Tank Destroyer Standardization

Tank Destroyer Standardization

All armies should have medium tank destroyer and a heavy tank destroyer. In terms of availability and cost efficiency each unit should be designed to counter a specific set of targets. This is how I envision the unit tiers:

Heavy Tank Destroyers (Range 60 - 200 damage)
Jackson, Sherman Firefly, SU-85, Panther

Medium Tank Destroyers (Range 50 - 160 damage)
M10, SU-76, StuG G, Jagdpanzer IV

Heavy Tanks
Health divisible by 200

Medium Tanks
Health divisible by 160


Heavy tank destroyers should do 200 damage and have a range of 60. In terms of targets, all heavy tanks health should be divisible by 200. This will make the heavy tank destroyers more cost-efficient vs the heavy tanks without improving the efficiency vs medium tanks. The health of the panther should in term be brought down to 800 and the armour should also be significantly lowered. The machine gunner could be removed to emphasize the tank destroying nature of the unit.

Medium tank destroyers should do 160 damage and have a range of 50. This means nerfing the range of the Jagdpanzer IV and the SU-76. The SU-76 should, however, have its damage increased to 160. Currently the Brits and the USF does not have a stock medium tanks destroyer. The M10 should be given to both of those amies as a stock unit (this alleviates the problem of the Jackson/Firefly having to counter to all armour)

The Puma range should be brought down to 40 to prevent it from countering all light tanks. At the same time, it should be made available to Wehr as a stock unit.

Not really, Panther and StuGG are pretty well defined in the Ost roster, with the Elefant behind them. Same with Jagdtiger, JP4 and Panther for OKW.

I don't think standardization is a good thing. If I want mirror matches I'll play age of empires.

If 60 range was all there is to TDs, we'd seen JP4 very frequently instead of Panther exclusively, which means 50 range on it was, is and will be forever fine.

Same for StuG, which is dirt cheap.

Not really, Panther and StuGG are pretty well defined in the Ost roster, with the Elefant behind them. Same with Jagdtiger, JP4 and Panther for OKW.

I don't think standardization is a good thing. If I want mirror matches I'll play age of empires.

Most of the early RTS's had standardization by default. The units on different sides were basically the same but with different skins. We played those games anyway because it was the early 1990's. By today's standards, those games are boring and nobody misses them, unless they're just waxing nostalgic.

I like the difference in COH2's armor, other than I wish Strategic Reserves had came with a JPIV instead of a PIV.

Most of the early RTS's had standardization by default. The units on different sides were basically the same but with different skins. We played those games anyway because it was the early 1990's. By today's standards, those games are boring and nobody misses them, unless they're just waxing nostalgic.

I like the difference in COH2's armor, other than I wish Strategic Reserves had came with a JPIV instead of a PIV.

Not even Dune 2, THE OLDEST RTS had it.
You're thinking of chap, half arsed money grab RTS games, or very simply ones like "Z", because all the retro RTS I know were asymmetric.
Warcraft 1 being exclusively about mirrors.

It's kind of hard to standardize the Panther, that thing is in a class of it's own. I think of it as a Tank Hunter rather than a Tank Destroyer. Tank Destroyers try to delete tanks without exposing themselves to too much harm. Tank Hunters aren't afraid to dive the enemy tank and chase them down even if it means taking a few hits.

This just makes me relieved Relic makes assymetrical games and ya'll aren't making games cuz otherwise they'd be mirror match Dune warcraft aoe or starcraft style RTS games.

Standardized tanks what on earth, its CoH. vCoH brits had trucks nobody else did, that's what makes CoH special.

PE didn't even have an engineer squad and only brits had a FHQ. And Wehrmacht had that single use KT nobody had an equivalent of.

It's kind of hard to standardize the Panther, that thing is in a class of it's own. I think of it as a Tank Hunter rather than a Tank Destroyer. Tank Destroyers try to delete tanks without exposing themselves to too much harm. Tank Hunters aren't afraid to dive the enemy tank and chase them down even if it means taking a few hits.

Yes Panther is used differently than most other TDs.

In real life there is little difference between "tank hunter" and "tank destroyer".

"Tank hunters" was a brunch of the German army and their equipment become know as "tank hunter" while "Tank destroyer" was class of vehicles in US army which the one of trademark was a lack of coaxial mg.

Some people like to call the Panther a brawler because it will trade hits.

This just makes me relieved Relic makes assymetrical games and ya'll aren't making games cuz otherwise they'd be mirror match Dune warcraft aoe or starcraft style RTS games.

You are the one arguing against change…

Standardized tanks what on earth, its CoH

I recall the Panther having 60 range when CoH2 was released. Even if we standardize the range there is still lots of differences:

You are the one arguing against change…

Change for a sake of change is bad.
Stupid change is also bad.

I recall the Panther having 60 range when CoH2 was released. Even if we standardize the range there is still lots of differences:

Yes.
It did.
Have it ever crossed your mind why it doesn't anymore?

Hint: It was batshit, insanely OP.

It's kind of hard to standardize the Panther, that thing is in a class of it's own. I think of it as a Tank Hunter rather than a Tank Destroyer. Tank Destroyers try to delete tanks without exposing themselves to too much harm. Tank Hunters aren't afraid to dive the enemy tank and chase them down even if it means taking a few hits.

The hunter/brawler role is simply not working in a cost-effective manner. Armor is borderline useless vs AT-guns and tank destroyers. Diving you more expensive panther against another tank destroyer will most often result in a loss because of snares. Right now the panther has the honor of being both the worst and the most expletive tank destroyer in (maps with lost of shot blockers and 4v4 blobfests changes this).

The hunter/brawler role is simply not working in a cost-effective manner. Armor is borderline useless vs AT-guns and tank destroyers. Diving you more expensive panther against another tank destroyer will most often result in a loss because of snares. Right now the panther has the honor of being both the worst and the most expletive tank destroyer in (maps with lost of shot blockers and 4v4 blobfests changes this).

I must disagree, AT Guns have a good 20% chance to deflect against a Panther, hardly reliable but with 960 health it does inspire confidence. Tank Destroyers are squishy which makes the Panther overkill for chasing them, but even just chasing them away and backing off is a win. Furthermore you could also use the Panther to hunt down any medium tank or push away IS-2 or Pershings. The Panthers high health, armor, and mobility combined with Blitz make it the undeniable king of dives.

The Panthers high health, armor, and mobility combined with Blitz make it the undeniable king of dives.

The focus on the Panther is kinda derailing the discussion. 😊

The suggestion also included a damage change for the “heavy tank destroyers. I proposed upping their to 200 damage and make the heavy tanks health divisible by 200. Rate of fire can then be decreased to keep “time to kill” constant vs heavies while simultaneously increasing the “time to kill” mediums.

This will make heavy tank destroyers cost efficient vs heavy tanks and medium tank destroyers cost efficient vs medium tanks (USF and UK should have a stock medium tank destroyer - M10)

The idea of creating "heavy tank" destroyer and "medium tank" destroyer is good and I have been suggesting for years.

The think is that it damage is not the only factor that can used.

Accuracy is another important factor. If one increases the target size range one can also use accuracy. For instance if Super heavy tanks got a target size 30-40 the medium tank destroyers would hit these always but not penetrate them while Heavy tank destroyers would always penetrate medium but not hit them often.

ROF could also be used. Actually ROF can be used without dramatic changes. In the current system reload is not effected by range but making unit fire slower at long ranges one could reduced the effect of range advantage.

One could also change the "AP" wounds to toggle similar the 76mm Sherman making the AP round suitable vs super heavies and normal rounds suitable vs mediums and equip certain vehicles with both as dual purpose units.

Accuracy is another important factor. If one increases the target size range one can also use accuracy. For instance if Super heavy tanks got a target size 30-40 the medium tank destroyers would hit these always but not penetrate them while Heavy tank destroyers would always penetrate medium but not hit them often.

True, accuracy is the balancing knob that traditionally have been used. But balancing by accuracy is balancing by RNG. Tuning damage will lead to a more consistent result.

One could also change the "AP" wounds to toggle similar the 76mm Sherman making the AP round suitable vs super heavies and normal rounds suitable vs mediums and equip certain vehicles with both as dual purpose units.

That is an option. But again, this leads to multipurpose tank destroyers.

True, accuracy is the balancing knob that traditionally have been used. But balancing by accuracy is balancing by RNG. Tuning damage will lead to a more consistent result.

It does not have to be one or the other it can be both accuracy and damage for better results.

That is an option. But again, this leads to multipurpose tank destroyers.

Point here is only some vehicles would get that option.

For instance many claim that M36 has to OP because the USF do not have a second TD stock. By giving toggle munition the unit can be separately balanced vs mediums and vs Super heavies. For instance vs medium it could have its range,accuracy,RoF... reduced

"All armies should have"

Stopped reading after that, this is an asymetrical balanced game.

"All armies should have"

Stopped reading after that, this is an asymetrical balanced game.

All armies should be equipped to effectively deal with all other armies. Relic already tried doing things like releasing OKW without an HMG or a Medium Tank and it was hell to balance them because of it.

All armies should be equipped to effectively deal with all other armies. Relic already tried doing things like releasing OKW without an HMG or a Medium Tank and it was hell to balance them because of it.

There are indeed some things "all armies" must have, I definitely agree. Over-emphasis on "faction uniqueness" has unfortunately shown that it really isn't quite realistic as a concept, not with the game in the state it currently is.

"All armies" should have an answer to both Medium and Heavy tanks, I don't really think this can be denied. In what form these answers come is what is more debatable. If someone can come up with some genuinely effective alternatives to "Medium and Heavy TDs" then I'm all for hearing it, but i haven't heard any genuinely workable alternative solutions.

There are indeed some things "all armies" must have, I definitely agree. Over-emphasis on "faction uniqueness" has unfortunately shown that it really isn't quite realistic as a concept, not with the game in the state it currently is.

"All armies" should have an answer to both Medium and Heavy tanks, I don't really think this can be denied. In what form these answers come is what is more debatable. If someone can come up with some genuinely effective alternatives to "Medium and Heavy TDs" then I'm all for hearing it, but i haven't heard any genuinely workable alternative solutions.

If a faction does not come with 2 different stock TDs there numbers of ways to fix
(from AT infatry or more AT oriented Tank to mentions few).

But TDs do not even have to be heavy or meduim. They can simply be issues with toggle munition.

AP round could have low accuracy, high penetration, low ROF, longer range better suited vs Super heavies.

Normal round could have better accuracy , lower penetration, higher ROF or ROF that improved with range sorter range and be more suitable vs mediums.