Commander Update Beta 2021 - Soviet Feedback

Depends on the skill of the user, in the hand a noob it would made difference in that hand of pro one might not even notice.

So that's a "Yes, it's a disadvantage", then?

"1. Obviously having to switch between two shell modes to get good AI or good AT is a disadvantage compared to a tank who has the same AI and AT values combined in one standard shell. I do think this is out of question."

This is a factual statement. If the Sherman had a single round that combined the strength of both the HE and AP shells it possesses, this would be a buff. Ergo: The fact it needs to switch between two shell types is a disadvantage.

If you're looking to attack the idea of buffing the 76 Sherman's non HVAP shell, look for a different vector than trying to argue that shell-switching is not a disadvantage.

So that's a "Yes, it's a disadvantage", then?

Not going to play games.

The only thing I will says is simply depends on too many factor including player skill and power of shell.

In the case of the Shermans currently in the game a little micro allows the better player to get more out of the unit.

This is a factual statement. If the Sherman had a single round that combined the strength of both the HE and AP shells it possesses, this would be a buff. Ergo: The fact it needs to switch between two shell types is a disadvantage.

Now your simply doing mental gymnastics and I can easily respond that:
If the Sherman had a single round that combined the weakness of both the HE and AP shells it possesses, this would be a nerf. Ergo: The fact it needs to switch between two shell types is a advantage.

or that adding HE shell to Easy would be the unit stronger and thus it is advantage
or I can tell that removing the HE shell from Sherman it nerf so having them is advantage.

but lets avoid these pointless arguments.

If you're looking to attack the idea of buffing the 76 Sherman's non HVAP shell, look for a different vector than trying to argue that shell-switching is not a disadvantage.

You got this all wrong. I have simply pointed out that presenting the ability to choose between shell as big disadvantage that cause a sec 6 delay and thus justifying buffing its AOE does not hold any water at all.

As for the 76mm I have made my own suggestion about the 76mm even during its first patch.

Now unless in your opinion 76mm should get a buff to AOE round because it has the "big disadvantage" of having access to HAVP rounds I suggest you move.

If i'm reading this right, Vipper means if you get a specialized shell on top of an already perfectly fine generalist shell, its a buff. If you get 2 non-generalist shells that must be swapped between, its a compromise. The HE shell is pretty good at AoE, while the AP shell has absolute garbage AI. The M4A3 Sherman has 2 specialist shells that seriously cannot do each other's job. The 76mm Sherman has 1 generalist shell and 1 high pen shell, which doesnt make the 2 jobs really diversified.

The 76mm base ammo is actually quite good AT for a medium tank, with strong pen, better than any base medium. It just has miserable AI. The tank relied on its RoF to overcome its worst-in-class AoE characteristics. Its the worst AoE of any medium tank. It has 60% of the P4's 80 damage area.

The high pen ammo lets the 76mm fight with the big lads, with 165 far pen and a monstrous 220 near pen with INCREDIBLY superior accuracy. It has no real AoE to speak of.

HVAP is basically an early attempt at the new E8 Focused Gunnery, because (I assume) the 76mm was hitting the field too close to Panthers, so it had no shock value especially with its crappy AI gun.

I suggest give the base gun some AI AoE to make up for the RoF nerf. Or juice its MGs. I'd prefer a reasonable AoE on the gun, something closer to P4 grade. Especially with how glass cannon the 76mm is for its timing/value.

Not really.

If it is a 75mm Sherman the player can engage the engineers with AP rounds just fine, he has the option to decimate them with HE if he want to. He can then switch after firing adding a slight delay to the reload (that might even be lower than the time required to fire on the new target).
In sort the player used little more micro and got more from his units.

In a similar manner the the player using the 76mm can swamp to HAVP after firing. The difference in performance vs an ostheer PzIV is only substantial at max range. The AP round is even better at point blank.

In sort little micro allows users to get more out of their vehicle.

You are describing a situation where you are forced to commit to firing a round with the Sherman at the infantry one more time instead of being able to instantly engage the enemy tank despite being in an advantageous position to do so. Your comment is self defeating. I hope you realize that I'm not conpletely disagreeing with you. There's no need to tie yourself into knots defending something so blatantly apparent.

You are describing a situation where you are forced to commit to firing a round with the Sherman at the infantry one more time instead of being able to instantly engage the enemy tank despite being in an advantageous position to do so. Your comment is self defeating. I hope you realize that I'm not conpletely disagreeing with you. There's no need to tie yourself into knots defending something so blatantly apparent.

Let start over.

I suggest you read post 634 and 636 at page 32. If you have established context we can debate what you like although I have little to add.

Like I said, I don't consider shell switching to be a disadvantage in the totality of the unit, but in a situation such as this the Sherman is undeniably at a disadvantage. Is it a major one? Likely not so much. But it is a disadvantage nonetheless.

And yes, you could certainly drive everywhere with AP rounds loaded just in case a tank comes out of nowhere, but is that reasonable? I would think that HE rounds would be preferable because of the potential to wipe being a lot higher. Honestly I don't know. My brain isn't big enough to have tried engaging enemy infantry squads with AP rounds to be completely honest. To me it seems like it would be inefficient.

Like I said, I don't consider shell switching to be a disadvantage in the totality of the unit, but in a situation such as this the Sherman is undeniably at a disadvantage. Is it a major one? Likely not so much. But it is a disadvantage nonetheless.

And yes, you could certainly drive everywhere with AP rounds loaded just in case a tank comes out of nowhere, but is that reasonable? I would think that HE rounds would be preferable because of the potential to wipe being a lot higher. Honestly I don't know. My brain isn't big enough to have tried engaging enemy infantry squads with AP rounds to be completely honest. To me it seems like it would be inefficient.

It nice to see that you seem agree that "switchable munitions" argument as reason to buff the AP does not hold water.

The rest is simply out of context and I see little reason to debate especially in this thread, it also seems to move the debate away from it purpose.

As I posted even when 76mm was patched for the first time I would rather see the 76mm come at the same price as 75mm Sherman and be balanced accordingly having a more AT role.

Being able to choose from AP and HAVP rounds is an option for the 76mm Sherman the same way that being able to choose from HE is an option for the 75mm Sherman. It is no away disadvantage.

Look, it's the same argument I made for the rapid shell switch disadvantage. Just imagine the enemy tank as something with higher armor. The point still stands that you'll have to commit to a shot or waste it on the other tank. That is a disadvantage, no matter how you put it.

unlike M4 He shell, AP shell from M4c, M4 76mm can hurt Pz4h, panther if it pen. If it wont ? push U asap
every time you switch shell, you are commit to trade off, that is true disadvantage.
Not to mention is real combat condion, panic pressing switch shell happend and it costed you a game. Or just simple a wild panther, new pz4 come from nowhere while M4C already have 75-50% hp and switch shell after detroyed Pz4

After having read the posts, Vipper agrees it's a disadvantage but she refuses to agree with other people to use the word disadvantage to describe it even though it is.

one more issue concerning the M4C's limited AI is that the standardization of the .5 cal pintles across all sherman variants in the winter balance patch has left it with markedly less (up to 25% at range 35) combined MG DPS. this is due to the fact that the M4C uses different hull and coax MGs with lower damage output, which used to be in part compensated by the stronger pintle mount. now that this is no longer the case (unless ofc i missed sth in the patch notes) maybe the turret/hull MGs could also get standardized?

one more issue concerning the M4C's limited AI is that the standardization of the .5 cal pintles across all sherman variants in the winter balance patch has left it with markedly less (up to 25% at range 35) combined MG DPS. this is due to the fact that the M4C uses different hull and coax MGs with lower damage output, which used to be in part compensated by the stronger pintle mount. now that this is no longer the case (unless ofc i missed sth in the patch notes) maybe the turret/hull MGs could also get standardized?

Can I ask 1 question, Isn't the point of Balance not to make 1 type unit spams less desirable and encourage combined arms. The T34/76 already has more than enough AI power. There is no need for the M4C Sherman into a no brainer unit.

So can the Ariborne weapon crate be redesigned for Penals. Currently it's useless for peanls.
Also maybe allowing these things to give ptrs to AB guards might be decent to if one needed ptrs in a pinch.

Can I ask 1 question, Isn't the point of Balance not to make 1 type unit spams less desirable and encourage combined arms. The T34/76 already has more than enough AI power. There is no need for the M4C Sherman into a no brainer unit.

not sure why this would turn the M4C into a 'no brainer', the unit is already relatively bad AI-wise, and will be even less potent (75mm-sherman-on-AT-rounds-bad to be precise) if the ROF nerf goes live as is. i see no reason why the MGs should't be at least on par with that of any other sherman variant in the game, even if only for consistency's sake. after all i don't think the reason for the current nerf was that the M4C was too good versus infantry, but rather that the regular AT shells were too potent against even heavily armored tanks.

not sure why this would turn the M4C into a 'no brainer', the unit is already relatively bad AI-wise, and will be even less potent (75mm-sherman-on-AT-rounds-bad to be precise) if the ROF nerf goes live as is. i see no reason why the MGs should't be at least on par with that of any other sherman variant in the game, even if only for consistency's sake. after all i don't think the reason for the current nerf was that the M4C was too good versus infantry, but rather that the regular AT shells were too potent against even heavily armored tanks.

There is very little reason to have different mgs on the 76mm Sherman they should be fixed.

How many of you people actually play soviets?

After all i don't think the reason for the current nerf was that the M4C was too good versus infantry, but rather that the regular AT shells were too potent against even heavily armored tanks.

Yeah I do think this too. In the current version you don't really need to change to HVAP since the 2 seconds faster RoF of the AP shells with lower penetration somehow lead pretty much to the same DPS versus higher armored targets, making the switch to HVAP not very desireable because it has no AOE for fighting infantry. RNG versus heavy armored targets is higher with AP but at average the performance is similar.

So regarding this, the nerf to RoF was a good decision, but it lead to the opposite in the outcome sadly. Now you want HVAP most of the time, its greater accuracy plus penetration works better versus nearly all armored targets M4C has to face usually at its timing. Switching to AP hasn't enough AI value to risk getting surprised by a tank having your pants down. You are better off to rely on the MGs for fighting infantry.

To correct this mistake either revert RoF nerf and lower penetration of AP instead or keep RoF nerf and buff AOE profile of AP shell.

Buffing MGs doesn't lead to the situation where a shell switch is a real decision. It will only lead to the situation that M4C will rely even more on MGs for fighting infantry and stay in HVAP mode.

Standard MGs per faction REALLY helps with readability. Its an easy fix that improvew play.

Standard MGs per faction REALLY helps with readability. Its an easy fix that improvew play.

I agree. Imo ALL mgs should be the primary AI for tanks and cannon AI should be a bonus for AI tanks. Would go a long way to making things more reliable and more distinct. Perhaps a design for a different game