Profile of thedarkarmadillo

I would sincerely like to see both, LeiG but mainly Pak Howie's autofires removed.

Pak is the more pressing one imo by a long shot. As shown in those AOE profiles up higher, the pak howi is still dealing full damage out to the range the leig is only dealing half. That a huge splash of damage. Auto firing and dealing chip damage is a very different animal than auto firing and wiping models.

I'm actually curious how the pak howi stacks up against the 120mm

I think the pak howi is over performing as well and would like to see it adjusted to a barrsage only lite howitzer. Usf now has a mortar and the pak howi auto fire overlaps with that while also being superior to it.

With a barrage it would still be strong, but require more micro as well as offer counteplay

the retreat bonus, unless some fanboys thought, it haD IT BASE

When you say base do you mean like when it had 1 less man? Or base as in after it received a 25% model buff?

I'm not saying it is a lie. It is just misleading to compare these values like You suggest. Such differences are just too small to have much impact on a vehicle vs at solutions performance. You are just overly focused on 20-70 front armour difference while forgetting that it won't matter that much on the battlefield

A separate thing is the fact that many allied vehicles are more heavily armoured than you seem to acknowledge.

A rak is fine as it is imo. The at gun that is better than all other are, is probably the ZiS that has a crew of 6, shield, barrage and very good at capabilities. This one is really difficult to decrew (remember that cons have merge here too)

There is a huge difference in guaranteed to pen and 1 in 4shots will do no damage (statistically of course) on tanks that only take 4 shots to kill.
You see under rating the value of taking 0damage from a dedicated counter.

I'm well aware of the armour values of all, or at least most (there are a few that have been tweaked and I still recall the old values more clearly than the new ones) as well as the statical chances to pen. Rng can decide that a 25% chance to pen = 7 bounces in a row if it so pleases, however a 100% chance to pen will never bounce no matter how many shots you try. It's not negotiable. An armour value above the attacking units pen is better than one below it.amd again, allies have high armour units, but they are heavily restricted. The odds of fighting a KV1 are significantly lower than the odds of fighting an up armored p4.

While I do think the zis is under priced given its utility and durability, I have yet to see a zis retreat through enemy fire and arrive at base A-OK. probably on account of not having a target size nor speed bonus while doing it.


I like the 5th man in the rak as it helps bridge the gap, but I don't feel it needs retreat anymore on account of the 5th man.

That is not true. Allies have a lot of well armoured tanks. Even paks bonce against them. Generally rak isn't more resilient to small arms than a ZiS.

I can list every stock tank that has a chance to bounce standard AT guns (180 pen at max range) and the data wouldn't do your argument well. It's true indeed the allies have some more durable armour doctrinal, but they are significantly limited in access. The okw for example has more units stock that bounce standard AT than usf has total that can bounce it. Soviet, whome have the largest selection of doctrinal heavy Armour only match okws stock armour count for tanks that can bounce AT guns at max range, and they are all exclusive with one another.

The claim that most axis armour has a higher armour value is extremely true, even when considering doctrinal armour. Doubly so when you consider accessibility. You are guaranteed to fight a tank that will bounce AT shots when facing the okw, and highly likely from ost (if my Stat memory serves even a vetted stug has a very tiny chance to bounce)

Its a very valid claim.