Tank Destroyer Poll
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
I voted the FF, even with the high risk reward Tulips, cause i wouldn't touch anything at the moment.
The Su85 needs a lower pen vet value (putting it at basically equal chance when Axis tanks get their armor increase)
The Jackson needs both a vet change (similar to Su85) and somehow giving it a clear weakness compared to the other 2.
Just a 1 min thought example: what about giving it a really low acceleration value. Offensive wise it would still retain it's speed if it needs to flank heavy TDs but if caught with it's pant down, it wouldn't be able to reposition as fast. It would still have it's higher than normal on the move accuracy.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
The Su85 needs a lower pen vet value (putting it at basically equal chance when Axis tanks get their armor increase)
Sure, just make sure to buff the Zis-3 in rate of fire and accuracy.
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
I agree that the SU-85 is the best balanced.
An armor nerf for the M36 would be reasonable. That would reduce its effectiveness against PIVs while not harming its capability vs Tigers.
I would like to see the Firefly made more unique and "historically-flavored".
30% more pen by default (like other TDs at vet 2)
speed/accel increased
slightly faster fire rate
BUT
range is reduced to 45m
accuracy at range is cut in half (mostly impacts performance vs LVs)
This makes it less of a bad M36 and more of an aggressive heavy killer. I know it's too big a change for this late in the game's life, but it would be nice to have more unique units across factions.
Anything below 50 range for a TD is suicide because panthers exist
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Just a 1 min thought example: what about giving it a really low acceleration value. Offensive wise it would still retain it's speed if it needs to flank heavy TDs but if caught with it's pant down, it wouldn't be able to reposition as fast. It would still have it's higher than normal on the move accuracy.
You mean making the blitz ability an I-win button vs Jackson?
Posts: 1289
Okw armour before td buffs just bullied allied armour and td,s and inf from the moment they hit the field as a result. The king tiger was the nail in the coffin.
Ost armour can get some breathing room imo if we nerf pen or pen buffs via vet, okw needs to follow suit in some way.
Right now they are p4 and p5 2.0 in every aspect. For a bit more cost they excel in nearly every area of the ost p4 and p5.
Give ost armour something they do better then okw,s armour. Or tone down some of okw armours aspects they share with ost. Accordingly tone down the td's pen.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
There many parameters that can change to solve this issues like:
Lower accuracy at long ranges so they at least can miss vs PzIV, increases their ROF at long range so that they benefit at closer ranges and so on...
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
Anything below 50 range for a TD is suicide because panthers exist
That's fair.
My reasoning was that it could handle the Panther better head-on. The pen bonus removes the 20% (or 27%) chance to bounce against the Panther, combined with better RoF, cuts down the frontal TTK from 40s to 29. The Panther's TTK vs Firefly is 23, so it would be an even match-up for cost.
Still, I know this idea is too late, and has issues.
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
Current issue is that the performance of this TDs is practically same from range 60 to range 40.
There many parameters that can change to solve this issues like:
Lower accuracy at long ranges so they at least can miss vs PzIV, increases their ROF at long range so that they benefit at closer ranges and so on...
This is a good idea. Heavy target size isn't different enough from PIV size for it to work now, but that could be adjusted too.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
And that is part of the point of ostheer, the being under pressure in infatry and light vehicle phase and they are supposed to be able to push in the medium tank phase. If their PzIV is zoned form range 60 by a M36 they need to become stronger in the infatry and light vehicles phase...
And the claim that USF can deal reliably to PzIV see a slight exaggeration...
Well I would not call a pen chance of ~60% (bazooka) or 76% (ATG range 40 , unless you constantly invest mun) against an OST P4 very reliable. Yes, the ATG somewhat makes up with higher ROF, but this combination makes these fights either hit or miss for both sides. Against OKW it's about 15% worse.
I know the design of OST. I think they can be designed without a classic light vehicle, since their very lights are actually pretty cost efficient. But that's not the point of this thread here, so let's rather discuss this somewhere else.
Posts: 403
And the claim that USF can deal reliably to PzIV see a slight exaggeration...
How to show everyone you don't play USF at all.
Sure let me use my sherman, bazookas or AT gun vs a p4, I'm sure they will pen it eventually
If you nerf the jackson too much and don't compensate the faction with proper AT and the USF meta will become surrender when the tiger rolls in or make 5 m10s and suicide them.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Well I would not call a pen chance of ~60% (bazooka) or 76% (ATG range 40 , unless you constantly invest mun) against an OST P4 very reliable. Yes, the ATG somewhat makes up with higher ROF, but this combination makes these fights either hit or miss for both sides. Against OKW it's about 15% worse.
The USF have tools vs PzIV there is simply little reason to invest in them since one can get m36 instead.
I know the design of OST. I think they can be designed without a classic light vehicle, since their very lights are actually pretty cost efficient. But that's not the point of this thread here, so let's rather discuss this somewhere else.
Imo the "advantage" ostheer are designed have in medium tank play is crucial in debating and balancing the TDs.
Current medium tank play is almost non existent and that forces the MOD team to increase T4 availability (once more) to compensate. That imo is a step in the wrong direction.
(and that makes another medium TD thread running because without medium tanks there is little reason for medium TDs)
Simply increase the window of opportunity of units to pay off for the investment instead of buffing thing thru the roof to compensate for the limit window of opportunity...
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
How to show everyone you don't play USF at all.
I have over 1.500 games in my record playing as USF, how many do you have?
Sure let me use my sherman, bazookas or AT gun vs a p4, I'm sure they will pen it eventually
I am pretty sure that sniping PzIV from range 60 with 100% chance to hit and penetrate with a M36 that is more mobile than the PzIV is a far better design.
If you nerf the jackson too much and don't compensate the faction with proper AT and the USF meta will become surrender when the tiger rolls in or make 5 m10s and suicide them.
When did the PzIV suddenly become a Tiger?
One can nerf the M36 vs PzIV with little impact in M36 vs Tiger.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
The USF have tools vs PzIV there is simply little reason to invest in them since one can get m36 instead.
Then please tell me which ones. I just discussed the AT options they have and they are not reliable. They also don't have easy access to standard mines to snare. The overall tank defense of USF is EXTREMELY micro intensive unless you get a Jackson.
Imo the "advantage" ostheer are designed have in medium tank play is crucial in debating and balancing the TDs.
Current medium tank play is almost non existent and that forces the MOD team to increase T4 availability (once more) to compensate. That imo is a step in the wrong direction.
(and that makes another medium TD thread running because without medium tanks there is little reason for medium TDs)
Simply increase the window of opportunity of units to pay off for the investment instead of buffing thing thru the roof to compensate for the limit window of opportunity...
The P4 is a very efficient tank for its cost.
I'd say the heavy tank meta should be fixed, because everyone is saving for a heavy instead of getting a medium. Pushing heavies back and creating a longer gap IS a good start.
I'm not sure why you think increasing T4 availability was done to compensate for a limited time frame for the units. T4 provides end game units. This will obviously not help to prolong medium play, but since T4 was rarely used in smaller modes it is good in general that this issue is addressed. I think fixing the heavy tanks will do more for the game than many suspect.
TDs will become less prevalent in the mid game. At the moment heavies come so early that getting a medium will only cause problems, because you don't have enough fuel to get a TD when the heavy comes. Conversely, getting a TD instantly is a safe bet because the heavy will come anyway. If this gets fixed than players have to decide if they really want to get a TD to shut down a single medium. Which is fine, because they then lack AI capabilities and it comes down again to positioning and micro if that choice was worth it or not. Otherwise they could just go medium as well which again emphasizes micro and positioning.
Time will tell if balance team pulls the right levers with this patch, but I think their idea is clear and concise.
Posts: 104
Posts: 960
SU85 is the perfect 60 range TD:
+ Great range
+ Great Pen
+ Good rate of fire
+ Great vet
+ Self spotting
- Horrible mobility when self spotting
- Little to no armour
- Casemate so dies to flanking armour
- Cannot fight infantry
- No turret so has to rotate to fire at targets moving across its field of view
The SU 85 should be the bench mark.
Pretty much this. The SU-85 is a really well designed unit; great strengths but clear weaknesses. Ideally, we should be trying to get other units into a similar state. I'm sure someone could make an argument for +/-5% type changes, but I don't think that detracts from the core idea.
Don't vet 3 jacksons on Ap have 455 pen max range. I'm pretty sure ELE has only 400 armor. Jackson's could theoretically pen ELE's right.
M36/Vet3/AP at 60 range should be 390 pen, unless something has changed. That gives it a 97.5% chance to pen the front of the Ele at max range, which is "close enough" to 100%, IMO.
It's 74.28% vs a JT, in the same situation.
The Jackson needs both a vet change (similar to Su85) and somehow giving it a clear weakness compared to the other 2.
Just a 1 min thought example: what about giving it a really low acceleration value. Offensive wise it would still retain it's speed if it needs to flank heavy TDs but if caught with it's pant down, it wouldn't be able to reposition as fast. It would still have it's higher than normal on the move accuracy.
At this point, after all the discussion, I'm pretty convinced that the only major downside the M36 could be given without bricking it is a massive price increase.
-Pen needs to be high to counter heavy/super heavies
-Damage is already in-line with other TDs (160)
-RoF is about as low as it can go without being frustrating (6.43 sec reload)
-Mobility needs to be higher than a P4, otherwise it'll be nearly useless
-HP can't be much lower, or Panthers will counter it too effectively
-Armor is already close to irrelevant, so it can't be brought down much more (-20 maybe?)
Regarding your suggestion, I'm not sure there's a suitable acceleration value. Nerfing the acceleration by 33% brings it from 3 to 2. It now only accelerates slightly slower than a P4 (2.1), which is still quite usable. I don't think this would be much of a 'downside', especially when used by decent players.
/edit As Esxile pointed out, slower acceleration would make Blitz incredibly strong, too.
If we lowered it by 50% (from 3 to 1.5), we're now looking at acceleration speeds between the KT (1.4) and ST (1.6), which is going to make it really difficult to use, due to its low armor. Panthers, with their 2.4 acceleration and 6.6 speed are going to be able to dive on M36s quite easily. Additionally, from a usability standpoint, slow acceleration on a fast unit could be really frustrating, since if anything stops it (pathing issues), its going to take a while to get back up to speed. This could be seen as the unit being "unresponsive", which IMO isn't a good solution for units that aren't "visually heavy" (like the KT, JT, Ele, etc.)
One idea I've been thinking of lately is swapping the M8A1 "Scott" with the M10 in the Armor Company, and then drastically increasing the price on the M36 (ex. 460mp/165f). This could fix the "overlap" between the Scott and Pak-Howie (and lower their ubiquity, at least a bit), give USF an Intermediate AT source similar to a StuG-G, and would make M36 spam less viable.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
My take is the same as before: Give them pernament HVAP shells, meaning lower rate of fire and higher pen. Better at countering heavies and worse at countering mediums. Then make the USF M1 a copy paste of the UKF 6pdr so that it’s worse vs heavies but easier to use vs mediums.
Posts: 3260
Jacksons HAD a weakness, then they buffed their HP because they were way too fragile
They had the same HP as M10s and StuGs, so they were still four taps for most vehicles.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
They had the same HP as M10s and StuGs, so they were still four taps for most vehicles.
Which is different from my premise because: ..........?
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Sure, just make sure to buff the Zis-3 in rate of fire and accuracy.
Vet 0 Su85 doesn't have issues dealing with heavier armor and with vet, it makes armor irrelevant cause it will only deflect the likes of Ele (Pen goes to 312/299/286)
You mean making the blitz ability an I-win button vs Jackson?
Which one?
OH one doesn't improve combat capabilities so they will still miss and they still need to close the 20 range gap.
The heavier variation of Blitz has inferior numbers (so only relevant to PV). Making the PV, a much more expensive tank hunter requiring to chase (missing) for quite some time before killing it.
OKW one is much more tamer speed wise but instead gains combat capabilities but for a reduce period of time (10s).
As this stats haven't changed in a while, i think it should be correct:
Jackson
Speed: 6.5 Accel: 3 Rotate: 30
OKW PIV:
Speed: 6 Accel: 2 Rotate: 30
OH PIV:
Speed: 6.3 Accel: 2.1 Rotate: 32
OH/OKW PV:
Speed: 6.6 Accel: 2.4 Rotate: 30
Firefly
Speed: 5.3 Accel: 1.6 Rotate: 32
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Then please tell me which ones. I just discussed the AT options they have and they are not reliable. They also don't have easy access to standard mines to snare. The overall tank defense of USF is EXTREMELY micro intensive unless you get a Jackson.
Sherman76, Sherman Dozerr upgrade, Easy8, M10, bazooka Paras, bazooka Paras support, Bazooka ranges, Pershing, M20 mine, riflemen mines, M36 itself that does not have to become completely incapable of fight a PzIV.
The P4 is a very efficient tank for its cost.
PzIV becomes obsolete once they heavy TDs appear since they can damage at range 60 with a probability close to 100%.
I'd say the heavy tank meta should be fixed, because everyone is saving for a heavy instead of getting a medium. Pushing heavies back and creating a longer gap IS a good start.
I'm not sure why you think increasing T4 availability was done to compensate for a limited time frame for the units. T4 provides end game units. This will obviously not help to prolong medium play, but since T4 was rarely used in smaller modes it is good in general that this issue is addressed. I think fixing the heavy tanks will do more for the game than many suspect.
No it does not. People started spamming Panther/Brumabars because they become available earlier and they where no longer "end game units" but mid game units.
TDs will become less prevalent in the mid game. At the moment heavies come so early that getting a medium will only cause problems, because you don't have enough fuel to get a TD when the heavy comes. Conversely, getting a TD instantly is a safe bet because the heavy will come anyway. If this gets fixed than players have to decide if they really want to get a TD to shut down a single medium. Which is fine, because they then lack AI capabilities and it comes down again to positioning and micro if that choice was worth it or not. Otherwise they could just go medium as well which again emphasizes micro and positioning.
Time will tell if balance team pulls the right levers with this patch, but I think their idea is clear and concise.
As long as allied TDs can counter the majority of vehicles with chances up to 100% from range 40 to range 60 with equal easy, while being available this early there will be little room for mediums tanks play.
Livestreams
3 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Hazlegro
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM