-1/18th the price of the panthers in steel division, kind of a moot example simply from that alone. The problem in wargame was spammage, you simply dont get that in steel division, this is a different scenario entirely with significantly different unit costs, counters and game mechanics.
If you could get 18 stuarts for the price of a panther you might have a point, but you dont.
But it can pen it in-game, making it a you are not playing right if you let it happen lol..... You need to remember "it is a game, not real life".... As far as i remember, didnt they say its authentic, not realism with a dash of gameplay?
Light tanks should not penetrate heavy tanks from the front, they should do what they did during the war, gain side shots, which the game allows for. And that wargame EE/ALB/RD itself evolved over time with.
Tell me should a 109 g/6 costing 160 points have a 50% or 80% chance to knock out tanks? Or is it about something other than point costs in the interaction of weapons.
Otherwise we have the old bullshit of a battalion of 50cal jeeps able to defeat a coy of Tanks as 90s (about equivalent point costs) game The operational art of war. After the damaging reviews in CGW pointing out this issue Norm Kroger and team eventually patched out the ability of 50cals punching through Medium and Heavy tank armour. Because it was a ridiculous result, never mind piffle about point costs.
T60's cost almost as much in monies and manufacturing resources as a T34, that did not make it anywhere near as effective as a T34 "per point cost".
Then we might as well use sticks and stones with stats written onto them. There is no need for a game with an historical setting or real life setting at all if you start to invent stats for certain units. As I said, I have no problem with being outflanked and beaten by smaller and more agile tanks but that doesn't change the stated problem of M5s beating Panthers head on.
Well, and as it can, you have to use your tanks accordingly. Panthers shouldn't be invincible killing machines and to use them without using Recon and driving them into positions, were they could be ambushed should be punished.
I suggeted that a couple of times now, but i will say it again: Decrease the AP value of the Stuart, it is compared to other values, such as 11 AP for the 75mm to high. What about that?
Panther D has weak spots around the mantlet where the armor is 80mm thick at 12°. That enough for a Stuart to have a probability to pierce it at short range.
Also remember that most numbers you can read are a 50% probability to pierce, this probability don't fall to 0% when you increase armor thickness by a single millimetre.
Also remember that most numbers you can read are a 50% probability to pierce, this probability don't fall to 0% when you increase armor thickness by a single millimetre.
Do you mean the 200 D1's that were manufactured for Kursk?
Because the preponderance of Panthers in 44 should be D2, A's and G's.
If a Panther overextends you don't punish it by shooting it through the front with a Stuart... That's like trying to kill an M1A2 in RD with a T-72A from the front. You kill it the dozens of other actual intended ways. Nobody is asking for Panthers to be invincible killing machines. Just for basic logical things like a 90mm penetration gun not being able to pen a Panther frontally.
On the flip side L2P and stop relying on shoddy game mechanics to defeat Panthers you should be punished for YOLOing a light tank at a heavy and expecting it to win noob XDDDDDDD
Also the AP value for the Stuart is technically correct, just the AP scaling makes it way more powerful than it should be. IMO the AP shouldn't be reduced but the scaling should be reduced for the gun so it's more 1 AP per 200 meters.
AFAIK it's 85mm at 22 degrees.
The Stuart gun at 10 meters can go through 90mm of armour. The effective armour of the weak area on the mantlet at that angle is over 90mm. But even if it is 80mm at 12° it has to specifically hit the upper/lower mid section of the mantlet below 100 meters to be able to have a chance to pen. In game it gets a chance to pen at 600m.
Whats wrong with an AP cap for certain Units like the Stuart at a certain distance? That won't kill the game nor the balance
Over the past decade and a half, 'beta' has become more of an excuse than a legitimate reason.Therefor it is in Beta.
There are a number of issues with this game that beta is not going to resolve.
I'm having fun, so issues or not it's a success as a game. You're free to build the WW2 Historical Armor Penetration Simulator. Let me know how many copies you sell.
This is what is known as 'not an argument.'
The fact that I'm not going to produce my own game doesn't excuse Eugen/Paradox from their own failures.