It has been argued, in this thread, that Shock would be better off if they had RA then armor.
Lets try to explain with another example:
Shock troops have a armor 1.5. We replace that with an equivalent Target size
1/1.5=0.66 so we give the, target size 0.66.
Now the shock troops vet 3 charge vet 5 Volks grenadiers (with basic accuracy 75%/71%/68%) using road that allows them to move faster and close the distance faster.
Chance to hit far
0.68*1.25*1.3*1.15*0.83*0.66 = 1.05 = 0.70%
chance to damage (both hit and penetrate)
0.70%
Now the normal shock do exactly the same
0.68*1.25*1.3*1.15*83 = 1.55 = 100%
chance to damage
1*1/1.5 = 0.66
In this case Shock troops are better with armor than with smaller target size and it becomes better the closer they get (77% vs 66%).
(side notes:
1) it make little difference to me how modifier are presented as long they are being used right
2) I am responding to an argument that target size is better than armor so calculating DPS in not necessary)
|
You are right when the total hit chance surpasses the value 1, which is very rare though.
Hit chance = (weapon accuracy*modifiers*received accuracy)
If you think hit chances in cqb are usually 1, you are mistaken.
Try red cover as I mentioned with X125% accuracy modifier in many cases. (edited)
Shock troops firing on obers range close:
Hit chance
0.86*0.7= 0.60
Damage chance
0.60
Ober K98 firing on Shocks range close:
Hit chance
0.92*1= 0.92
damage chance
0.92*1/1.5= 0.61
(edited after request from moderator) |
You are mistaken. Armor = received accuracy if the AP value is 1. However, armor becomes less effective as soon as the AP value increases (AP rounds, .50cal, Flak, etc.)
And guess what, the majority of small arms weapon have penetration of 1.
In addition at point blank range vetted unit and/or on red cover most weapons have enough accuracy to have close to 100% chance to hit removing most protection from smaller target size, shock on the other hand with their armor still enjoin around 66% protection from it. (edited to make it more clear) |
the tank itself is great, but once damaged, pios take ages to repair it. By comparison a damaged KT can return to combat very quickly. So can the pershing, comet and other tanks.
Soviets and Ost need a repair speed buff. Soviets have other doctrinal repair options also, but ost have nothing but expensive pios (then soviets engies) and lowest repair speed.
Imo it the WFA engineer repair speed that need to be reduced. In addition sweeper should provide repair/built speed but be mutually exclusive with weapons. |
They are not that bad, tho rec. acc > armor but they could use a grenade buff.
Received accuracy is better than armor? seriously? Armor is much better than received accuracy |
They have their own concept very similar.
Both cost 80 fuel and both are disigned to pack hunting. You cannot fight axis tanks with them head on, you must create pack of them, flank and kill tank from behind.
Only difference between them is that t34/76 have somewhat AI but is slower
1) T34/76 has far better AI with 2 mg and gun that can kill infantry
2) M10 gets AP round that can penetrate enemy vehicles frontally
They are different units in different factions, with different roles and different teching. As you pointed out the only common factor is both units can be spammed... |
If it won´t be able to crush, it will just shittier version of t34/76 that is call-inable and performs better against tanks in direct combat without flanking (you should avoid direct combat with both of them)
How does a TD compare with a Tank? How does a unit requiring T4 tech compare with CP 8 unit?
there is very litle common with t34/76 and the m10 |
In the beginning Axis armor was designed to be superior and thus more expensive due to higher armor. Now most Allied AT is buffed to levels that make that armor pointless.
A Su-76 has around 60% to penetrate a Tiger frontally at range 60.
Tank battle/TD battle need to be redesigned. All allied AT weapons should no designed with countering the KT in mind. If the KT is a problem then it should either some units should have bones against it or be nerfed.
|
Toning down WFA infantry is to be inline with EFA infantry is imo better solution. the longer fight last the more tactical and less rng they are.
Same goes for Axis Tanks. It the Allied tank/TDs that need to toned down and not the axis tank that need to be buffed. |
I am not sure why people complain so much about scope.
Sweeping changes are very difficult to get right and some times rather difficult to figure out what went wrong.
The light vehicles changes alone are enough to sift balance and may need more tweaking.
A re-balance of early infantry needs to be made at some point thou and a Tank/TD overhaul also.
First priority imo should still be veterancy abilities and bonuses. |