Tank AI rebalance

Hi all, wanted to talk about the inconsistent tank AI thing we have going on across the board and would like to discuss realigning it so all tanks are threatening but still balanced and unique

my idea, basically it to focus on MGs and less on cannon performance as cannon is so RNG it can nuke a squad or never hit, where mgs would be reliable and better to direct (see existing t34 fix for proven results)

other positive side effects of this would be that they would be effected by received accuracy and cover- you might say.... why is thata good thing? well, because it promotes using cover and exposes the vulnerability of green troops to the likes of armour. right now taking cover can be worse than being in the open facing a tank because they could bunch up

so basically, i would have the damage in tanks AOE reduced but the AOE itself to remain the same size and have some more dps added to the coaxial and the hull mgs. armour that should however retain their AI via main gun are large caliber guns that atm generally dont feel worth it due to medium armour being sufficient, leaving these specialists lacking

on to part 2- pintle mgs.
upgrade pintles to a similar level of the other 2 mgs- this would benefit axis a lot, but mainly allow their armour to make up for larger allied squads. this would also effect units like the stug, who, while a decent unit, find themselves somewhat lacking as support as anything but AT.

other units that would benefit from pintles would be most heavy armour, this would be a good opportunity to dial back the busrtyness of them as well while retaining their threat against infantry to ensure they are providing value instead of a fancy animation.

i realize that brits lack pintles so this may seem like an uneven change, howver as always i would like tommies to be balanced as 4 men and bolster to not be the "normal" balance point for tommies, as such they would make up for lack of pintles by concentrated infantry firepower.

another outlier would be the various shermans, since they have the pintles and the m4 also has HE. my fix for that would be to make HE an aimed ability instead of a toggle so that it too becomes a munitions sink instead of an AI machine. this might also lead to seeing other Sherman variants once and a while

FINALLY to ensure that tanks are still a threatening to units in cover, i would give the coaxial a modifier against cover (its shooting from above, seems plausible eh?) so that even cover isnt a perfect counter should a tank directly target the squad.

i know its a bit extreme at this stage of the game, but we have tasted similarly jarring overhauls.

please, discuss.

This sounds pretty good to me. RNG-wipes are pretty frustrating all around, so seeing them replaced by a more constant DPS would be a nice change. This would also have the added effect of making OST 4-man squads (or really any small squads) more resilient, as the chances of wiping 2+ models in a single shot would go down a lot.

My only concern would be garrison clearing, since they offer some pretty hefty resistances/defensive bonuses. Tank MGs (even with a cover modifier) might have trouble doing much, but that could be fixed with modifiers, I suppose.

This sounds pretty good to me. RNG-wipes are pretty frustrating all around, so seeing them replaced by a more constant DPS would be a nice change. This would also have the added effect of making OST 4-man squads (or really any small squads) more resilient, as the chances of wiping 2+ models in a single shot would go down a lot.

My only concern would be garrison clearing, since they offer some pretty hefty resistances/defensive bonuses. Tank MGs (even with a cover modifier) might have trouble doing much, but that could be fixed with modifiers, I suppose.

I'd go with modifiers for garrisons. Could even go with an antigarrison modifier on the cannon so it's directed and not passive.

I like the idea of having to switch between HE and AP shells for Heavy tanks. It would make them a lot less oppressive and easier to balance by making them double specialists instead of generalists.

Vehicles mg need to be looked at there are a complete mess having different profiles and damage level.

The approach of giving hull/coaxial similar DPS as hull/coaxial/pintle is also wrong for a number of reason like:
2 mg are superior in many cases since the focus fire more
Pintle have a cost making the vehicles with the upgrade cost more to get similar (if not inferior performance).

Vehicles mg need to be looked at there are a complete mess having different profiles and damage level.

The approach of giving hull/coaxial similar DPS as hull/coaxial/pintle is also wrong for a number of reason like:
2 mg are superior in many cases since the focus fire more
Pintle have a cost making the vehicles with the upgrade cost more to get similar (if not inferior performance).

Pintle work 360 degree around as well as help against planes, they are worth their cost and tanks that have comparable coax+hull have generally much worse main guns as well. There is no problem with balance of these, there are ups and downs to both solutions and neither is just superior to other.

Pintle work 360 degree around as well as help against planes, they are worth their cost and tanks that have comparable coax+hull have generally much worse main guns as well. There is no problem with balance of these, there are ups and downs to both solutions and neither is just superior to other.

which id like to remedy. one shouldnt be paying extra cost to be on the same performance, this is the error in re balancing tommies where they are making it so their base performance that they are balanced and costed at is a 5 man squad so you are effectively paying for a part unit with a mandatory side grade to make it whole

i want some consistency.

I don't think this will improve consistency much. Units like the ostwind, Brumbar, and ISU152, rely completely on their main guns to counter infantry so will still get lots of kills against clumped up units. Buffing MGs and removing cover mechanics for tank MGs also makes things like using a sandbag wall with guards behind them a lot worse against medium armor for no reason. Pintle MG upgrades are not devided evenly. Medium and heavy tanks often have the same number of MGs so either the MGs will have to be inconsistent in strength or the main guns will still need different AI strength, which will still lead to inconsistent wipes against clumped units.

I don't think this will improve consistency much. Units like the ostwind, Brumbar, and ISU152, rely completely on their main guns to counter infantry so will still get lots of kills against clumped up units. Buffing MGs and removing cover mechanics for tank MGs also makes things like using a sandbag wall with guards behind them a lot worse against medium armor for no reason. Pintle MG upgrades are not devided evenly. Medium and heavy tanks often have the same number of MGs so either the MGs will have to be inconsistent in strength or the main guns will still need different AI strength, which will still lead to inconsistent wipes against clumped units.

I don't think you read the OP... Just skimmed....
Uneven allotment of pintles was addressed. Additionally while not explicitly stated I figured it would be assumed that AI tanks were going to remain unique. As well thought out and totally awesome as your idea of the ostwind relying entirely on its pintle would be I'm just not sure ost could handle that....
Brummbär was also (again not explicitly) slightly touched on with talking about heavies and how they need to be front loaded with wipe potential but a pintle would allow for more consistency and thus less reliance on wipey DPS.
Heavy Armour would be a caliber above mediums naturally, I didn't think it needed to be said that a 12cm IS-2 cannon wouldn't have the same reduced AI as the 75-76s of the medium armour stated in the title and discussed in the post.

The important thing is that special units remain a cut above but your run of the mill medium is reliable and still a threat.

I like the idea about making the main gun have bonuses vs green cover and garrisons and focusing more on mg damage when out in the open. But only for medium tanks. Specialist AI tanks should not be affected.

I like the idea of having to switch between HE and AP shells for Heavy tanks. It would make them a lot less oppressive and easier to balance by making them double specialists instead of generalists.

Glad to see my idea picking up support.

This would be a massive nerf to tanks in the lategame because of how prevalent yellow cover is all over the place by then. It'd probably be even more of a problem in teamgames, where craters pop up even earlier. Also, tanks wouldn't counter blobs as well but would do just as well against single infantry squads, indirectly buffing blobbing by making it comparatively better against tanks.

I like the idea of having to switch between HE and AP shells for Heavy tanks. It would make them a lot less oppressive and easier to balance by making them double specialists instead of generalists.

+1 That'd be a great change.

I like the idea about making the main gun have bonuses vs green cover and garrisons and focusing more on mg damage when out in the open. But only for medium tanks. Specialist AI tanks should not be affected.

Not a fan of this though. Green cover should be a counter to tanks, not the other way around, especially since it's the only way to take cover while also mitigating explosive damage. This would just promote standing out in the open and would kill mindful infantry play in the lategame since green cover would become a death sentence against tanks, especially since projectiles will often collide with green cover. This change would make tank shells do a shit ton of damage when that happens since the squad is all clumped up behind the green cover, hence why literally standing out in the open would be better

@loop the coaxial would get a bonus to green Cover (not negate it but lessen it's impact) and the Canon would get a bonus vs garrisons. This would mean it would still be strong vs units its directly targeting but not overly so. green cover would still always be a benifit.
As for blobs, if it isn't set as such already we could turn the (I don't remeber the name for it) mode where a missed bullet rerolls a nearby model on. If that's on for all the tank mgs I imagine even a blob would want to take cover best it can.

The idea is to make cover more important not less. Keep in mind right now being in the wrong cover makes you more vulnerable not less. Infantry in the open should take a lot of damage, not RNG wipe or do nothing. Tanks should be scary to be caught out by. Right now you can flank an AT gun, and sit on top of it and if RNG says it lives no amount of cannon shots will change its mind.

As for the HE/AT shells, I agree it's a great feature that should be on all tanks, but this and that don't need to be mutually exclusive.