When Relic call that an anti-tank gun

0.5 x 40 = 20 not 15.

How much time do you think that 4 T-70 need to fire 8 rounds?

Point here is that deflection damage promotes spamming vehicles while making Super heavies unable to cope. Already 3 SU-76 can take out an Elephant without any deflection damage, try to imagine what would happen if deflection damage was added.

Both the accuracy mechanisms and armor mechanism are good mechanisms that add dept to combat. People who do not like them should probably stick to AOE or other titles that do not have RNG elements.

AoE has RNG elements for ranged combat, as well as resource distribution/map generation.

Single 270 manpower AT gun didn't destroy the King Tiger, which costs 720manpower and 260 fuel and all tech structures to be built, which he could afford after getting a flame hetzer. OP! Imbalance! Lelic learn to balance pls!!!! It even killed 7 models across 40 seconds, like any medium tank could have!!!!

Man I wish USF had a high-speed 60 range tank destroyer with a really high penetration value (along with Vet 0 HVAP) which I could comfortably afford with my 500 manpower and 150 fuel in the bank! I would totally build such a unit which comfortably outranges and hard counters heavy tanks.

0.5 x 40 = 20 not 15.

How much time do you think that 4 T-70 need to fire 8 rounds?

Point here is that deflection damage promotes spamming vehicles while making Super heavies unable to cope. Already 3 SU-76 can take out an Elephant without any deflection damage, try to imagine what would happen if deflection damage was added.

Both the accuracy mechanisms and armor mechanism are good mechanisms that add dept to combat. People who do not like them should probably stick to AOE or other titles that do not have RNG elements.

Yeah 20, my bad. In any case t70 I belive have around 2.3 or so ROF, meaning that it needs around 10 seconds, to deal 160 damage.

And honestly I dont think that horde of T70 should be able to kill KT. Like lets be real here, the only and single possible scenario when it might happen if KT is completly unsupported, but thats my imo.
Anyway deflection values and chances in vCoH werent universal and were specific for for pretty much any projectile, so such situations\units could have been ajusted to fit the game better.

As for spamming, the fact that game only has only hit\miss and pen\non-pen AT hits only promotes spamming high penetration units and massing AT guns or having TDs in the game balanced around solely the idea that they pottentually will be fighing heavy tanks, therefore they need godlike penetration values making them no-brainer against all types of armor. Honestly dont know what is worst.

Fact is in vCoH it worked, KT was a godlike tank in vCoH and only few units had cappabilities of actually penetrating it frontally, but since deflection damage existed it allowed your AT units to keep at least some value against it by dealing cheap damage to it. If it was CoH2, then pretty much all your AT units would have become obsolete the second vCoH like KT hits the field.

Man I wish USF had a high-speed 60 range tank destroyer with a really high penetration value (along with Vet 0 HVAP) which I could comfortably afford with my 500 manpower and 150 fuel in the bank!

It's a 400mp 145fu tank with Vet 1 HVAP, the M10 is the one that gets Vet 0 HVAP. Still, I agree with the sentiment.

Fact is in vCoH it worked, KT was a godlike tank in vCoH and only few units had cappabilities of actually penetrating it frontally, but since deflection damage existed it allowed your AT units to keep at least some value against it by dealing cheap damage to it. If it was CoH2, then pretty much all your AT units would have become obsolete the second vCoH like KT hits the field.

Honestly I think the CoH2 system works with the units its balanced around. Of course the vCoh KT would obsolete all CoH2 AT weapons, it's because it was made for a different game.

It all depends on the balance philosophy. You could easily argue for it both ways. I mean, in reality, how much better would it be if massed AT can still do damage regardless of penetration? I don't see how it mitigates the problem of AT saturation. If anything I feel like it would exacerbate it. Though it would certainly make heavy tanks less effective, it also means that heavy tanks have to have extra health added to them if every AT weapon in the game has the ability to deal damage to it. Otherwise why would you buy a big moving target that gets damaged by everything, period?

I think that with the addition of side armor in CoH3, such deflection damage is going to be unnecessary. Flanks don't have to be as deep to make heavy tanks less effective.

Yeah 20, my bad. In any case t70 I belive have around 2.3 or so ROF, meaning that it needs around 10 seconds, to deal 160 damage.

And honestly I dont think that horde of T70 should be able to kill KT. Like lets be real here, the only and single possible scenario when it might happen if KT is completly unsupported, but thats my imo.
Anyway deflection values and chances in vCoH werent universal and were specific for for pretty much any projectile, so such situations\units could have been ajusted to fit the game better.

As for spamming, the fact that game only has only hit\miss and pen\non-pen AT hits only promotes spamming high penetration units and massing AT guns or having TDs in the game balanced around solely the idea that they pottentually will be fighing heavy tanks, therefore they need godlike penetration values making them no-brainer against all types of armor. Honestly dont know what is worst.

Fact is in vCoH it worked, KT was a godlike tank in vCoH and only few units had cappabilities of actually penetrating it frontally, but since deflection damage existed it allowed your AT units to keep at least some value against it by dealing cheap damage to it. If it was CoH2, then pretty much all your AT units would have become obsolete the second vCoH like KT hits the field.

Main difference here is that most high penetration are specialized and thus not so good vs soft targets. Now what reason would there be to even build specialized units if 2 mediums tanks could do perform equally good vs heavily armored vehicles and bring AI on top of that?

As for the "no brainer" TD that was a design decision taken by the MOD team and a bad one in my opinion. There are other solutions.

Main difference here is that most high penetration are specialized and thus not so good vs soft targets. Now what reason would there be to even build specialized units if 2 mediums tanks could do perform equally good vs heavily armored vehicles and bring AI on top of that?

As for the "no brainer" TD that was a design decision taken by the MOD team and a bad one in my opinion. There are other solutions.

The first part is not true. Many heavy tanks have high penetration, yet are generalist tanks and petform well vs infantry.

I'd personally like more deflection damage in the game.
I see the same issue as GachiGasm: The current system promotes high pen units because of reliability and holds down lower tier units because of that. People tend to favor reliability. No one wants to lose a game because you get bad RNG once in the game which breaks your army after having played 30 min. At the same time heavy TDs need to perform well against everything, which makes them quite expensive both cost and pop wise.
If heavy TDs are not forced anymore to perform well against cheaper units, they could get a better design.

The first part is not true. Many heavy tanks have high penetration, yet are generalist tanks and petform well vs infantry.

I'd personally like more deflection damage in the game.
I see the same issue as GachiGasm: The current system promotes high pen units because of reliability and holds down lower tier units because of that. People tend to favor reliability. No one wants to lose a game because you get bad RNG once in the game which breaks your army after having played 30 min. At the same time heavy TDs need to perform well against everything, which makes them quite expensive both cost and pop wise.
If heavy TDs are not forced anymore to perform well against cheaper units, they could get a better design.

No, heavy TD do not "need to perform well against everything" and they are not forced to, that is choice not necessity.

Giving deflection damage to all vehicles would be a very bad change and so would giving them 100% chance to hit.

No, heavy TD do not "need to perform well against everything" and they are not forced to, that is choice not necessity.

Giving deflection damage to all vehicles would be a very bad change and so would giving them 100% chance to hit.

I respect this as your opinion, but there is not much reasoning behind it. It's not about penetration as you claimed. Promoting spamming is only the case if the deflection damage is too high, but that is a balance issue and not a general design issue. PTRS also do deflection damage, but no one spams them because there are serious trade offs to that.

Overall most of this is inherent to the general way penetration functions in this game. I hope CoH3 sees a rework for the system. There should be a benefit to overpenetration by increasing damage or triggering criticals, similar to the wargame series and also similar to what you suggested if I understood you correctly.

I respect this as your opinion, but there is not much reasoning behind it. It's not about penetration as you claimed. Promoting spamming is only the case if the deflection damage is too high, but that is a balance issue and not a general design issue. PTRS also do deflection damage, but no one spams them because there are serious trade offs to that.

Overall most of this is inherent to the general way penetration functions in this game. I hope CoH3 sees a rework for the system. There should be a benefit to overpenetration by increasing damage or triggering criticals, similar to the wargame series and also similar to what you suggested if I understood you correctly.

Context:

They should make it like COH1 that bouncing shot should at least having some damage. Miss and bouncing shot is so frustrating.

Now if in you agree with Porygon that all shots fired by vehicle should hit and damage other vehicles pls explain why.

Imo having Luch do damage to IS-2 with every shot fired would be a very bad change.

Now if in you agree with Porygon that all shots fired by vehicle should hit and damage other vehicles pls explain why.

He clearly speaks about bouncing shots (i.e deflection shots) and then he states that misses and bounces are frustrating. Where it came from that all shots fired should deal damage?

Not to mention that "luchs damaging IS2" wont happen, since not all the guns are capable to deal deflection damage and its based on unit penetration and targer armor. It didnt work like PTRS in CoH2, which just deals deflection damage.

It all depends on the balance philosophy. You could easily argue for it both ways. I mean, in reality, how much better would it be if massed AT can still do damage regardless of penetration? I don't see how it mitigates the problem of AT saturation. If anything I feel like it would exacerbate it. Though it would certainly make heavy tanks less effective, it also means that heavy tanks have to have extra health added to them if every AT weapon in the game has the ability to deal damage to it. Otherwise why would you buy a big moving target that gets damaged by everything, period?

Quite simply, because right now AT guns are made in the way that they are supposed to fight heavy tanks. In other words, they are almost always garantee to give you penetrations against pretty much every single armored unit, with an exeption of P4J (which can have RNG Jesus immortality) and units like Comet\Panther. If AT guns were able to still deal damage (not the full one) to heavy tanks via deflection, that pottentually would have allowed them to be balanced vs mediums aswell.

Hell, best example is the whole TD philosophy we have right now in CoH2 and the sole reason of which was the existance of heavy tanks and the fact non-penetrating shots are pretty much equal to misses.

Now if in you agree with Porygon that all shots fired by vehicle should hit and damage other vehicles pls explain why.

He already did, and he didn't say "all shots". You even quoted the post in which he explained his reasoning (#28)

Imo having Luch do damage to IS-2 with every shot fired would be a very bad change.

And now you're taking his suggestion out of context. You know damn well he wasn't suggesting your ridiculous luchs example

He was CLEARLY talking about AT vehicles/tanks with lower pen and comparing them to TDs with higher pen

Now if in you agree with Porygon that all shots fired by vehicle should hit and damage other vehicles pls explain why.

Imo having Luch do damage to IS-2 with every shot fired would be a very bad change.

Please go back an reread what people have written. No one suggested that all vehicles must have deflection damage. Take the suggestion for what makes sense, not for a super extreme case that has not been fully excluded by someone. Also, please don't state suggestive things about what I have written or intended, if that has not been the case.

As is, deflection damage is generally deleted from CoH2. The all or nothing coin flip has caused lighter units to disappear in the late game since they can barely contribute to the foght anymore. They become pop cost inefficient compared to higher tier units. The existance of heavy armor then forces all factions to have access to high penetration units, otherwise heavies become a game ender. Those high pen units (TDs and ATGs) in turn shit on medium armor, which is why from 2v2 upwards you'll always see a Panther and Comet spam. Due to similar reasons, other units such as the StuG, JP4 and SU76 disappear from the late game: Because they might be unreliable when they need to perform against heavier armor.

Have a look at the current KV2: Its penetration values are actually laughably bad for such an expensive unit. But the deflection damage allows it to at least supplement and support against heavy armor, being a decent threat to medium armor while dominating none of it. Even a OST P4 can bounce a KV2 shell. The chance of the KV2 triple shotting a P4 is about 35%, so it is there, but more often than not you'll need 4 shots, making the KV2 a deterrent, but not dominating any armor.
The option would be to delete deflection damage, which would in turn force higher penetration to a level that mediums are surely or very reliably penetrated. This decreases the value of lighter units and we loop back to what I wrote above

He clearly speaks about bouncing shots (i.e deflection shots) and then he states that misses and bounces are frustrating. Where it came from that all shots fired should deal damage?

Not to mention that "luchs damaging IS2" wont happen, since not all the guns are capable to deal deflection damage and its based on unit penetration and targer armor. It didnt work like PTRS in CoH2, which just deals deflection damage.

I suggest you ask him what he means.


(You have posted something that seems like quoted of something I have posted when it is not pls fix it.)

Thanks for fixing your post.

Please go back an reread what people have written. No one suggested that all vehicles must have deflection damage. Take the suggestion for what makes sense, not for a super extreme case that has not been fully excluded by someone. Also, please don't state suggestive things about what I have written or intended, if that has not been the case.

This is the original post I have responded to:

They should make it like COH1 that bouncing shot should at least having some damage. Miss and bouncing shot is so frustrating.

when I read that, I understand that user is suggesting that each shot from any vehicle should always do damage to any target. I am might have misunderstood and maybe he can clarify.

For me that is a bad suggestion.

As is, deflection damage is generally deleted from CoH2. The all or nothing coin flip has caused lighter units to disappear in the late game since they can barely contribute to the foght anymore. They become pop cost inefficient compared to higher tier units. The existance of heavy armor then forces all factions to have access to high penetration units, otherwise heavies become a game ender. Those high pen units (TDs and ATGs) in turn shit on medium armor, which is why from 2v2 upwards you'll always see a Panther and Comet spam. Due to similar reasons, other units such as the StuG, JP4 and SU76 disappear from the late game: Because they might be unreliable when they need to perform against heavier armor.

Have a look at the current KV2: Its penetration values are actually laughably bad for such an expensive unit. But the deflection damage allows it to at least supplement and support against heavy armor, being a decent threat to medium armor while dominating none of it. Even a OST P4 can bounce a KV2 shell. The chance of the KV2 triple shotting a P4 is about 35%, so it is there, but more often than not you'll need 4 shots, making the KV2 a deterrent, but not dominating any armor.
The option would be to delete deflection damage, which would in turn force higher penetration to a level that mediums are surely or very reliably penetrated. This decreases the value of lighter units and we loop back to what I wrote above

If some one suggests something specific about which unit should have deflection damage and how much that deflection damage should be I give my point of view. The only thing I have pointed out so far is that making every shot from every vehicle do damage would be a bad change.

This idea that mises or bounces are frustrating but scoring 4 damage hits in row from T-34/76 on PzIV (or any other rare occurrence roll) is not frustrating simply does not make sense to me.

This idea that mises or bounces are frustrating but scoring 4 damage hits in row from T-34/76 on PzIV (or any other rare occurrence roll) is not frustrating simply does not make sense to me.

Who said that's not also frustrating? And how does this have anything to do with Hannibal's idea?

If anything his idea seems like it would help the p4. He's literally talking about reducing the dominance of TDs...

Who said that's not also frustrating? And how does this have anything to do with Hannibal's idea?

If anything his idea seems like it would help the p4. He's literally talking about reducing the dominance of TDs...

I find your line of arguing non constructive so I will not respond to it.

If you have suggestion to make about which unit should do deflection and how much pls make it.

If you disagree with my point of view that making all shot from vehicles do damage to all targets even from to T-70 to KT pls explain why.

Regards.

I find your line of arguing non constructive so I will not respond to it.

You mean you don't feel like answering the question. Then I'll do it for you, nobody said that your example of RNG wasn't frustrating

Not to mention your t34/p4 example had very little to do with Hannibal's suggestion. If anything this change would help with that just as much as it does with frustrating bounces

If you have suggestion to make about which unit should do deflection and how much pls make it.

If you disagree with my point of view that making all shot from vehicles do damage to all targets even from to T-70 to KT pls explain why.

I like his suggestion which is far larger in scope than a single example. It's about rebalancing penetration altogether to make heavy TDs less necessary. But you're well aware of this already

On top of that you keep choosing examples that are clearly outside of what he's talking about

Regards

I acually like the idea of making the armor-pen system a bit less binary by introducing deflection damage as Hannibal and others suggested. Of course the exact value would have to be chosen wisely in order for the game not to become too arcadey, but sth like 1/8 to 1/4 of the regular damage on penetration could be reasonable. Not only would this reduce the reliance on high-pen AT vs heavily armored tanks somewhat and keep mediums relevant in later stages of the game, but it could also kind of break up the rigid HP tiering a bit. Especially the latter would be interesting as it would give other AT options that don't operate by the 80/160 dmg formula, such as some hand-held AT and snares, a bit more room to shine.
Obviously, such a radical redesign is pretty much out of the question for CoH2, but it might be an option worth considering for the sequel nontheless.