possibilty to push back the late game td's

I am not convinced at switchable ammo. It seems more of a unesecarry hinderence then a good balance change.

Switchable rounds are already in the game and they are neither unnecessary nor hindrance.

Currently M36 gets timed AP round that currently make little sense to use vs many targets. That probably qualifies more as an "unnecessary hindrance" since the player needs to know against what target and what veterancy each round is betted suited.

This would effect one side way more then the other. Allies have fewer tanks that require axis to go heavy td rounds.

What side more effected is irrelevant as long as the game remains balanced.

The solution would simply make medium tank more attractive since they will not be shut down once "heavy" Tds are built. It will also create more room for medium for medium Tds like SU-76.

The infantry/TDs has imply gone for far too long.

I think the only solution is to make selected TDs ignore the health pools of the vehicles and concentrate on the % damage like I wrote earlier (plus the "not less than, for example 100hp, exception). Either this or the struggle will continue for the next couple of years (as it already has). Te only thing to do is to decide which TD will destroy with how many shots. Simple and effective.

I think the only solution is to make selected TDs ignore the health pools of the vehicles and concentrate on the % damage like I wrote earlier (plus the "not less than, for example 100hp, exception)
[…]
Simple

And how do you propose to communicate to the player that medium tanks die in 4 shots of ATGs and TDs, while their heavy tanks would be able take up to 8 shots from ATGs but suddenly also only 4 shots from TDs? The armor/penetration/damage/health system is already hard to understand for casual players as it is.

And it'd be a huge nerf to heavies (against TDs) which they absolutely do not need, unless you'd effectively half the RPM of the TDs, in which case it'd be a completely over the top nerf for TDs versus mediums. There is nothing simple about this solution.

And how do you propose to communicate to the player that medium tanks die in 4 shots of ATGs and TDs, while their heavy tanks would be able take up to 8 shots from ATGs but suddenly also only 4 shots from TDs? The armor/penetration/damage/health system is already hard to understand for casual players as it is.

Example of a quick idea for a unit description:
M36 - Capable of effectively engaging all armour from a safe distance. Deals 15%/20%/X* damage to all armoured vehicles and 100hp** to light vehgicles. Not capable of engaging infantry.

M36 - Capable of effectively engaging all armour from a safe distance. Destroys any heavy or medium tank with 5/6/7* penetrating shots and deals 100hp** to light vehicles. Not capable of engaging infantry.

AT gun description fragment to be added - deals 180/210hp damage for every penetrating shot.

*this is to be balanced around the idea that after the change it should deal the same number of shots to destroy, for example, the tiger. Once this is established - could be even 8 shots if this is how it works now. After the change, and that is the important part, it will need the same number of shots to destroy mediums or, for example, a stug III as it needs to destroy a tiger. This might finally end the problems with overperforming TDs.

** here a code formula should be - deal % of damage to medium/heavy and no less than Xhp to lights.

And it'd be a huge nerf to heavies (against TDs) which they absolutely do not need, unless you'd effectively half the RPM of the TDs, in which case it'd be a completely over the top nerf for TDs versus mediums. There is nothing simple about this solution.

If what I wrote above is done, there should be no such issues. The only balance problem might be how many shots each of those long range TDs will need to destroy a vehicle. I'd pick one heavy tank such as a tiger and then check how many penetrating shots those TDs need now and leave it as a fixed number for all other medium/heavy armour (U know these things by heart probably btw - and sorry for not checking myself). There might be some additional details to polish up but I'd just do it this way as it is just easier to balance and overall better imo.

Switchable rounds are already in the game and they are neither unnecessary nor hindrance.

Currently M36 gets timed AP round that currently make little sense to use vs many targets. That probably qualifies more as an "unnecessary hindrance" since the player needs to know against what target and what veterancy each round is betted suited.


What side more effected is irrelevant as long as the game remains balanced.

The solution would simply make medium tank more attractive since they will not be shut down once "heavy" Tds are built. It will also create more room for medium for medium Tds like SU-76.

The infantry/TDs has imply gone for far too long.

The m36 hvap is intended for the heaviest armoured targets. The hvap pen however is indeed redicoulous. But so is twp on the pak40 wich also stuns the target. Its however not difficult or a hinderance since its a timed ability instead of a toggle. it will return to normal afterwards.
Unlike the sherman and isu, even being free i find them a hinderance. Not needing to switch is a better option. Wrong target shows up and you need to pull back to switch ammo. Same with td's if they get switchable rounds.
Hey thats a medium o shit a heavy as well, better switch to rounds with lower rof, but then the medium has become a bigger threat and i still need to move back even if i have multyple td's.

And since axis can field mediums and heavies more easely at the same time this effects allies more.
It puts more micro tax on the td,s. Allied stock mediums already have a higher micro tax. And then the td's will have it as well. So it defenitly matters who is affected more.
You will have axis heavies like the tiger dealing with tanks and inf no problem. Allies need a td loaded with rounds for both types of tanks. Tanks and inf to deal with inf.
Panthers deal with medium and heavies alike, and now probably gain a buff vs td's if the swith to heavy tank ammo with lower rof. P4 still works vs mediums and inf and also gets a buff if the td is in anti heavy mode.
In short this will give axis armour way to much buffs across the board. While only stock mediums from both sides need it. Unless both panthers and the jagdpanzer get the same switchable rounds as well.

As for the su76 it is bad because it comes go late for lv's and its okish only vs mediums, since it has to low pen and damage to be reliable esp vs okw. I dont see it getting more use. But i could be wrong ofcourse.

I think working on target sizes and acc so that mediums are hit less often esp at long range is a better way and causes less unintended concequences.

The m36 hvap is intended for the heaviest armoured targets. The hvap pen however is indeed redicoulous. But so is twp on the pak40 wich also stuns the target. Its however not difficult or a hinderance since its a timed ability instead of a toggle. it will return to normal afterwards.

As far as I can remember the ability force a reload and requiring target for the M36 so unless one times the ability correctly one might end up increasing the time to kill target without high armour.

Unlike the sherman and isu, even being free i find them a hinderance. Not needing to switch is a better option. Wrong target shows up and you need to pull back to switch ammo. Same with td's if they get switchable rounds.
Hey thats a medium o shit a heavy as well, better switch to rounds with lower rof, but then the medium has become a bigger threat and i still need to move back even if i have multyple td's.

It not a hindrance it a way to balance the unit, ISU was given suitable rounds because it op using all around rounds and the Sherman would be completely OP if its AP rounds has the HE AOE.

And since axis can field mediums and heavies more easely at the same time this effects allies more.

That is simply untrue.

It puts more micro tax on the td,s.

There is no micro tax on TDs. They can shit back at range 60 and snipe medium tank from 20 range farther that they can shoot.

Allied stock mediums already have a higher micro tax.

Not really

And then the td's will have it as well. So it defenitly matters who is affected more.

No it does not as long as it remain balanced

You will have axis heavies like the tiger dealing with tanks and inf no problem.

And allies will have IS-2,KV-2,Comet,Perishing.

Allies need a td loaded with rounds for both types of tanks. Tanks and inf to deal with inf.
Panthers deal with medium and heavies alike, and now probably gain a buff vs td's if the swith to heavy tank ammo with lower rof. P4 still works vs mediums and inf and also gets a buff if the td is in anti heavy mode.
In short this will give axis armour way to much buffs across the board. While only stock mediums from both sides need it. Unless both panthers and the jagdpanzer get the same switchable rounds as well.

The suggestion is for unit that are meant to deal with super heavies so it includes the Panther, but you seem to be missing the point of the suggestions. The round will not work similar to AP/HE where the wrong round is completely ineffective vs the wrong target. It would simply be less effective.

As for the su76 it is bad because it comes go late for lv's and its okish only vs mediums, since it has to low pen and damage to be reliable esp vs okw. I dont see it getting more use. But i could be wrong ofcourse.

Su-85 is very good vs PzIV and as long as it remains so good there is going to be little reason to make the SU-76

I think working on target sizes and acc so that mediums are hit less often esp at long range is a better way and causes less unintended concequences.

The suggestion includes the chance to hit. Normal AP rounds would be more accurate with lower penetration while the High AP round would have lower accuracy and higher penetration.

The difference would simply could also include other factors likes ROF and damage. One could even test ROF that changes with distance.

Could they implement something like over penetration? I remember in vCoh the RR would just shoot through light tanks and do almost no dmg.

As far as I can remember the ability force a reload and requiring target for the M36 so unless one times the ability correctly one might end up increasing the time to kill target without high armour.


It not a hindrance it a way to balance the unit, ISU was given suitable rounds because it op using all around rounds and the Sherman would be completely OP if its AP rounds has the HE AOE.


That is simply untrue.


There is no micro tax on TDs. They can shit back at range 60 and snipe medium tank from 20 range farther that they can shoot.


Not really


No it does not as long as it remain balanced


And allies will have IS-2,KV-2,Comet,Perishing.


The suggestion is for unit that are meant to deal with super heavies so it includes the Panther, but you seem to be missing the point of the suggestions. The round will not work similar to AP/HE where the wrong round is completely ineffective vs the wrong target. It would simply be less effective.


Su-85 is very good vs PzIV and as long as it remains so good there is going to be little reason to make the SU-76


The suggestion includes the chance to hit. Normal AP rounds would be more accurate with lower penetration while the High AP round would have lower accuracy and higher penetration.

The difference would simply could also include other factors likes ROF and damage. One could even test ROF that changes with distance.

Reading what you write now. I just assumed that it meant x round has next to no effect on heavies and vice versa. The force reload aspect is what i presumed to be a part of the ammo types/swith for meds and heavy for the td's.
Thats clearer for me now.

like the overpenetration concept, it works nicely in the game World of Warships, where large AP shells that penetrates thin armour, goes straight through without setting off the charge within the shell, but still does a small amount of damage to the target.

perhaps the same could be applied to COH2, dedicated Tank Destroyers, that includes panthers,comet, su-85,jackson, jagd4 +doc heavies etc, with guns 75mm to 152mm using AP, could be made to ovepenetrate LIGHT armour, but still cause damage, but less than what it would normally do if shell detonates inside the tank.
note ''normal medium tanks'' are not affected by this overpenetration idea
but this would most likely just make SOME light tanks/vehiecles more useful late game.

like the overpenetration concept, it works nicely in the game World of Warships, where large AP shells that penetrates thin armour, goes straight through without setting off the charge within the shell, but still does a small amount of damage to the target.

perhaps the same could be applied to COH2, dedicated Tank Destroyers, that includes panthers,comet, su-85,jackson, jagd4 +doc heavies etc, with guns 75mm to 152mm using AP, could be made to ovepenetrate LIGHT armour, but still cause damage, but less than what it would normally do if shell detonates inside the tank.
note ''normal medium tanks'' are not affected by this overpenetration idea
but this would most likely just make SOME light tanks/vehiecles more useful late game.

But light vehicles are useful in late game. You won't directly assault the enemy base but are great of holding off sectors of map with their speed and/or utility. Luchs is prime example of that. Flak truck is great at denying pushes. AA HT as well. AEC is hard to keep alive cause you have to play it aggressively against lights and mediums to get the most out of it but it can serve in later stages of the game (less so cause of low AI potential).

Over penetration would be a nuisance and just invite bugs into the game while serving no real purpose and even inviting even more unbalance into the gameplay. Imagine, you build TDs and infantry and then get swarmed by pumas or t70s or luchs or all of the above with infantry. TDs would do little dmg to them, infantry would be easily kited. You'd have to invest in mediums (since AT guns also count as TDs and as such would be useless, except maybe for USF AT), killing your population and inviting even more "what to bring to the front" microhell.

If TDs are your worst problem, be it Jackson or JP4, then you seriously need to use combined forces more. Like the last game, 2 OKW rush 2 KTs supported by a couple of obersoldaten into 1 SU85, 1 Jackson and infantry + pak howits + zook rangers and constantly firing the KT on the move on max range and then when they lose them they complain how Jacksons are OP and SU85 and garden in all chat.

Protos Angelus.
was thinking more in the direction of survivability of light tanks vs no-brainer TD-walls, (standard medium tanks and Anti-Tank-Gun excluded)

impractical and full of bugs, maybe. but hear me out.

as for some factions its too easy and too cheap to go build a TD-wall, that makes dives/attacks very costly/impossible. and was thinking if there was something to break the meta a bit.

situation: (with overpenetration idea in mind) you as a SOV are assaulting a OKW frontline.
OKW has: 1 jagd4, 1 pz4.

you as sov have: 1 T-70,
if you send T-70 to attack jagd4, jagd4 needs 4 shots now to kill the T-70 due to overpenetration concept. But has the pz4 as backup to fend off lighter/faster tanks, and needs only the standard 3 shots, as it is not affected by the concept.

you use the T-70 as a cheap sacrifice for a large force of whatever you want.
and was thinking of the rock/paper/scissors concept here too, balance be screwed for the moment, but if light/medium/TD armour were balanced around these factors:

light: average vs other lights/infantry,overpenetration mechanic that makes it an Anti TD weapon, weak to ATG's, mediums, shrecks/zooks etc.

medium: average....

Tank Destroyer: good VS medium and heavy armour, weak vs light tanks due to overpenetration mechanic etc.

Protos Angelus.
was thinking more in the direction of survivability of light tanks vs no-brainer TD-walls, (standard medium tanks and Anti-Tank-Gun excluded)

impractical and full of bugs, maybe. but hear me out.

as for some factions its too easy and too cheap to go build a TD-wall, that makes dives/attacks very costly/impossible. and was thinking if there was something to break the meta a bit.

situation: (with overpenetration idea in mind) you as a SOV are assaulting a OKW frontline.
OKW has: 1 jagd4, 1 pz4.

you as sov have: 1 T-70,
if you send T-70 to attack jagd4, jagd4 needs 4 shots now to kill the T-70 due to overpenetration concept. But has the pz4 as backup to fend off lighter/faster tanks, and needs only the standard 3 shots, as it is not affected by the concept.

you use the T-70 as a cheap sacrifice for a large force of whatever you want.
and was thinking of the rock/paper/scissors concept here too, balance be screwed for the moment, but if light/medium/TD armour were balanced around these factors:

light: average vs other lights/infantry,overpenetration mechanic that makes it an Anti TD weapon, weak to ATG's, mediums, shrecks/zooks etc.

medium: average....

Tank Destroyer: good VS medium and heavy armour, weak vs light tanks due to overpenetration mechanic etc.

I've seldom seen TD walls in teamgames, mostly because they are useless vs infantry.
Most useful and hardest to push wall is Panther + Sturm (or 2 brummbars) and that's lategame mostly. Panthers with MG upgrades are decent enough to deal with infantry and brumbars or sturmtigers (or stukas for OKW) are the only wall you even need.

In my games, if we had a TD wall...sure Panther didn't really push much but that's why obersoldaten and pzgrens were roaming freely. IMHO, TD walls are easiest to counter since all ally TDs + JP4 are completely useless vs infantry.

And for the soviet scenario using t70. Not gonna happen. That T70 will not to anything as OKW will always have the cheap and excellent raketen which it will send to the front of the frontline (retreat). If it doesn't, you're assuming no other units are on the field. From my experience, you have roaming grens, volks, pzgrens with shrecks, mines, etc. Assuming standard 3v3+ gamemode. 1v1 if you see jagd, well, that's 2 squads of infantry less to cap and map control for him and one slow juggernaut more to sit and snipe. Even so with 400 hp, 3 shots will still be needed if you plan to "nerf" the heavy tank vs light tank to 80 dmg per shot (80 + 160 + 160)

It's still a system that is not only unrealistic but also prone to breaking.
Imagine combining KT with luchs spam in teamgames. Or any Heavy + light. Force TDs to fight heavies as they are useless vs lights and lights mostly are great vs infantry and with a bit of micro avoid snares (AEC and stuart are exceptions, mediocre vs infantry). Basically teamgames would boil down to "don't let OKW go to late game" cause you could combine lights and heavies to great extent. Medium tanks win 1v1 vs Cromwell, M4 and T34 and now you could also use lights to great extent. Vs soviets greatly since they have piss poor infantry AT options. Versus USF less so since they can equip 2 echelons with zooks to deal with it and use the wide arc 57mm vs light spam.

Or imagine KT + puma spam with a bit of infantry on the side.

Axis would become dominant in longer teamgames. I'm not gonna speak for 1v1 as that mode I do not play at all vs humans but teamgames would be catastrophic, the amount of balance that would be required to balance lights.

Point is: Light vehicles have great use in late stages of the game, they need no rework nor is rework needed vs them.

either i'm not explaining it correctly, or you are missing the point.
anyhoo, idea was worth a shot

either i'm not explaining it correctly, or you are missing the point.
anyhoo, idea was worth a shot

It is a good idea. Basically very similar to what I suggested earlier. Just different damage system for different targets. Ullumulu suggesting damage tables basically suggested the same. I guess there is some kind of agreement that TDs should deal different hp damage to different targets. Whether it is tables (Ullumulu), % system (me) or Your suggestion - all seem to suggest different hp taken away from a targe depending on the target type.

There is already in place a system that recognizes vehicle classes in wrecks, so perhaps simply slowing the ROF of high TDs and applying bonus damage against heavy Armour could work assuming the game recognizes the class of armour while it's alive as well.

For example you take the su85 and slow down its ROF but give it bonus damage against heavy tanks such that the DPS against those targets is effectively unchanged but the lower rof makes it less effecient vs medium armour giving room for the su76 to have a place.
The su85 would still work against medium armour, just less efficiently.

There is already in place a system that recognizes vehicle classes in wrecks, so perhaps simply slowing the ROF of high TDs and applying bonus damage against heavy Armour could work assuming the game recognizes the class of armour while it's alive as well.

For example you take the su85 and slow down its ROF but give it bonus damage against heavy tanks such that the DPS against those targets is effectively unchanged but the lower rof makes it less effecient vs medium armour giving room for the su76 to have a place.
The su85 would still work against medium armour, just less efficiently.

Yeah. Seems like another (bonus damage) option leading to the same end result. More hp to heavies less hp to mediums/lights.