USA M1(ATgun) Balanced? Or OKW P4 unbalanced?

Is an Atgun that be deflected 4 times in a row by a stock premium tank armor while spending 30 munitions in an increase penetration ability balanced?




Like I mean, let's imagine a HMG that neither suppress or damage infantry during 4 bursts. (no comparison with the Maxim please). Or even worst, you use incendiary round on your HMG and nothing happens.
That's just a medium tank, not a panther or tiger or comet or churchill or IS2 or whatever, just the usual medium tank you've to face during any game vs OKW.

How are you supposed to have a fair game if everything so important such as repelling a tank is decided by such high rate of RNG?

other/none

Stock P4J for OKW is a joke. OKW should have the Ost O4 stock and the P4J doctrinal.

No "none" option makes it just a biased 'lost to rng once' poll

No "none" option makes it just a biased 'lost to rng once' poll

Once? and its not like I'm recording every time OKW P4 is shitting on USF Atgun

A [red OP/blue UP/yes, but explain why] poll is just pointless

maybe i would even agree with you but this is just a biased thread

Other: RNG

Conversely, you haven't shown the times where it dies to 4 shots normally and you have effectively an overpriced pz iv

A [red OP/blue UP/yes, but explain why] poll is just pointless

maybe i would even agree with you but this is just a biased thread

Thanks for your participation then.

Other: RNG

Conversely, you haven't shown the times where it dies to 4 shots normally and you have effectively an overpriced pz iv

Ready the thread and you'll see that effectively it is about RNG. Now the question is if the RNG cursor is where it should be between USF M1 and OKW P4 even when adding a 30 munition tax for the M1 allow such situation.

Vet 1 M1 with APDS ammo has a (130x1.5)/234 = 0.83 or 83% chance to pen a P4J at max (60) range. Even more, at 60 range, when you use Take Aim.

Bad RNG happens, and that sucks, but that doesn't mean something is UP or OP.

Vet 1 M1 with APDS ammo has a (130x1.5)/234 = 0.83 or 83% chance to pen a P4J at max range. Should be even more, at 60 range, when you use Take Aim.

Bad RNG happens, and that sucks, but that doesn't mean something is UP or OP.

This. It's also not a "high rate" of rng. If anything a medium with lower armor would be a "higher rate" of RNG because a 50/50 chance to pen would be more unpredictable. The numbers are what they are. This video is useless.

Ready the thread and you'll see that effectively it is about RNG. Now the question is if the RNG cursor is where it should be between USF M1 and OKW P4 even when adding a 30 munition tax for the M1 allow such situation.

If I was unclear, I think the stats (or as you put it "RNG cursor") are fine for what the costs are. Esp with that RoF vs the latest arriving nondoc medium.

Vet 1 M1 with APDS ammo has a (130x1.5)/234 = 0.83 or 83% chance to pen a P4J at max (60) range. Even more, at 60 range, when you use Take Aim.

Bad RNG happens, and that sucks, but that doesn't mean something is UP or OP.

So why the balance team some time ago nerfed the armor of the Jackson to ensure P4 has 100% chance to pen it at max range. Wasn't there also a case of bad RNG?

M36 Jackson

In order to make the Jackson slightly more vulnerable to medium tanks when caught out of position, its armor has be decreased.

Armor from 130 to 110

P4 Basic

Damage
160
Accuracy near
0.05
Accuracy mid
0.0375
Accuracy far
0.025
Range near
0
Range mid
20
Range far
40
Range
0 - 40
Penetration near
125
Penetration mid
115
Penetration far
110

BAD RNG.

Some suggested at certain ranges there should be at least damage and no RNG for it to be an e-sport game.

like an AT who shoots in front of it shouldn't miss and at far there's a 50% chance of missing.

Something like that.

Well, raketeen miss 90% of its shot, especially on sloped terrains. lol

While I do think that stock OKW P4 has a tad higher armour than it should, this is just pure bad luck IMHO.

And that's why I never go for the M1-57 in teamgames. Just get double zook on RE, double zook on major and with the AA HT and double pak howi to plug the no-bar rifles and you're good to go. Won't go on the offensive as zooks don't have 60 range, but you'll be great on the defensive against any and all P4 dives.

So why the balance team some time ago nerfed the armor of the Jackson to ensure P4 has 100% chance to pen it at max range. Wasn't there also a case of bad RNG?

Because that's a case of a medium tank making it into the "vulnerable" range of a TD. The TD shouldn't be in a position to be hit by the P4. It's not quite a comparable situation.

Because that's a case of a medium tank making it into the "vulnerable" range of a TD. The TD shouldn't be in a position to be hit by the P4. It's not quite a comparable situation.

One could also say "P4 should not be able to repair on the frontline and bounce AP shots in a row. The P4 shouldn't be in a position to be hit by the AT gun".

This is pure bad RNG, but still, that's not an argument that holds water, that these are different scenarios.

So why the balance team some time ago nerfed the armor of the Jackson to ensure P4 has 100% chance to pen it at max range. Wasn't there also a case of bad RNG?

Because jacksons have 20 range adv on p4s, can match their mobility, 220 max range pen and costs a whooping 5 fuel more. The jackson should win if you play it correctly and map allowing. The issue was when the jackson was caught out of position it could get away potentially if the p4 bounces.

You had the best AT gun in the game in that situation as you had more pen with APDS and higher RoF, any other AT gun would have worse chances to pen in that situation. It was pretty bad RNG to bounce 4 times in a row but it happens. I had my puma frontally pen an IS-2 like 3 weeks ago, and just yesterday I had my su-85 bounce 4 times on the Tiger 1. It sucks but it happens.

Because jacksons have 20 range adv on p4s, can match their mobility, 220 max range pen and costs a whooping 5 fuel more. The jackson should win if you play it correctly and map allowing. The issue was when the jackson was caught out of position it could get away potentially if the p4 bounces.

You had the best AT gun in the game in that situation as you had more pen with APDS and higher RoF, any other AT gun would have worse chances to pen in that situation. It was pretty bad RNG to bounce 4 times in a row but it happens. I had my puma frontally pen an IS-2 like 3 weeks ago, and just yesterday I had my su-85 bounce 4 times on the Tiger 1. It sucks but it happens.

Show me a map where you're always have max range advantage with your Jackson, except Steppe en 4vs4, there are none, True is map are designed so max range is difficult to use.
P4j have advantage on Sherman, which make the Jackson only reliable counter to P4j. Your examples are about a unit that face a vehicle from a different category and as I stated I'd agree with the situation if I were facing a heavy tank but here it is just the usual medium tank.

And M1 isn't the best Atgun in game and even if, that's doesn't make it an argument since its facing much higher armor.

One could also say "P4 should not be able to repair on the frontline and bounce AP shots in a row. The P4 shouldn't be in a position to be hit by the AT gun".

This is pure bad RNG, but still, that's not an argument that holds water, that these are different scenarios.

The P4 repairing isnt relevant to it bouncing shots/being on the frontline though. It would/could have been taking that fire without the Sturms repairing it, and it would have made no functional difference to the situation. Unless you're suggesting tanks being repaired should have an increased vulnerability to AT fire, though that's a totally seperate subject.

Medium tanks are expected to be on/near the frontlines and to receive fire from AT guns, this interaction is expected throughout the game, in pretty much all medium-based engagements.

Conversely; Tank Destroyers shouldn't be taking return fire from the mediums they're attacking unless you've made a massive mistake. TDs outrange mediums and so they dictate terms. AT guns similarly outrange Mediums.

They're entirely different scenarios even if you're wanting to invent a really contrived reason they aren't.

Show me a map where you're always have max range advantage with your Jackson, except Steppe en 4vs4, there are none, True is map are designed so max range is difficult to use.
P4j have advantage on Sherman, which make the Jackson only reliable counter to P4j. Your examples are about a unit that face a vehicle from a different category and as I stated I'd agree with the situation if I were facing a heavy tank but here it is just the usual medium tank.

And M1 isn't the best Atgun in game and even if, that's doesn't make it an argument since its facing much higher armor.

Which maps are in the rotation that have no access to 41-60 range overlooks? You can use the Jackson's range advantage against a P4 in pretty much any realistic scenario you'd want to.

The P4j isnt an "usual" medium tank. It's the latest-arriving and highest-cost medium going.

The M1 is arguably one of the best AT guns going, the range/vision advantage alone is a massive boon. The main downside of the thing is the constant muni investment. The ZiS and PAK-40 can certainly be argued to be on-par with it though.

The P4 repairing isnt relevant to it bouncing shots/being on the frontline though. It would/could have been taking that fire without the Sturms repairing it, and it would have made no functional difference to the situation. Unless you're suggesting tanks being repaired should have an increased vulnerability to AT fire, though that's a totally seperate subject.

Medium tanks are expected to be on/near the frontlines and to receive fire from AT guns, this interaction is expected throughout the game, in pretty much all medium-based engagements.

Conversely; Tank Destroyers shouldn't be taking return fire from the mediums they're attacking unless you've made a massive mistake. TDs outrange mediums and so they dictate terms. AT guns similarly outrange Mediums.

They're entirely different scenarios even if you're wanting to invent a really contrived reason they aren't.



Which maps are in the rotation that have no access to 41-60 range overlooks? You can use the Jackson's range advantage against a P4 in pretty much any realistic scenario you'd want to.

The P4j isnt an "usual" medium tank. It's the latest-arriving and highest-cost medium going.

The M1 is arguably one of the best AT guns going, the range/vision advantage alone is a massive boon. The main downside of the thing is the constant muni investment. The ZiS and PAK-40 can certainly be argued to be on-par with it though.

Ok, I'll take your argumentation, so the best Atgun in game can bounce 4 times in a row vs a medium tank. You're just making the P4j smelling OPness with such argumentation.
Then about its timing, if that was a relevant argument then the Ostheer version should be the worst medium tank since its the first hitting the field in any condition.

As much as tank destroyer shouldn't survive if catch off guard, medium tank should have the same treatment, I catch it off-guard and had time to fire 5 times, same issue same outcome should be made.