[SD44] New patch 79074

[Flamee]

Great patch, exiting new content and nice balance fixes.

I still wish that invert mouse should be implemented to this. I really would like to turn camera around to observe battlefield from different angles. I know it might be nit picking but it's the only game where I don't use invert so I can't really get used to "normal" way.

Please consider implementing this before launch.

 

[Max_Damage]

I hope it will balance between the two nicely. I think the approach now will be to come at the panther from two different sides at mediun range. He might get 1 sherman but the other should slot him.

The older state of affairs would have the panther, half the time, slot one immediately turn and slot the other.

At least now it has to turn slower before slotting.

It punishes stugs and pz4 for no reason

 

[Vasily Krysov]

You mean being a turretless assault gun means you have problems getting the gun on target quickly outside of a narrow arc to the front?? Say it ain't so!

Also, which Panzer 4? The J model had a hand cranked turret which is just lol.

 

[Max_Damage]

No dude it really feels like cheating. Shermans get a default advantage vs panzers. Cant wrap my head around this handicap and reasoning behind it.

 

[mitchverr]

I hope the churchill wasnt hit to badly by the turn thing, though long, they were pretty nippy turning vehicles.

It isnt cheating, its a real life advantage many vehicles had over their opponents.

 

[Wolke]

I think that the Sherman aimtime buff should have been implemented differently.

There should be a modifier "Vehicle was moving in the last 5s" (moving, not turning) that makes target aquisition slower. Sherman should be less affected by that modifier.

Making tanks / turret turn slower is fine by me. If performance suffers too much price / availability / other stats can still be changed.

 

[Vasily Krysov]

No dude it really feels like cheating. Shermans get a default advantage vs panzers. Cant wrap my head around this handicap and reasoning behind it.

The Sherman was a better tank? The Pz3 and 4 are both mid 1930's designs and it shows. The Sherman is a wartime design that is much better than either in many respects. One sepcial point is that the Sherman had a good wide angle periscope for the gunner which would let him find targets very quickly and then switch over to the primary gunner's sight.

Funnily enough, it should have a massive advantage over the Panther in this respect, as the Panther gunner was totally limited to a narrow angle, high mag sight. This lead to Panthers having very long target prosecution times.

 

[Max_Damage]

Sherman 75 is worse then a pz4. The gun is just too bad in comparison. Sherman 76 maybe SLIGHTLY better.

 

[Vasily Krysov]

A tank is more than it's gun. Also, you don't need a very good gun when you are shooting at Pz4's, or the sides of the Big Cats.

But on that point the Sherman's 75mm HE round is way under-modeled. It should be way better.

 

[Sir Garnet]

I hope it will balance between the two nicely. I think the approach now will be to come at the panther from two different sides at mediun range. He might get 1 sherman but the other should slot him.

The older state of affairs would have the panther, half the time, slot one immediately turn and slot the other.

At least now it has to turn slower before slotting.

That Shermans should be positioning to seek the flank shot except at close range is what did and should happen. Blame US complacency and reactive rather than proactive armament development.

So in a shocking turn of events, the French division is probably too strong. Mostly on the back of it's income curve giving it an incredibly front-loaded advantage that it doesn't loose until well into Phase-C, but most pub games I play never seem to last that long, as I smash them hard enough to force a surrender.

Here's a toast to the return of the traditional offensive a outrance.

 

[Dongs Galore]

No dude it really feels like cheating. Shermans get a default advantage vs panzers. Cant wrap my head around this handicap and reasoning behind it.

it's because panzers were not capable of 180 quickscoping IRL

 

[Saskatoon]

Sherman 75 is worse then a pz4. The gun is just too bad in comparison. Sherman 76 maybe SLIGHTLY better.

The Sherman was more than capable of penetrating the PZ4

 

[unipus]

But the flip side if mortars/arty couldn't eliminate AT guns it would be a more static game where AT guns covered by MGs/squads are nearly impossible to break through. Add a few mortars on defense to kill/suppress massed infantry and we have WW1

I usually take a few shots and move. Sometimes I make it, sometimes I don't. If possible, I try and counter-battery the enemy arty firing on my AT guns.

It just really seems to me that the rate at which mortars inflict casualties on these guns is way too high. Pinning them down is a very reasonable and given how many tools this game has for effectively modeling morale, it's really frustrating.

Of course, I know absolutely nothing about the historical rates at which AT guns were taken out by very light artillery, but I'd be willing to be it wasn't very much!

 

[Uncle_Joe]

It just really seems to me that the rate at which mortars inflict casualties on these guns is way too high. Pinning them down is a very reasonable and given how many tools this game has for effectively modeling morale, it's really frustrating.

Of course, I know absolutely nothing about the historical rates at which AT guns were taken out by very light artillery, but I'd be willing to be it wasn't very much!

Casualty rates for soft units in general are far too high. Direct fire in particular (vehicle mounted MGs being the worst) cause casualties at a rate that would have depletes front line units in a matter of hours. It's almost as the 'formation' for infantry you see in the armory is what they are modeled on. Entire squads are cut down in a volley or two if moving (with no ability to move 'cautiously' or sprint or anything. Over and over again I see a squad try and advance from one building to an adjacent one and they are cut down to a man in seconds by a nearby enemy unit (who apparently can watch in all directions with their complete firepower and react to a quickly moving squad and bring effective fire in seconds).

So, while I agree that mortar casualty rates are inflated, the same goes for casualty rates in general for troops. They are way too high.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Mortars actually caused an insane proportion of casualties in normandy.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Artillery in general ALWAYS accounts for the vast majority of kills on the modern battlefield. But that's because direct fire becomes ineffective in many situations. That does not occur in-game so infantry vaporizes.

 

[CyberianK]

Artillery in general ALWAYS accounts for the vast majority of kills on the modern battlefield. But that's because direct fire becomes ineffective in many situations. That does not occur in-game so infantry vaporizes.

True, I often see a conclusion drawn though regarding certain conflicts because of "injury stats" that infantry was/is useless at "killing" which is sometimes not really supported.

Mainly due to mortars and other explosives being used by Infantry. Since WW2 infantry has a wide array of weaponry availably not just direct fire weaponry/rifles. This is even more true for the scary arsenal of modern mechanized infantry even without talking about light and heavy artillery integrated on division level and above.

 

[FatRefrigerator]

True, I often see a conclusion drawn though regarding certain conflicts because of "injury stats" that infantry was/is useless at "killing" which is sometimes not really supported.

Mainly due to mortars and other explosives being used by Infantry. Since WW2 infantry has a wide array of weaponry availably not just direct fire weaponry/rifles. This is even more true for the scary arsenal of modern mechanized infantry even without talking about light and heavy artillery integrated on division level and above.

Regardless of how effective indirect fire is IRL, sitting there and just watching your stuff get pounded by arty while you are doing the same to the enemy is literally the least fun part of WG/SD.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Regardless of how effective indirect fire is IRL, sitting there and just watching your stuff get pounded by arty while you are doing the same to the enemy is literally the least fun part of WG/SD.

Also agree 100%. But the majority of the reason you're likely sitting there getting pounded is because any movement of your infantry probably results in most if not all being spotted and vaporized by direct fire. Get rid of that and the front becomes more fluid and the ability to just sit there and toss artillery is greatly diminished.

Until that is done, tweaks to ammo usage and aim times and arty availability are only band-aids.

 

[Saskatoon]

Also agree 100%. But the majority of the reason you're likely sitting there getting pounded is because any movement of your infantry probably results in most if not all being spotted and vaporized by direct fire. Get rid of that and the front becomes more fluid and the ability to just sit there and toss artillery is greatly diminished.

Until that is done, tweaks to ammo usage and aim times and arty availability are only band-aids.

Yea I would like the see infantry be a little more tough. There is some IRL basis for increasing their survivability too as real soldiers would duck, move between cover, etc to make advances rather than run directly at a machine gun while firing from the hip. COH2 is much more arcadey than SD but I do think how infantry in that game use cover.