Wind up is a time before a shot
Wind down a time after a shot
I meant I have no idea why some weapons/vehicles have it while others don't. I figured wind up could be a mechanic to balance turrets vs casemates (as turreted tanks are able to aquire new targets without moving) but then not all turreted tanks have wind up and down times. |
I've got the Jackson's Vet 0 reload down as 4.38s to 4.97s.
Vet 3 reload is down as 2.98s - 3.38s.
Where do you have those numbers from?
I looked into the game files and Jackson has a reload of 4,375-4,975 (avg 4,675), SU85 has 5,4-5,4. Did I look up the wrong category?
As Elchino said, you also have to take wind up and wind down times into account, that some vehicles have. Tbh I have no idea what it's for and why only some vehicles/weapons have it, but it adds to the reload.
If you use https://coh2db.com/stats/, look up a vehicle's weapon and hover your mouse over the yellow/orange dot in the graph and you'll see what the actual reload time of the weapon is.
|
I've got a question: where does this fast rate of fire for the JPIV thing come from?
Looking through the stats it's pretty similar to the Jackson and SU-85.
Reload is 5 seconds at vet 0, versus Jackson's 6.55s and SU-85s 5.65s.
But the real fun begins when it gets veterancy, as its reload with vet decreases to 3.523s at vet 4.
(SU-85 has 4.57s and Jackson 5.054s at vet 3)
In addition to that it also gets 800HP at vet 2, so it will out-DPS (versus hp) all Allied TDs with ease. |
None of this would be a problem if they capped armour at 300.
The problem is the lack of side armor. It's what would've made heavy tanks vulnerable while having reliable strong front armor and what would've given ATGs/TDs with lower penetration a chance to deal damage when deployed on the flanks. There wouldn't have been a need to give Allied TDs such high penetration to stand a chance. |
But it can if it gets into 50 range without being shot. Two more hits.
Sure, and it should, given how much more expensive it is. I'm just saying that with vehicle roles in mind, the Panther isn't supposed to roll over dedicated TDs, although for its price it should be (and is) able to put up a fair fight.
In your opinion, what would be the impact of giving the StuG switchable rounds that give it Panther penetration but only 80 damage? That'd give a StuG pair with the rounds toggled on the same damage output as a lone Panther.
It could be an option, although in my opinion it might stumble a bit into StuG cost effectiveness issues territory. I'd rather wait to see what the new changes will do for the StuG and Ostheer T3 in general before doing any more to the StuG. Small changes (traverse and target size) can have large impacts.
In a hopefully not too distant future heavies will be tied to tech, so it should be easier to replace a StuG with a Panther to face one. |
When it comes to facing SU-85s and Jacksons, Ostheer has Paks and Panzerschrecks (and the Elefant) to deal with them. The Panther isn't meant to face off dedicated tank destroyers, it's meant to shut down enemy medium and heavy tanks, and its armor scales well against medium tanks and decently against heavies. |
I think the only problem is how terribly slow stock Pioneers repair.
Soviets have a ton of doctrinal repair upgrades, USF have vehicle crews and the Brits have doctrinal repair and the heavy Sappers, on top of being able to vet their Sappers faster by giving them weapon rack upgrades and getting a fifth model with Bolster. OKW have fast repairs on Sturmpioneers (which aren't too hard to get to vet 2 either) and the Mechanized repairs upgrade.
I think it wouldn't hurt if Pioneers minesweeper upgrade gave +0.2 or 0.3 repair speed. I guess Soviet Combat Engineers could get the same, but it's a less pressing issue for them (because of all the doctrinal repairs and low HP tanks). |
Yet all these, when spammable, does the same hurt against Panther 'rear'.
You keep saying this but why should the Panther be invincible? It's already an excellent tank that has more armor and more HP than all other medium tanks, and better mobility than most. It needs to have a weakness or it would just steamroll the Allies.
If your Panther is rear armor penned multiple times by other medium tanks, then that's mostly a L2P issue (disregarding the random frontal rear armor RNG hits). If you think the Panther needs to have high rear armor because it was a Wunderwaffen, I suggest you take another look at its irl side and rear armor values. |
The definition:
benchmark a standard or point of reference against which things may be compared.
So there can be only one.
Out of curiosity, how can one mainline be the benchmark for all other mainlines when there are core differences between them and their faction designs?
Volksgrenadiers are supposed to be more efficient than Grenadiers because Volks are the backbone of OKW and are supposed to operate largely on their own, while Grenadiers are supposed to be supported by excellent team weapons. Infantry Sections are supposed to be more efficient because they are the faction's strong point (though yes, bolstered IS are a bit too efficient now). Their cost efficiency can not be directly compared to Grenadiers because they serve different designs. There are many more factors that define what the power level of a mainline is supposed to be. It's more than a straight comparison to another faction's mainline. |
Why not make the camouflague automatic when stationary instead of a toggle?
Identical functionality, but a lot less fiddly to use.
You could do the same for the M-42 and the ZiS gun.
Could surely be an option, although I'm not sure if that'd work with certain interactions. For example if it'd have to rely on all of the crew being stationary as a check to apply the camo, moving a vehicle past it (forcing some of the crew to move) could unwillingly reveal it.
|