Login

russian armor

Panzer 4 penetration.

4 Nov 2015, 02:50 AM
#61
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384



Because it costs 15 fuel more yet hardly does better than a Sherman. Yet for 15 fuel more than the Panzer IV you get the Easy Eight which utterly dominates it. The Panzer IV is either overpriced or under-performing in relation to these units.


Comparing units cross faction is pretty dumb, yo.

They're in different armies and function very differently within them. Next you're going to tell me that the Jackson is either overpriced or under-performing in relation to the Stug or Firefly and the Luchs is way too cost effective compared to the T70 or Stuart.

Similar role doesn't mean you should make 1:1 comparisons. Does a Sherman have Pak40's to support it? Does a Sherman have Stugs to support it? Does a Sherman have teller mines to screen for it?


Cost is about controlling the time a unit appears and how frequently it can appear. It is not a measure of unit performance, although there is often a correlation between the two for balance reasons.







4 Nov 2015, 03:34 AM
#62
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

IMO pennetration values need to be overhauled completely. While Front armour is working as intended for meds vs heavies, rear armour certainly isn't especially when it comes to flanking.

Its frustrating to see when you successfully pull off a flank in your meds only to find that your shot just bounces off because lel rear armour values.

Maybe all meds need a penn buff - to compensate, heavy frontal armour needs a armour buff but rear armour needs a relative nerf as well.

Certainly by 1944, just about all mediums had the pennetration to deal with each other should they score a hit, yet this is not reflected in the game, a lot of shells in med vs med bounce off.
Hat
4 Nov 2015, 04:24 AM
#63
avatar of Hat

Posts: 166



Because it costs 15 fuel more yet hardly does better than a Sherman.


The Sherman is for anti-infantry. Its anti-tank roll is supposed to be very limited.
4 Nov 2015, 04:52 AM
#64
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

Anti infantry but 75 mm ap round penetration better Pz4 at close range
4 Nov 2015, 05:38 AM
#65
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Nov 2015, 04:24 AMHat


The Sherman is for anti-infantry. Its anti-tank roll is supposed to be very limited.


Not really.... Even the Sherman could deal with the Pz 4 reasonably effectively, as they found in North Africa, so they didn't really change their tanks much because it was fine against the backbone German Tank.

Of course, it suffered in Normandy against Panthers and Tigers in direct engagements - they couldn't effectively deal with Panther/Tiger frontal armour.
4 Nov 2015, 05:57 AM
#66
avatar of Maschinengewehr

Posts: 334

There's a little thing called a StuG III if you want more penetration. The P4 trades off AT power for more AI power. It's fine.
4 Nov 2015, 07:54 AM
#67
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928

There's a little thing called a StuG III if you want more penetration. The P4 trades off AT power for more AI power. It's fine.


No-one is asking for Pz 4s to penn HTs frontally.

They just want enough penn to penn main mediums frontally and rear of heavy tanks, which I'm perfectly fine with.

FTR, I believe all med tanks should reliably penn each other - they certainly did by 1944, no-one had a real advantage when it came to armour vs guns.
4 Nov 2015, 08:18 AM
#68
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

Penetration from 110 to 140 would do wonders in my opinion. Or at least on par with shermans.
4 Nov 2015, 10:25 AM
#69
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

Penetration less than sherman is a disgrace.Or reduce cost to 115 fuel.
4 Nov 2015, 10:52 AM
#70
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

Armor higher than sherman
For now Panzer 4 need avoid battle other tank with close range
and now use no more than 1 tank by use stug 3 or other tank
4 Nov 2015, 11:05 AM
#71
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2819

Why do people think that because a tank is German and if it doesn't roflstop everything in the game then it needs a buff


Exactly.
Moderate tanks are considered bad tanks here.

There is nothing wrong with this tank. It doesn't rek everything in its way but it is an excellent tank that scales extremely well in the later game.
Penetration is ok.
4 Nov 2015, 11:10 AM
#72
avatar of hubewa

Posts: 928



Exactly.
Moderate tanks are considered bad tanks here.

There is nothing wrong with this tank. It doesn't rek everything in its way but it is an excellent tank that scales extremely well in the later game.
Penetration is ok.


I'd agree with you except for med vs med performance and med vs heavy rear armour performance. There should be a buff so that all meds can reliably penn each other and they can reliably penn heavies.

That was what it was like in 1944 WW2, I don't see why this can't happen in CoH2.
4 Nov 2015, 11:14 AM
#73
avatar of bicho1

Posts: 168

After PanzerIV buff, what will happen to T34 and Sherman? Evolving from useless to garbage?

This game is not Axis vs British game, please consider those situation unless you are a fanboy.


+1!!!
Aixe allwase cry for more if panzer get a buff t34 and sherman get them too !!!!
4 Nov 2015, 11:23 AM
#74
avatar of bicho1

Posts: 168

Pershing need a buff
2 stugs take him out ...
Efter this unit we can talk about the p4
4 Nov 2015, 12:07 PM
#75
avatar of zarok47

Posts: 587



Comparing units cross faction is pretty dumb, yo.



Except when you compared units cross faction?



Do riflemen have satchel charges, come from the same building as a clown car and get Oorah at vet 2?

It's a fucking comparison, they are very similar (Good damage, not squishy) units with flamers.


4 Nov 2015, 16:45 PM
#76
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

Why do people think that because a tank is German and if it doesn't roflstop everything in the game then it needs a buff


Sums up the thread. P4 is fine for its cost and timing. You can use P4 for both infantry engagements and tanks. I use Sherman exclusively for anti infantry and use AT guns for anti tank.
4 Nov 2015, 18:19 PM
#77
avatar of Dullahan

Posts: 1384



Except when you compared units cross faction?




A very different sort of comparison. I was refuting the idea that main line battle infantry with flamers is inherently imbalanced. Penal batts are certainly balance in their role, I don't think anyone would argue that.



6 Nov 2015, 16:15 PM
#78
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

Newsflash:

T34s and shermans are also highly ineffective vs axis heavy armor.

You don't use medium tanks vs heavy tanks, you use TDs and ATGs with medium tanks protecting them from inf mainly.

I am inclined to agree. INCLINED, but not completely agreed.


Mostly because I would've wanted to say it first.
6 Nov 2015, 16:41 PM
#79
avatar of boc120

Posts: 245

I think that all tanks should have rear armor that is weak enough for any other tank to penetrate it. I don't care how strong Tiger or Churchill rear armor was in real life, Shermans on AP or a P4 should be able to penetrate the rear of any tank.
6 Nov 2015, 17:36 PM
#80
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3



A very different sort of comparison. I was refuting the idea that main line battle infantry with flamers is inherently imbalanced. Penal batts are certainly balance in their role, I don't think anyone would argue that.


penals can't get BAR's in addition to the flamethrowers, don't have snares, grenades & smoke and they don'T enter the matrix on vet 3 and start dodging bullets.
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

537 users are online: 537 guests
1 post in the last 24h
6 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48939
Welcome our newest member, Ellmjnhiem
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM