Login

russian armor

Re-balance Allied TDs penetration values

PAGES (9)down
24 Oct 2019, 18:11 PM
#41
avatar of Mr Carmine

Posts: 598

Only one guy here talked about the cause of the allied td preformance.

The fact that so many either ignore it or think nothing of it amazes me.

Allied td,s where buffed because allied armour had a very very weak late game. Both panthers bested all allied vehicles even if outnumbered it mostly came out on top. If a panther was lost the axis player fucked up and not because het got outplayed. And also axis having better handheld at to cover their rear increased its survivability greatly and also a kt nondoc, i never understood why they decided on that atrocity.

If the kt was doc the penn bonus would not have to be so extreme on allied td,s. Because you would not be able to get it every game. This in turn with delaying heavies and panthers would give mediums in general a lote more viability.
24 Oct 2019, 18:13 PM
#42
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3222

Only one guy here talked about the cause of the allied td preformance.

The fact that so many either ignore it or think nothing of it amazes me.

Allied td,s where buffed because allied armour had a very very weak late game. Both panthers bested all allied vehicles even if outnumbered it mostly came out on top. If a panther was lost the axis player fucked up and not because het got outplayed. And also axis having better handheld at to cover their rear increased its survivability greatly and also a kt nondoc, i never understood why they decided on that atrocity.

If the kt was doc the penn bonus would not have to be so extreme on allied td,s. Because you would not be able to get it every game. This in turn with delaying heavies and panthers would give mediums in general a lote more viability.


Only the Jackson got buffed into a brawler. The Firefly and SU-85 have been nerfed from their earlier incarnations.
24 Oct 2019, 18:23 PM
#43
avatar of Freestyler1992

Posts: 88

All these penetrations are insane. 100% pen chance is insane. This should be altered for axis vehicles too!
24 Oct 2019, 19:48 PM
#44
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4340

Guys u forget FF has Sherman armor
24 Oct 2019, 19:51 PM
#45
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2811

Guys u forget FF has Sherman armor


I mean, it IS an M4.
24 Oct 2019, 19:55 PM
#46
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 899

Rebalancing TDs is tricky because of all the knock-on effects when you consider that Allies have to deal with KT, JT, and Ele plus stock armor that gets pretty decent armor buffs with Vet (so you would expect allied TD vet to have corresponding Pen bonuses to match). If you remove Pen Vet then Axis skirt bonus are that much more of a power spike. You also forgot to mention that Firefly has Tulips, which should be factored in. Don't fix what isn't broken I would say...


Pretty much. The only way to really 'fix' the current tank/TD meta is to re-balance every single medium/heavy/superheavy tank at the same time (i.e. in the same patch). It's possible, but the amount of work and testing required for it to not brick the game is pretty crazy - and as we've seen, the balance team (or devs?) generally don't like to do sweeping changes in a single patch (i.e. the heavy call-in point change test).

With that said, I still think it's worth considering. The current TD-spam is arguably tied with infantry blobs (power creep) as "the biggest issue" in the game right now, especially in larger modes.

I think it's also important to note that, as you pointed out, you can't really just nerf allied TDs. Reducing (for example) the M36's pen means that Axis medium/heavies become stronger (panther, tiger, KT, Ele, JT), which means those would need to be addressed too - likely with an HP nerf, which in-turn means adjusting (although to a lesser extent) mediums like the sherman w/ AP, EZ8, etc. so that "medium spam" doesn't become meta.

As a result, here's a list of pretty much everything that (I would think) would need to be adjusted to some degree:


From my initial thoughts, I think one solution could be to focus on the 'major problem' match up (M36 vs. Panther) and go from there. Ideally, I would lower the pen of the M36 by about 25% at all ranges (225/210/188 from 300/280/250), which would result in it's pen chance being 86%/80%/72% vs a panther (vet0 vs vet0). I would also lower the M36's vet 3 '+30% pen' to '+10% pen', so that the "80% chance" stays pretty much the same when it's vet 3 vs vet 3. For the panther, I would then reduce its HP by 20% (770 from 960); this would result in the 'effective' HP being almost the same, but increasing the importance of armor and flanking (rear armor is still 90). Lowering the values this much also improves mediums survivability, since the M36 vs. P4 (for example) pen chance would be 96%/90%/80%. A similar (but possibly smaller?) pen nerf could be applied to the Panther as well, to reduce it's pen vs. mediums to about the same. For example, a 20% nerf (208/192/176 from 260/240/220) would giving it a 97%/89%/82% pen chance vs. an EZ8; however, it wouldn't change anything vs. an M36 (130 armor), meaning no HP buff would be needed for the M36.

Lastly, I would look into 'compressing' the upper-end of vehicle speeds. Right now, both those problem tanks sit at around 6.5/6.6 top speed, which is causing issues for static or slow (i.e. infantry) AT. If we brought those speeds down to around 6 (where the P4 is), and lowered other mediums (i.e. the P4/Sherman/etc.) a bit as well (to around 5.6), we could keep the current speed ratios (TDs could still chase down mediums) while increasing the potency of slow/static AT, without actually buffing those units (no changes to LV gameplay).

I think that might be a good starting point; it would obviously need a ton more work in order to factor in other vehicles, but I think the core "idea" is sound, even if the numbers are off. Regardless, I'm sure other people could point out some problems with that implementation - I didn't exactly do a ton of research on all the possible side-effects. However, if people are interested, I could probably expand upon my idea with other tanks - it would just take a fair bit of time to calculate the numbers.
24 Oct 2019, 20:16 PM
#47
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 448



The purpose of nerfing the TD, I have always been assured by those who suggest nerfing them, is to reduce their effectiveness versus Axis medium tanks like the Panzer IV.

On the other hand, the reason allied TDs are so good in the first place, and so ubiquitous, is the fact that Allied MTs are incapable of fighting anything heavier than a Panzer IV period anyway, and every Axis faction happens to have such a vehicle stock in their roster; the Panther, which is perfectly capable of fighting one on one every stock allied tank short of maybe the Comet (on a good day RNG-wise, favoring the comet.)

So if we are to improve the medium tank game for one side of the aisle we might as well do it for the other, because I can tell you right now that if allied TDs get nerfed, its not going to stop you from seeing them nearly every single game, because there is more often than not no other way to deal with the heavily armored Axis tanks that are almost assured to appear.

If you think the TDs need nerfs because they are too good versus the Panther, you're bloody insane, since I don't know what else you expect to see countering it.


Except that the complaints about TDs are the excessive 300+ penetration with vet. You dont need 300 pen to penetrate a panzer 4, in fact you dont even need 240. I have no clue where you got this idea that the issue with allied TDs is they are too good against panzer 4s.
To make it more easy to understand what those penetration values mean

At max range:

Firefly (Vet3) vs.

Panther 80% (73% at vet2)
Tiger 70%
KT 56%

Jackson and SU 85 (Vet3)
Panther 100% (Vet 2 100%)
Tiger 95%
KT 76%

Jackson HVAP Vet 3

Panther 100%
Tiger 100%
KT 87%

Both the jackson and su85 have a 95% chance to penetrate an okw panzer 4 at long range stock. Removing the penetration vet bonus for reload or some other utility is not going to help panzer 4s, it's going to make the matchup even worse but nobody is sweating it because it's a non issue.


Oh and AT guns counter panthers. So do AT infantry. Bazooka rangers, or even double piat sappers are enough to zone out a panther.
24 Oct 2019, 20:45 PM
#48
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 766

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 20:16 PMSerrith


Except that the complaints about TDs are the excessive 300+ penetration with vet. You dont need 300 pen to penetrate a panzer 4, in fact you dont even need 240. I have no clue where you got this idea that the issue with allied TDs is they are too good against panzer 4s.

Both the jackson and su85 have a 95% chance to penetrate an okw panzer 4 at long range stock. Removing the penetration vet bonus for reload or some other utility is not going to help panzer 4s, it's going to make the matchup even worse but nobody is sweating it because it's a non issue.


Oh and AT guns counter panthers. So do AT infantry. Bazooka rangers, or even double piat sappers are enough to zone out a panther.


It's exactly true that you don't need all that penetration to counter a P4, and that's not why you buy something like a Jackson. You get one to actually be able to deal with Panthers and up, which it should absolutely be effective at.

ATGs aren't going to stop a Panther unless you have several of them, and they're certainly not going to kill a fleeing or blitzing one. AT infantry, maybe, if you can snare them at the right time and place, but again, even Bazooka rangers aren't going to be chipping through all that armor and hp anytime quickly.

In all the TD complaint threads before this, people were complaining that allied TD dominance erased Axis MTs from play. Reframing the issue in the context of being too effective versus massively armored endgame axis tanks is particularly stupid - it just sounds like you want these tanks to be an I-win button.

TDs should absolutely counter panthers, they should absolutely counter heavy tanks. Especially in the age of high AOE heavy tanks blasting apart ATGs, which are more vulnerable than ever at the end stage of the game, this is no time to be nerfing TD penetration of all things, buffing heavy tanks even more than they already are.
24 Oct 2019, 21:45 PM
#49
avatar of The_Flying_Flail

Posts: 47

Balance goes to ways. Jackson TD is the only non-doctrinal reason USF can last in the late game against axis armor. Even then people so go for Pershing.The USF ATG doesn't cut it even with the HVAP that bounce on panthers and tigers. The only reason people go, captain, is for the Stuart in 1v1s.
24 Oct 2019, 22:19 PM
#50
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 4108 | Subs: 1

I'd much sooner see alternatives buffed for usf and see the Jackson toned down than have the Jackson the be all end all for usf AT.

I think experimenting with swapping the m10 and Jackson BUT buffing the sherman AP PEN and making HVAP a toggle with muni drain on the m10 is worth looking into. Then returning the Jackson to its glass cannon state with it s current gun stats and put it in the m10s place as a doctrinal monster, assuming you have the micro.

Then you have a cheap but still TD to support the usf design of mobility and that has HVAP to help against the big cats and the sherman AP adds volume of fire to work a bit better against mediums at the cost of a bit of AOE on it (it currently has 2 aoe vs the 2.5 of normal non shell swap tanks, I'd bump it down to 1.5 and buff pen by ~10-15 at all ranges and see how that looks)

24 Oct 2019, 22:23 PM
#51
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2811

Balance goes to ways. Jackson TD is the only non-doctrinal reason USF can last in the late game against axis armor. Even then people so go for Pershing.The USF ATG doesn't cut it even with the HVAP that bounce on panthers and tigers. The only reason people go, captain, is for the Stuart in 1v1s.


Meanwhile Soviets last without bazookas, a worse AT gun,, a worse TD and a significantly worse medium tank.
24 Oct 2019, 22:31 PM
#52
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15479 | Subs: 7



Meanwhile Soviets last without bazookas, a worse AT gun,, a worse TD and a significantly worse medium tank.

ZiS.... being worst then 57mm.... how exactly? By having more penetration? Larger crew? Not needing a muni dump each time you want to pen something more armored then ostwind? And I'd really argue if SU-85 is "worse" then jackson - its less flexible, but it doesn't require spotter.
24 Oct 2019, 22:46 PM
#53
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2811

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 22:31 PMKatitof

ZiS.... being worst then 57mm.... how exactly? By having more penetration? Larger crew? Not needing a muni dump each time you want to pen something more armored then ostwind? And I'd really argue if SU-85 is "worse" then jackson - its less flexible, but it doesn't require spotter.


I mean just by rate of fire, plus usf doesn’t spam mines like soviets so it’s not really a muni dump. Yes I think the 57mm is better, though 6man crew is better than 4, but that’s a faction thing and it works with stolen weapons.

The SU85 is not as great as the Jackson, which can hunt down enemy tanks and score kills with its moving accuracy and turret.
24 Oct 2019, 23:32 PM
#54
avatar of Acidfreak

Posts: 277

I don't think there's any need to tone down the tank destroyers at the moment. Because if they get nerfed allies will have very few limited options to deal with heavy tanks spam and panther rushes in team games. Have you seen that command panther and a swarm of panthers wreaking havoc strat? How exactly can someone tackle that without viable tank destroyers? AT guns are too slow. Much of their shots bounce off. Soviets have no AT excel su 85. T34 bounces on pz4 so let's not talk about it. Su76 penetration was nerfed recently. Ptrs doesn't penetrate more anything than a luches. At satchel is around 45. So if someone tries to kill a panther it takes around 5 satchels. And nobody is stupid enough to get their tanks near ptrs satchels.

If we compare on other side. 2 shrek squads obliterate an allies medium tank. Bazookas unless equipped by Rangers doesn't cut the deal.

So how many examples i need to give to highlight the importance of TDs in allies line up?
24 Oct 2019, 23:40 PM
#55
avatar of Anon66

Posts: 15

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 15:32 PMLago


But you can't. If it were that simple, it would have been done.

The Jackson is what it is because Relic designed a faction with one nondoctrinal AT vehicle. The Jackson does everything because any vehicle that counters the Jackson counters the entire USF motor pool.

If you want to make the Jackson more geared towards killing heavy vehicles like the SU-85 or Panther, you need to add another TD to the nondoctrinal lineup to handle the anti-medium work.


Honestly I think we're here because of the P4. If the M4 was better at countering armor, or if bazookas and the M1 didn't reliably bounce off of it, everyone wouldn't be going for jacksons.
24 Oct 2019, 23:45 PM
#56
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8580 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 18:08 PMLago

It depends on the target.

The fact that most player including top players chose not to built SU-76 indicates that the SU-85 is a better choice because it can counter anything from kubel to a KT.


jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 18:08 PMLago

Try using Stuarts as your AT vehicle against anything bigger than a Luchs.


I never said one should use the Stuart as the only AT vehicle,I was simply responding to the claim that UKF have an advantage over USF vs Tanks because they have access to AEC. AEC can help TDs/ATGs vs meduims and above and so can Stuart.

You argument that The "Jackson is what it is because Relic designed a faction with one nondoctrinal AT vehicle." is simply wrong. Relic designed USF with M36 and Stuart and the game has little to do with Relic design at WFA release. According to Relic:



jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 18:08 PMLago

I'm talking about the stock Sherman. All the variants are doctrinal.

Yet you where responding to what I wrote where clearly did not limit it to the stock Sherman, I wrote :

And I stand to what I wrote, the versions of Sherman available to USF see little action simply because M36 is too cost efficient and can deal with any target and thus is the better choice.

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 18:08 PMLago

The stock Sherman is not a cost-effective AT solution. It can fight on roughly even terms against an Ostheer P4 that hasn't got its Vet 2 skirts, but a fair fight is not counterplay.

That might be true and I have did not claim that Stock Sherman is a cost efficient counter to PzIVs ,the M36 is a more cost efficient choice.


jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2019, 18:08 PMLago

That's exactly what I said above. The Sherman is not a cost efficient AT vehicle.

USF only has the Jackson for that, so any vehicle that counters the Jackson counters the whole USF nondoctrinal motor pool.

Hence the Jackson's current state.

Yes the stock Sehrman is not a cost efficient AT vehicle, it a Main Battle Tank designed to have both AI and AT and as I pointed all along is one of the most cost efficient ones.

A PzIV firing at max range has a 40% chance to score a natural hit and penetrate a Sherman and 20% on the move.
A Sherman firing at max range has a 31% chance to score a natural hit and penetrate a PzIV and 23% on the move.
Considering the cost difference the Sherman perform adequately.

On the other hand USF have plenty of AT option including some of the cheapest AT squads, some of the top doctrinal AT squads, a great ATG gun vs mediums, a number of doctrinal Sherman variants that beat the PZIV, the M10. USF can deal with the PzIV just fine and PzIV vet 2 do not grow on trees.

And NO the M36 simply does not need to be able to counter everything from a kubel to KT at range 60 so cost efficiently, this is simply not true. There are plenty of solution that do not require M36 to be a "monstrosity" as you described it.
25 Oct 2019, 00:20 AM
#57
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1362 | Subs: 3

How about this?

- Nerf Jackson's and SU85's penetration.
- Make P5 195 fuel, compensate Ostheer by making T4 10 fuel cheaper (so T4 stays competitive).
- Make Tiger, Croc and Pershing 10 CP like the IS2 and KV2.
25 Oct 2019, 00:52 AM
#58
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 766

How about this?

- Nerf Jackson's and SU85's penetration.
- Make P5 195 fuel, compensate Ostheer by making T4 10 fuel cheaper (so T4 stays competitive).
- Make Tiger, Croc and Pershing 10 CP like the IS2 and KV2.


Honestly OST T4 should probably be cheaper anyway, but in no way can the Allied TDs receive stat nerfs (particularly penetration...) and the Panther not receive one. Cost doesn't cut it, since no matter how much fuel that Panther costs, it just took the strategic initiative away from the entirety of the armored force on the other side of the map. In team games this is even more of an issue.

If TDs get a hit stat-wise, particularly to offensive capability (and I would prefer a ROF decrease over a penetration loss, if I am being honest.) than the Panther in particular needs a durability nerf. 720 HP sounds like a fair enough compromise since that's the HP value of the M4A3E8, and the Panther still has an ass-ton of front armor.

Also, 10CP feels like too little to me, but any increase at all is welcome.
25 Oct 2019, 04:13 AM
#59
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 448



It's exactly true that you don't need all that penetration to counter a P4, and that's not why you buy something like a Jackson. You get one to actually be able to deal with Panthers and up, which it should absolutely be effective at.

ATGs aren't going to stop a Panther unless you have several of them, and they're certainly not going to kill a fleeing or blitzing one. AT infantry, maybe, if you can snare them at the right time and place, but again, even Bazooka rangers aren't going to be chipping through all that armor and hp anytime quickly.

In all the TD complaint threads before this, people were complaining that allied TD dominance erased Axis MTs from play. Reframing the issue in the context of being too effective versus massively armored endgame axis tanks is particularly stupid - it just sounds like you want these tanks to be an I-win button.

TDs should absolutely counter panthers, they should absolutely counter heavy tanks. Especially in the age of high AOE heavy tanks blasting apart ATGs, which are more vulnerable than ever at the end stage of the game, this is no time to be nerfing TD penetration of all things, buffing heavy tanks even more than they already are.



Except that Panther's are at least Ostheer's equivalent of a heavy TD, and Ost relies heavily on vehicles to provide its anti infantry. If you can shut down ostheers anti infantry with TDs, and ostheer's primary counter to armor(panther) is hard countered in the same way, then you are left with a faction that struggles too heavily against certain stock end game compositions.

The divide between lighter and stronger AT (m10 vs jackson, su76 vs su85) should be one of DPS vs penetration if the current penetration vet is to be maintained. If the SU85 is allowed to retain near 100% chance to penetrate axis heavies at vet 3, then it should have its DPS reduced.
The panther does NOT need this for two reasons, one because it doesn't recieve a penetration bonus with vet anyway, and two because it costs far more supply than allied TDs, the DPS/per supply is quite a bit lower which is important when considering what an endgame composition looks like for their respective factions.


I don't really see how you can reasonably argue for the massive penetration boost the Su85 and the Jackson get with vet. You cannot ignore how disgusting it is a vehicle like the Jackson boasts 286 long range penetration (0% chance to bounce on panther) with vet. It negates the importance of armor as a stat and makes HVAP rounds completely redundant.
25 Oct 2019, 04:25 AM
#60
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1150

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Oct 2019, 04:13 AMSerrith


You cannot ignore how disgusting it is a vehicle like the Jackson boasts 286 long range penetration (0% chance to bounce on panther) with vet. It negates the importance of armor as a stat and makes HVAP rounds completely redundant.


Yes this always felt off in the current game design.

Seems weird decision to provide pen and range superiority without any disadvantages. And you get lovely relevant vet bonus.

And when you look from Wehr side against allies heavy. You need to keep diving with panther to get a good pen. And then Wehr tanks have crappy vet bonus for such purposes.

As suggested to drop the armor vet for hp and moving accuracy. It hurts to lose the iconic armor skirts but there is no place for them.
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Zyswen
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Opportunity Cost
Faymonville Approach
Faymonville Approach Honor
Honor it
3
Download
Download
10
uploaded by Zyswen

Board Info

213 users are online: 4 members and 209 guests
KoRneY, Ægion, muskankhan, FichtenMoped
84 posts in the last 24h
553 posts in the last week
3690 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25039
Welcome our newest member, plumbl518tt
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM