Brummbar performance

Yes. I ran this entire thing for you to see that it doesn't work that way and even installed bandicam and uploaded it to youtube only for you. You can clearly see 2 shots are deflecting and it is not 100% penetration.

https://youtu.be/xmvpIaIK_Hw

As I had to learn myself, frontal armor is not just the front, but the front half of the vehicle. The frontal half of the side armor is seen as "front armor". Therefore, the right StuG is always hitting the front armor, the left one is hitting the rear armor. That's why there is no "rear armor hit" pop up when the right one fires.
But the StuG doesn't kill via high penetration, it kills via high ROF, especially when vetted.

The StuG vs rear armor is overall a not very realistic scenario overall though.

I thought putting it in a situation that is more realistic than getting to the back of the Churchill as a casemate tank was a better idea. But I'll do the thing later on when I'm available brother.

Be my guest. But as I've said, Stug has 170 pen. on long-range. So you will see 5.6% chance of bouncing here.

As I had to learn myself, frontal armor is not just the front, but the front half of the vehicle. The frontal half of the side armor is seen as "front armor". Therefore, the right StuG is always hitting the front armor, the left one is hitting the rear armor. That's why there is no "rear armor hit" pop up when the right one fires.

. Bamboozeled.

But the StuG doesn't kill via high penetration, it kills via high ROF, especially when vetted.

I know, just wanted to back my claims but learning that the front half is frontal armor is a shocker.

The StuG vs rear armor is overall a not very realistic scenario overall though.

I tried the best case actually.

. Bamboozeled.

I know, just wanted to back my claims but learning that the front half is frontal armor is a shocker.

I tried the best case actually.

I know, it's freaking stupid. We need proper side armor for CoH3. JohnSmith once posted a good pic in this post. That's how I learned about that...

You used the best possible scenario. It was not a real critique on you, more on the whole discussion of "use StuG vs rear armor Churchill". Won't really work. But overall it is decent enough to counter Churchills frontally, especially if you have 2.

I thought putting it in a situation that is more realistic than getting to the back of the Churchill as a casemate tank was a better idea. But I'll do the thing later on when I'm available brother.

Nice on. Thx.

I know, it's freaking stupid. We need proper side armor for CoH3. JohnSmith once posted a good pic in this post. That's how I learned about that...

You used the best possible scenario. It was not a real critique on you, more on the whole discussion of "use StuG vs rear armor Churchill". Won't really work. But overall it is decent enough to counter Churchills frontally, especially if you have 2.

Every time this is brought up i say: we need better hit detection and probable accounting for angles between both vehicles, before we can consider side armor.
I'll rather have the armor vs penetration of a shell be considered based in the relative position of both targets rather than taking into account at which part of the hitbox the shell collides with (specially with scatter shots).

Every time this is brought up i say: we need better hit detection and probable accounting for angles between both vehicles, before we can consider side armor.
I'll rather have the armor vs penetration of a shell be considered based in the relative position of both targets rather than taking into account at which part of the hitbox the shell collides with (specially with scatter shots).

ah well, a man can dream!

though having proper side armor would go a long way already imho. or at the very least having the ability to change the size / proportions of the front and rear armor hitboxes so no longer half of the vehicle counts as 'rear armor'...

ah well, a man can dream!

though having proper side armor would go a long way already imho. or at the very least having the ability to change the size / proportions of the front and rear armor hitboxes so no longer half of the vehicle counts as 'rear armor'...

Ideally yes.

Although i think it's fine for certain vehicles to retain that 50/50 or even higher rear armor proportion if side armor is not possible. Example: Super heavies.

ah well, a man can dream!

though having proper side armor would go a long way already imho. or at the very least having the ability to change the size / proportions of the front and rear armor hitboxes so no longer half of the vehicle counts as 'rear armor'...

or one could simply break the vehicle in 3 part, instead of 50/50.

or one could simply break the vehicle in 3 part, instead of 50/50.

I'm not sure if this would actually improve the game meaningfully. Unless other changes are made, you'll still have cases where shots taken from the "front" of the vehicle could strike the side armour, even at absolutely extreme angles that simply don't make sense (I.e; A shell striking the side armour at 179 degrees), and having a third zone type would arguably make the whole "armour" system more inconsistent, as you're even more likely to strike an "unintended" armour zone.



If the engine makes it possible; A rather crude "solution" would be to compare the position of the attacking unit to that of the vehicle being struck. If, for example, the AT unit were in a 90 degree cone in front of the tank, any hit (regardless of where on the model it actually strikes) would be a "Front armour" strike. So forth and so on for "Side" or "Rear" armour.

I've made a crude mockup to try and help visualising what I mean. Units located in the light green section would always strike "Front" armour, purple section units would always strike "Side" armour, and orange section units would always strike "rear" armour. (The grey box obviously representing a vehicle, and the dark green, yellow, and red lines representing the various armour zones)

Brummbar leads to wipes if you don't retreat after the first shot, and it wipes out it's counter if left alone (ATG guns). With high armor and health you have to be pretty dumb to ever lose the thing while it bleeds you the whole game.

If your opponent has to get a tank destroyer just to scare it off, then you're down fuel/MP while he vomits on you. Even if you had 2 TD's, they won't gib it since it can survive 5 shots. In the hands of a good player you will never kill the thing. As far as fixing it? I'd at least sooner it take 6 AT shots but has lower armor or high armor and 4 AT shots. The high armor mixed with 5 shots is a bit too much imo. Guess its the issue of having Soviets share balance with USF/UKF.

On the churchill, idk what to tell you if you let that slow thing slunk over to your AT gun. If you get a snare off that thing moves 1 mile per hour. Maybe I'm just used to having my AT guns plink every other shot as USF. Does feel good reliably penning on OKW/Ostheer though.

Its the only thing Ost has vs Allied lategame blobs. so leave it alone

On the churchill, idk what to tell you if you let that slow thing slunk over to your AT gun. If you get a snare off that thing moves 1 mile per hour. Maybe I'm just used to having my AT guns plink every other shot as USF. Does feel good reliably penning on OKW/Ostheer though.

Churchill went from broken to mediocre with a small fuel cost increase and a big population increase. It was fast enough to break balance then. I dont see your point.

I think Brumm performance is fine but the popcap is a little bit too low. The unit isnt on the same lvl as OKW P4 or T-34/85 (all 14). I would rather move it to 16 and maybe increase the fuel slightly (5). Avre and Sturmtiger would still have 2 more popcap (18).

Churchill went from broken to mediocre with a small fuel cost increase and a big population increase. It was fast enough to break balance then. I dont see your point.

I think Brumm performance is fine but the popcap is a little bit too low. The unit isnt on the same lvl as OKW P4 or T-34/85 (all 14). I would rather move it to 16 and maybe increase the fuel slightly (5). Avre and Sturmtiger would still have 2 more popcap (18).

Comparing the Pop of main battle tank and AI unit is not very helpful.

Brummbar leads to wipes if you don't retreat after the first shot, and it wipes out it's counter if left alone (ATG guns). With high armor and health you have to be pretty dumb to ever lose the thing while it bleeds you the whole game.

If your opponent has to get a tank destroyer just to scare it off, then you're down fuel/MP while he vomits on you. Even if you had 2 TD's, they won't gib it since it can survive 5 shots. In the hands of a good player you will never kill the thing. As far as fixing it? I'd at least sooner it take 6 AT shots but has lower armor or high armor and 4 AT shots. The high armor mixed with 5 shots is a bit too much imo. Guess its the issue of having Soviets share balance with USF/UKF.

On the churchill, idk what to tell you if you let that slow thing slunk over to your AT gun. If you get a snare off that thing moves 1 mile per hour. Maybe I'm just used to having my AT guns plink every other shot as USF. Does feel good reliably penning on OKW/Ostheer though.

Are you high bro. Every TD cost less than the Brum while also coming from a lower tech level.

Churchill went from broken to mediocre with a small fuel cost increase and a big population increase. It was fast enough to break balance then. I dont see your point.

Nah, Comet got turbo buffed in the same patch and became the defacto Brit lategame because it dwarfed all previously inadequate options at the time. Had nothing to do with the Churchill nerf (The main nerf was the loss of the instant hatch grenade more than anything though.)

Nah, Comet got turbo buffed in the same patch and became the defacto Brit lategame because it dwarfed all previously inadequate options at the time. Had nothing to do with the Churchill nerf (The main nerf was the loss of the instant hatch grenade more than anything though.)

Are you serious?

19 pop cap with heavy engi. repair speed nerf was crucial. There is no point of going for anvil at the moment. Not because Comet is good. Don't forget that Comet also got nerfed a lot.

Are you high bro. Every TD cost less than the Brum while also coming from a lower tech level.

It's more like a tank destroyer for both factions is just a deterrent not a guaranteed kill on said tank. It banks on the fact your opponent fucks up. If he doesn't fuck up, their tank won't die.

It's more like a tank destroyer for both factions is just a deterrent not a guaranteed kill on said tank. It banks on the fact your opponent fucks up. If he doesn't fuck up, their tank won't die.

yes. are you suggesting that they should lose their 35 range casemate tank EVEN if they play it perfectly? thats hardly reasonable....