T-34-76 shots bounce off Brummbar rear armor.
Luchs shots bounce off t34 rear armor
State of Heavies
15 Jan 2020, 15:31 PM
#101
Posts: 2358
Luchs shots bounce off t34 rear armor
15 Jan 2020, 15:32 PM
#102
Posts: 5279
Luchs shots bounce off t34 rear armor
Luchs isnt supposed to counter a t34... Try with a puma and report back.
#stalinwept
15 Jan 2020, 15:37 PM
#103
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Luchs shots bounce off t34 rear armor
I like how you compare AI light tank to generalist medium, like you're trying to make a point, but without actually knowing what's happening.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
15 Jan 2020, 17:16 PM
#104
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
T-34-76 shots bounce off Brummbar rear armor.
T-34/76 chance to penetrate on a rear Brumabr is 76% up to 95% at MID range
PIV chance to penetrate on a rear Churhcill is 61% up to 64% at MID range
16 Jan 2020, 00:41 AM
#105
Posts: 2358
I like how you compare AI light tank to generalist medium, like you're trying to make a point, but without actually knowing what's happening.
I like how you bit the bait. The only point i was trying to make is that the comparison i quoted was pointless. It was very effective...
16 Jan 2020, 01:03 AM
#106
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
I like how you bit the bait. The only point i was trying to make is that the comparison i quoted was pointless. It was very effective...
I think comparing a Brumbarr rear armor bouncing t34 shots is pretty similar to a KV tank rear armor boucning P4 shots
Neither should be happening
T-34/76 chance to penetrate on a rear Brumabr is 76% up to 95% at MID range
PIV chance to penetrate on a rear Churhcill is 61% up to 64% at MID range
Thanks for the numbers. I hope I'm not making too much of an assumption here, but I think we can all agree these numbers should be close to if not 100%? Regardless of the combination of units?
Flanking with anything larger than a t70 should be rewarded imo
16 Jan 2020, 01:41 AM
#107
Posts: 2358
I think comparing a Brumbarr rear armor bouncing t34 shots is pretty similar to a KV tank rear armor boucning P4 shots
Neither should be happening
A brumbarr hardly exposes his rear armor in normal combat, but t34s are able to overextend to get a rear hit and maybe a ram finish. Brumbarr poses no threat to t34. T34 are at least one or two tiers below brumbarr.
Those reasons justify the rear armor bounces.
KV on the other side is the lightest heavy tank, even when P4 have good pen, KV can outgun and kill Pz4 in 1v1. A rear armor hit is the only possible chance for a P4 to win the 1v1.
Id say there is a reason for P4 to get pen shots and no reason for t34 to do so.
18 Jan 2020, 09:51 AM
#108
Posts: 1794
Im playing many 2v2 and 4v4. Imo heavies are mostly fine. Performance is where they need to be. Offering good power and durability.
60td and ATg still eats up tigers like fruits.
Tigers durability and prone to counters haven't changed.
They can be delayed 1 or 2 cp, and it will be good.
You don't want them too late, games to run over 30 mins to field them, and then it is over in another 5. You dont want them too expensive that reduces population.
If anything, make axis t4 perform for their cost.
like we are seeing more tigers and then blaming stalling for heavies or lack of choices.
When it is problem caused by over weakening a part of a game play that forces axis to over rely over call in tigers
60td and ATg still eats up tigers like fruits.
Tigers durability and prone to counters haven't changed.
They can be delayed 1 or 2 cp, and it will be good.
You don't want them too late, games to run over 30 mins to field them, and then it is over in another 5. You dont want them too expensive that reduces population.
If anything, make axis t4 perform for their cost.
like we are seeing more tigers and then blaming stalling for heavies or lack of choices.
When it is problem caused by over weakening a part of a game play that forces axis to over rely over call in tigers
18 Jan 2020, 10:00 AM
#109
Posts: 1794
I brought this issue up a couple of year back
https://www.coh2.org/topic/68044/rear-armor-of-some-vehicles-needs-to-be-reduced
only to have to waste my time responding to the usual suspect.
The hood new is that it seem it get the attention eventually so some of the value have been lowered.
I also brought this up many times. Also rear armour is 50% of a tank
Ever since that 60td and their sweet vet bonus that basically ignore your armor with either their pen,damage,rof, range, accuracy or just deadly effective mixture zoning out axis tanks
The real reason for tigersss, is because as axis players highlighted, it is a crutch unit. And we are thankful for the call in changes. It is fact allies still go through more phases and build variations after the call in changes
So if we want to stop stalling for heavy, then axis TD like panthers and jp4 needs help.
I guess our cries over the years has been coincidence with the call in changes that becomes even clearer
18 Jan 2020, 10:22 AM
#110
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
I think comparing a Brumbarr rear armor bouncing t34 shots is pretty similar to a KV tank rear armor boucning P4 shots
Neither should be happening
Thanks for the numbers. I hope I'm not making too much of an assumption here, but I think we can all agree these numbers should be close to if not 100%? Regardless of the combination of units?
Flanking with anything larger than a t70 should be rewarded imo
I have not thought about evrey tiny detail yet, but from this comparison I'd say Brummbär should have a low chance of bouncing (or some other survivability advantage) because it is a casemate and which gives it less possibilities to maneuver going into and out of battle.
But yes, every flanking maneuver with mediums should be rewarded even if it is against heavies and seki heavies.
18 Jan 2020, 17:34 PM
#111
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
A brumbarr hardly exposes his rear armor in normal combat, but t34s are able to overextend to get a rear hit and maybe a ram finish. Brumbarr poses no threat to t34. T34 are at least one or two tiers below brumbarr.
Those reasons justify the rear armor bounces.
KV on the other side is the lightest heavy tank, even when P4 have good pen, KV can outgun and kill Pz4 in 1v1. A rear armor hit is the only possible chance for a P4 to win the 1v1.
Id say there is a reason for P4 to get pen shots and no reason for t34 to do so.
A KV-8 poses no threat to p4. So therefore it should bounce p4 shots on the rear? I don't think so
Yeah of course a brumbarr shouldn't be exposing it's rear armor. That's the entire point. If you are showing your rear you deserve to suffer for it, regardless of what tank you are using
You can say a brum poses no threat to a t34, but if I'm diving my tank behind it then I'm exposing the t34 to other AT that is absolutely a threat to it. Same goes for any medium diving behind any other tank
18 Jan 2020, 18:03 PM
#112
Posts: 5279
I think it's more of a matter how the tank stands to deliver its damage. For example,the brum hits and can fall back, no need to stick around or ability to chase so low rear armour is sort of a balance for its low "in the fray" time so to speak.
Kv-8is supposed to chase OR be up close of using its 45mm so it's higher rear armour makes sense even from a balance perspective. If you can get yer ass poked by a 222 it takes the piss out of a unit that's supposed to be up in the enemies guts.
The KV1 is a boat load more expensive than a t34/76 for the same offensive stats, I'm not terribly concerned that paying like 50% more all for increased durability makes the tank more durable than average...
The KV-2 could probably afford to lose some ass armour but the other 2 are less of an issue imo. Not design wise, balance wise or least of all historically,not that the latter matters so much but as a factor it checks out
Kv-8is supposed to chase OR be up close of using its 45mm so it's higher rear armour makes sense even from a balance perspective. If you can get yer ass poked by a 222 it takes the piss out of a unit that's supposed to be up in the enemies guts.
The KV1 is a boat load more expensive than a t34/76 for the same offensive stats, I'm not terribly concerned that paying like 50% more all for increased durability makes the tank more durable than average...
The KV-2 could probably afford to lose some ass armour but the other 2 are less of an issue imo. Not design wise, balance wise or least of all historically,not that the latter matters so much but as a factor it checks out
#stalinwept
18 Jan 2020, 19:40 PM
#113
Posts: 658
Heavy Tanks should have High Explosive Rounds and AP Shells like the Sherman. This way they can choose between anti infantry and anti tank, not both at the same time.
18 Jan 2020, 21:19 PM
#114
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
The KV-2 could probably afford to lose some ass armour but the other 2 are less of an issue imo. Not design wise, balance wise or least of all historically,not that the latter matters so much but as a factor it checks out
I'm not saying its a huge issue, my entire point is that I don't see a reason for ANY unit to deflect shots that hit its rear armor
You can qualify the scenarios however you like, all I'm saying is rear armor shouldn't deflect tank shots, no matter what the scenario. I dont really care whether one is "less of an issue", rear armor simply shouldn't be deflecting shots from anything larger than a t70 imo
18 Jan 2020, 21:35 PM
#115
Posts: 5279
I'm not saying its a huge issue, my entire point is that I don't see a reason for ANY unit to deflect shots that hit its rear armor
You can qualify the scenarios however you like, all I'm saying is rear armor shouldn't deflect tank shots, no matter what the scenario. I dont really care whether one is "less of an issue", rear armor simply shouldn't be deflecting shots from anything larger than a t70 imo
Well yes, but also no. You start like that and your still going to have whining because axis rear would have to be lower to accommodate the t34, which means even the T70 would have an alright chance. I think as long as the chance is reasonable considering the role of the tank we will be fine. Tanks designed to soak damage shouldnt be negated entirely considering the way pathing can be already. I'd say as long as it's at least a 75% chance to pen were in a good range of reliability for these specific types of units. I'd be happy to have a panther buff to compensate (pen could afford to go up as it wouldn't effect anything but the high armour units anyways) but I don't feel like a p4 should be guaranteed enough to beat down a meat shield anymore than I feel a t34 would if the axis had a meat shield. The units that should be "exempt" fr the hard ruling on pen, imo, should be the ones who's main job is to be a hard nut and pay for that with a heavy cost increase over their standard gun counterpart.
#stalinwept
18 Jan 2020, 21:44 PM
#116
Posts: 2358
A KV-8 poses no threat to p4. So therefore it should bounce p4 shots on the rear? I don't think so
I said KV tanks, not only KV8. KV1 / KV2 are more than a threat to a Pz4.
Even those two last have high rear armor for a P4 to score pen shots.
Yeah of course a brumbarr shouldn't be exposing it's rear armor. That's the entire point. If you are showing your rear you deserve to suffer for it, regardless of what tank you are using
Do not turn upside down my arguments and put words in my mouth, i said both things, a proper played brumbar will not show a rear shot to anything but T34s being so cheap are able to dive through hell and back to get a rear shot, even more if you certainly know that will pen.
You can say a brum poses no threat to a t34, but if I'm diving my tank behind it then I'm exposing the t34 to other AT that is absolutely a threat to it. Same goes for any medium diving behind any other tank
Now you want to add another setup just to twist my wordings. Please abstain from that unless you really know what you do.
ATGs are always present in a normal skill game but you know very well that ATGs are the slowest, then brumbarrs and the fastest of them 3 is the t34, imagine taking a ATG everywhere you send your stupa just because some pesky t34, wich you cant hit nor damage is always going to get behind BECAUSE IT SCORES PEN SHOTS.
NONESENSE
ATGs support but are nowhere neccesary to enable a LATEGAME AI SPECIALIST TANK...
18 Jan 2020, 22:14 PM
#117
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
I said KV tanks, not only KV8. KV1 / KV2 are more than a threat to a Pz4.
Even those two last have high rear armor for a P4 to score pen shots.
Do not turn upside down my arguments and put words in my mouth, i said both things, a proper played brumbar will not show a rear shot to anything but T34s being so cheap are able to dive through hell and back to get a rear shot, even more if you certainly know that will pen.
Now you want to add another setup just to twist my wordings. Please abstain from that unless you really know what you do.
ATGs are always present in a normal skill game but you know very well that ATGs are the slowest, then brumbarrs and the fastest of them 3 is the t34, imagine taking a ATG everywhere you send your stupa just because some pesky t34, wich you cant hit nor damage is always going to get behind BECAUSE IT SCORES PEN SHOTS.
NONESENSE
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here man. The extent of my point:
Rear armor of any tank should never deflect shots coming from something larger than a t70. Regardless of faction, regardless of units. If it's larger than a t70, it should always penetrate rear armor in my opinion
If you disagree, please explain more clearly. If you don't, great. I wasn't even trying to twist your words or start a debate. I was just trying to clarify my point/understand yours. Please calm down
ATGs support but are nowhere neccesary to enable a LATEGAME AI SPECIALIST TANK...
I literally said ALL mediums expose themselves to ATGs with a flank, not just t34 against brumbarr.
I said nothing even remotely close to "you should have an AT gun behind every brumbarr". I just said flanking is risky no matter what you're fighting against
Idk why you're talking about t34 speed? There's a reason AT guns have 60 range and tanks have 35
Well yes, but also no. You start like that and your still going to have whining because axis rear would have to be lower to accommodate the t34, which means even the T70 would have an alright chance.
Yeah I'm not saying everything above t70 should have 100% and t70 should have 0%. Just that the cutoff for 100% should be above the t70
The health of things like the t70 already insures that flanking a tank with it won't go well
18 Jan 2020, 22:43 PM
#118
Posts: 2358
Idk why you're talking about t34 speed? There's a reason AT guns have 60 range and tanks have 35
Why the game includes snares? Did you ever notice that tanks are faster than footmen? Imagine a big F cannon (namely ATG) traversed by raw manpower? Do you understand that mobility is another aspect of units and is as important as every other one? Did you ever read a M36 vs panther thread? Do you know why they are not nerfed? Because they are both fast, that gives them their advantage.
Now aswer kindly to me, is T34 a slow tank like a KV1 or is it fast like a T70...
The answer will lead you to my point and why a T34 can pen the back of a brumbarr...
18 Jan 2020, 22:44 PM
#119
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Why the game includes snares? Did you ever notice that tanks are faster than footmen? Imagine a big F cannon (namely ATG) traversed by raw manpower? Do you understand that mobility is another aspect of units and is as important as every other one? Did you ever read a M36 vs panther thread? Do you know why they are not nerfed? Because they are both fast, that gives them their advantage.
Now aswer kindly to me, is T34 a slow tank like a KV1 or is it fast like a T70...
The answer will lead you to my point and why a T34 can pen the back of a brumbarr...
Dude I have no idea wtf you're talking about. Do you disagree with me? I can't even tell...
You think some tanks should deflect shots that hit them in the rear? Which ones? Why? At what range?
Idk why youre talking about tanks being faster than infantry. I'm aware. What does that have to do with rear armor??? Stop jumping all over the place
18 Jan 2020, 22:54 PM
#120
Posts: 1527
Permanently Banned
A KV-8 poses no threat to p4.
Wrong. The secondary cannon is more than enough to penetrate a p4 at close and medium range. When you're flanking a KV8 with a p4, the rear of the p4 is also exposed to the KV8 most of the time, hence the secondary cannon is getting a decent # of rear armor shots.
"I wish THQ was still alive and made CoH2. Ostheer for life."
PLAYERCARD: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198287328305
PLAYERCARD: https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198287328305
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
33 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
14 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
881 users are online:
881 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49070
Welcome our newest member, Blesofsk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Blesofsk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM