(not sure if it fits the scope of this patch, but the T34/85 is doctrinal so its secure mode technically is as well).
The secure mode ability for both stock T34 and doctrinal T34 should be buffed by improving either capture rate, decapture rate or both, depending on what the ability should be aimed at.
The capture ability works on the T70 since it provides recon as well.
The T34s are just too expensive to let them stand around on a point for ages and be vulnerable at the same time.
I'm thinking about switching around Flanking Speed and HVAP. So HVAP would become the standard ability like on the 57mm. Because flanking generally sucks in CoH2. Then it can have better frontal engagements against mostly the OKW P4J, but not really anything bigger, and it would be behind an additional pay wall to keep its 80 fuel cost in check.
This solution would probably fix the bad performance of a "fresh" M10 in the late game. Design wise, it still brings the Jackson and the M10 functionally closer together, but in the end I think USF AT units can only be fully overhauled at the same time.
Alternatively, smoke canisters or a smoke ability like Panzer Tactician would help the M10 along with a target size reduction to 20 that could also strengthen its role. However this does not fix the bad performance of a newly build unit. I personally also feel the POP should go down to 9 in the case of HVAP staying at vet1. If HVAP is vet0, 10 POP should be fine.
Thinking about all of this, the M10 could maybe use it's own ability that both boosts speed and penetration, with vet1 reducing the muni costs to around 30-40. This could also give it a slightly more distinct role from the 57mm. Otherwise (with only putting HVAP to vet0), it would just be the 57mm on tracks.
HVAP will help but it's not a straight up improvement (which could be dangerous with a vehicle this cheap). As it stands it needs to reload the HVAP shell, so unless you time it perfectly after a regular shot it will cost you some DPM, and can then fire only 3 of them at vet 0-2, before needing like a 10 second reload to revert to normal shells. The latter is because it will load the fourth HVAP shell for about 4 seconds before the ability runs out and then it will have to reload a regular shell on top.
Weird bandaid idea: Shorten the ability and add a veterancy bonus that prolongs it?
This is great!
How long do your simulations take to run? I assume the program will be quite busy for running through all these iterations.
I think the most important shots are shot 2-3. The first one you can't prevent, the second one only if you retreat instantly. Usually I would decide based on the first 2 shots if my squad needs to go home or if it is worth taking the risk for a snare or staying behind cover.
I assume the data will be slightly favouring the Allied tanks due to using 6 men, which allows them to do more damage than they could in game. As a benchmark it is very nice. May I ask how far the models are spaced apart in your simulation? I assume something between 0.5-0.6 meters? That's the only way to explain how the Pershing can get 3 model kills in one shot. We can also see the effect of the formation on the data when looking at the model kills: Killing 2 models is much more likely than killing only one, because the only way to kill one single model is at both ends of the line formation.
Based on your data I'd say that all tanks are very consistent in damage, but at least the Pershing seems to be inconsistent in model kills ranging anywhere between 0 to 6 for the first two shots. The probability of killing fewer models will also go up for smaller squad sizes. But given the otherwise high and consistent damage might not be an issue though.
What? This is exactly why having the fastest RoF at vet 0 is important. 57mm suffers the least from losing vet. As long as you have muni, you have the best vet 0 AT gun
As long as you keep pumping in resources into a unit, it should obviously be better. The 57mm loses the MP price advantage after buying HVAP rounds once (trading 50 MP for 30 mun), everything past that is additional investment, so the unit should also perform decently.
I agree that the vet0 ROF is good and important for it, but the only reason why it suffers the least from losing vet is because it scales the worst of all.
It's RoF combined with wider cone are really strong imo, and is part of the reason you have to pay muni for it to be able to fight heavier armor
The cone is a strong point of it, the ROF in my eyes is not. You first have an ROF advantage compared to other ATGs, then a disadvantage at vet2 which afterwards transforms into about equal/slight disadvantage until the wipe. I personally also had the feeling that the 57mm has a harder time vetting up in the late game, but maybe that's just me.
Personally, I think USF should rather have a more "normal" ATG. Bazookas can already take the LV duty. An anti light specialized tank gun is to some extend redundant.
But then again this is core faction design, we'll not get changes to that this patch...
Surely that's because it's ROF is already the fastest though right? I don't know what the actual ROF is after vet, but the 57mm definitely is the fastest firing by default
It depends on which ATG you compare it to. Compared to the ZiS? It fires way faster. Rak? Mixed bag: Faster at vet0, slower to equal at vet2 onwards. PaK/6 pounder? Faster (less than 10%) at vet0, slightly slower at vet2 onwards.
The ROF of this thing is a mixed bag. But given that ATGs get wiped regularly in the late game and that the 57mm needs vet3 to somewhat equal the ROF out in most cases, the vet levels in between become quite important too. Overall I wouldn't say that the ROF is a real selling point of this unit.
That's not how it works. Durability and dps go hand in hand, the lmg grenadiers losing 2 models means still having most its dps, while the dps of 4 men grenadiers drops drastically with 2 models lost. As the dps drops, the enemy retains much better dps, so your durability is is actually lower.
I did not get your second part, but from the first one you exactly describe how 5 men Grens are intended and what thedarkarmadillo described: LMG Grens are damage dealers, 5 men Grens offer superior survivability (and more close and moving DPS)
My wish would be to get a light TD somewhat similar to the StuG/Panther duo that works in at least 2v2 as well. But I'll just end my rant here about the M10.
I hope balance team considers doing something about the unit, in my opinion more is needed than just "fixing" the underwhelming ROF vet, but the final decisions are obviously not up to me. I provided all my arguments against the current M10 and leave it at that for other discussions.
The problem is that it is not even viable against p4 and on top of that gets completely shot down by panther, which has the same range as M10, but substantially more durable. If it was at least viable vs p4, it would have been decent investment. Stug is viable against every battle tank, but comet, kv1 and churchill. Even in those scenarios you can stack Stugs, get them vetted and deny the crap out of heavier targets.
If 380 mp 90 fuel unit can create trouble for more expensive then it medium armor (e.g. t34-85), I don't see a reason why m10 should be so bad against p4. And on top of that I don't see lack of tools from OST and OKW to deal with M10s.
I agree. However I would say that it performs decently against the Ostheer P4 even frontally. Given its price it is better than the Jackson.
There are just to many preconditions to use it. 1v1, Ostheer, T3 spam and a mostly open map (which to be fair most if not all 1v1 maps are)
Yes the m10 does not have to do with HE Sherman, I am simply pointing out that stock Sherman/M36 cover most roles very effectively leaving little room for doctrinal USF vehicles.
The 76mm is in live simply OP and is a tank not a TD. M10 is a TD and M36 is so good vs all vehicles from kubel to Tigers that leave little place for M10.
I agree. All the more important to find niches and strengthen those in the design of the doctrinal units.
The 76mm was a response to you saying there is little room for doctrinal units. I agree that it is slightly OP and not the best comparison. But it is a tank with AT emphasis designed to shut down mediums like the M10, so there might be room for medium AT specialists next to the Jackson.
I don't think that the M10 should take the blame for that. There are simply better commander for 1vs1 and the commander does not have arty or even of map so bring very little in 3vs3/4v4.
The changes to Cromwell also have limited the need for a "flanker" TD.
Generally speaking the M10 is a victim of combination of change like:
call-in tech
Rush to last tier
1 TD vs everything (m36)
The M10 is part of the commander. It is not a good unit overall, so it has to take some blame. I fully agree with your last points, which again means that we need to find a better design for the M10, otherwise it will always be overshadowed by non-doc units and 1/5 of these commanders will be fairly redundant or even useless in team games.
I don't even think it is worth to build in 1v1, unless you are able to build a sherman followed by an m10 and caught p4 out of position. Diving is very problematic in coh 2, because of snares, mines etc, so it is often a gamble with such moves. Because all of this I don't like the unit and avoid building it. Also 60% chance to pen a P4J at far range is pretty bad imo, it is passable with muni sink tho, but only after vet 1. Maybe if HVAP were available with vet0 it would be more viable.
About unit that is effective at numbers - I can't think of a situation when a single jackson is worse then 2 m10. I guess you could sacrifice it to kill a panther or a heavy tank, since a stakes are quite high, but otherwise Jackson is almost always a better investment. It is slightly slower, but the firepower and reliability it provides just overshadows m10. Even with UKF Land Lease I struggled to find a place for it.
That was my impression as well, but I am not a very versed 1v1 player. I just can say that the M10 does not work well in 2v2 and 3v3. I can imagine it working in 1v1 from my limited experience.
I can just emphasize that I believe it has neither a good niche nor decent timing. It does not generate a power spike itself nor is it THAT cheap or effective that it allows you to push a stronger unit early. Units in the last tech building must have enough power out of the gate to be somewhat effective, but the M10 in that regard falls flat on its face and doesn't do too much before vet1 at which point it becomes a big muni sink.
It is basically the last tier version of the old MobiDef Panic Puma, but without the bite that the Puma offered because of worse timing.
EDIT:
For the more stat focused guys: It combines some of the worst TD stats in the game. Low accuracy, VERY high scatter (50% larger area than the Jackson). Medium range advantage but without the armor to bounce a shot if you don't micro perfectly. Low to medium penetration. Due to the price it must go with some of these, but it should probably not get the short end of the stick in almost all categories.
It is super mobile and relatively cheap, but that is about it. And the turret. Almost forgot that one.
And the problem here is not the M10 but how cost effective the HE Sherman/M36 combo is leaving little room for other unit to fill.
I don't think it has much to do with the HE Sherman. The M10 competes with the Jackson for AT duty as a cheap and more spammable alternative. At least in that way, it is slightly similar to the StuG/Panther matchup. The 76mm Sherman found a spot as well despite that combo and despite the Jackson, so there should be room for the M10 as an even cheaper alternative. But in the current design it does not work outside of the mentioned 1v1 vs Ostheer T3.
The UKF M10 even has a way better niche since the Firefly occupies a heavier TD role than the Jackson, leaving even more space for a light TD. Yet, the commander is among the least picked despite bringing Assault Sections, a mortar and self repairs. This commander fills a lot of holes in the UKF lineup, still it is only average in the loadout picks even in 1v1. This should really tell us that something is wrong with it, and the M10 is part of it.