Kyle wants feedback on the PIV

Isn't the Greyhound complete shit though? Aside from the crutch it's squad-wipe gimmick ability.

Maybe he means it should be complete shit But probably not

Isn't the Greyhound complete shit though? Aside from the crutch it's squad-wipe gimmick ability.

My bad, it was a halfthought there.

The m8 greyhound from coh1 is where I was going with that.

I always forget there's the commander that has a greyhound as a joke.

Coming next patch with Mechanized being better, I feel bad for Recon Support and the poor little Greyhound.

My bad, it was a halfthought there.

The m8 greyhound from coh1 is where I was going with that.

I always forget there's the commander that has a greyhound as a joke.

Oh I see, fair enough

I forgot it until ya'll mentioned it too to be honest

Panzer IV is fine, they do their job quite well, not to mention the many perks they have. Problem is you guys want a super tank on T3, that simply can't happen.

Use them against infantry only, and combine arms against mediums.

Later you can use blitzkrieg to tackle heavier tanks.

Make PZIV able to switch AP/HE shell just like shermans. /thread

That would be a massive nerf actually.

That would be a massive nerf actually.

The HE AP round for Sherman is not a draw back for Sherman but a Bonus ability. The AP round already has good AI properties.

So having AP/HE similar to Sherman is not nerf, it only if it implement like ISU-152...

So increase pen and lower the other medium tanks) is what people vote for. To me this seems the best to do

So increase pen and lower the other medium tanks) is what people vote for. To me this seems the best to do

You should had included lower the efficiency of its counters as a voting option...

So increase pen and lower the other medium tanks) is what people vote for. To me this seems the best to do

It is in RELIC style overbuffing/overnerfing units. lol

But OKW players will be not happy from lowering PzIVj and Panther.

Its penetration is far too low. It needs to have atleast 130 pen. The values should be something like: 140/130/120

Its penetration is far too low. It needs to have atleast 130 pen. The values should be something like: 140/130/120

One could say that the penetration is fine, but it is the long range accuracy (scatter) that is affecting the AT performance of this vehicle.

One could say that the penetration is fine, but it is the long range accuracy (scatter) that is affecting the AT performance of this vehicle.

I agree here. from the stats the p4 has a penetration advantage over its counter parts (cromwell and t34). This is because they have 160 armor whilst p4 has 180.

Half the shots that could have penetrated end up hitting the ground or missing. This is precisely why the cromwell is so good. It has almost same long range penetration as p4 but has excellent moving accuracy.

The only thing p4 needs is an accuracy buff whilst standing and moving.

One could say that the penetration is fine, but it is the long range accuracy (scatter) that is affecting the AT performance of this vehicle.

It is actually accuracy in general. For a tank that is supposedly so much better armoured than its counterparts to the point it has such a low penetration, it should at least hit often enough to make up for that.

This is basically the infantry problem all over again: The game heavily favours mobile units. That's why Maxim spam works (although squad size also plays a role there), that's why the Cromwell is so ridiculously good. It's also why the Panther isn't so obviously rubbish, because it is at least heavily mobile which makes up for a lot of negative points.
But the Panzer IV isn't particularly superior in mobility most of the time, so it is hurt pretty bad by not being the best in some other stat. Combine that with the higher moving accuracy of all but the Soviet (and some OKW) tanks, and the problem is pretty obvious.

I'd rather see the actual armour and penetration stats remain the same, and instead see the moving accuracy of all tanks adjusted. As a start, all tanks should have a 50% penalty against other vehicles, while some tanks like the Sherman (which is primarily an infantry support tank) should keep their penalty or receive less of a penalty against infantry. That would level the playing field considerably, and finally equalise things between Cromwell and Panzer IV.

I agree here. from the stats the p4 has a penetration advantage over its counter parts (cromwell and t34). This is because they have 160 armor whilst p4 has 180.

Half the shots that could have penetrated end up hitting the ground or missing. This is precisely why the cromwell is so good. It has almost same long range penetration as p4 but has excellent moving accuracy.

The only thing p4 needs is an accuracy buff whilst standing and moving.

It is actually accuracy in general. For a tank that is supposedly so much better armoured than its counterparts to the point it has such a low penetration, it should at least hit often enough to make up for that.

Increasing the accuracy might require increasing the fuel cost a tad. Like 135, if we are talking about about %75 and up.

But you guys are correct, the current accuracy(scatter) value is laughable.

I'd rather see the actual armour and penetration stats remain the same, and instead see the moving accuracy of all tanks adjusted. As a start, all tanks should have a 50% penalty against other vehicles, while some tanks like the Sherman (which is primarily an infantry support tank) should keep their penalty or receive less of a penalty against infantry. That would level the playing field considerably, and finally equalise things between Cromwell and Panzer IV.

That isn't a bad idea, but the Cromwell is the only unit in need of that treatment IMO.

The values of interest here are:

Penetration/damage/ deflection damage

Penetration should go down for "medium tank" destroyers Su-76, stug, M10.

Damage of firefly/M36 need to go down vs medium tanks(including panther)

Defection damage from hand held weapon need to down or completely removed vs medium tanks (including panther)

Chance to hit
Accuracy/target size vs medium tanks need to be adjusted so that heavy tank destroy have a good chance to miss these targets at max range...

I would go for cheaper, honestly. All its counterparts save for brit racecar steamroller seem to be balanced, so nerfing them would probably bring even more balance issues. Don't mind some better long range pen., but i think cost reduction is much better for its current combat efficiency.

Penetration should go down for "medium tank" destroyers Su-76, stug, M10.

Again, the StuG is not a tank destroyer, it's an assault gun. That difference shows, as of all the vehicles you just lumped together, the StuG is the best performing against infantry in general (the SU-76's barrage excluded). Throwing especially these three vastly different vehicles into the same pot (especially as the M10 is about as problematic as a stain on the sole of my shoes) ignores the necessary delicateness required to actually balance anything in this game.

Increasing the accuracy might require increasing the fuel cost a tad. Like 135, if we are talking about about %75 and up.

This is actually my less preferred method of balancing. That said, the problem is similar to the formerly low target size of the Cromwell: It shouldn't have existed to begin with and the fact that it is shows a clear lack of understanding into the game's mechanics and how they actually play out, on the side of Relic (which is kind of ironic, considering the created this game).
Back to the problem at hand, the Cromwell should have never started out with higher moving accuracy. It has the proper penetration to not need to flank, or at least when doing so, it is far better off than any other medium tank even without that accuracy. People called the target size correction on the Cromwell a "huge nerf", when in fact it was simply brought to the same standards as all vehicles in its class. If the accuracy adjustment is also a big nerf, then I'm wondering how the Ostheer Panzer IV could even remotely be considered as useful in any way.

That isn't a bad idea, but the Cromwell is the only unit in need of that treatment IMO.

No, as it stands by now, the Sherman got buffed to the point that the Panzer IV struggles against it. Sure, you could always go for StuGs, but you can't do both at the same time (not with those fuel costs). And that's showing the problem of generalist versus specialised units, again. One way to avoid that would be buffing the Panzer IV, but that's the bad option because it puts the StuG in a weird position (especially as we can't buff the StuG any further without it becoming OP). This is the Sturmpanzer (Brummbär) problem all over again: No matter how much you buff the StuPa, it will never be worth it unless you make it OP, because it is the wrong tool for the wrong job at the wrong time.

P.S.: To further iterate on that, re-evaluation of the moving accuracy of all tank-fighting vehicles (assault guns, tank destroyers and tanks) should be done. That way we could further solidify the defensive role for example of the StuG and SU-76, by actually giving it an even worse movement penalty (although we would have to find a way first to prevent turning as being interpreted by the game as moving, otherwise its turret-less design would be far too problematic).
That could also serve as a good solution to the above-mentioned problem of the identity crisis going on between StuG and Panzer IV, aside from what we have now (slightly different AT performance and range).

Again, the StuG is not a tank destroyer, it's an assault gun. That difference shows, as of all the vehicles you just lumped together, the StuG is the best performing against infantry in general (the SU-76's barrage excluded).

Think you misunderstood I am talking Stug-G not Stug-E. Stugs started as assault guns but model G was use more as tank hunter than a assault gun... Out of M10 Su-76 and Stug-G in game M10 is better vs infantry via crushing....

The penetration values of the M10 are 180/160/140 and AP 250/225/200 they are bit high especially the AP ones especially since it has a range of 50 compared to range of 40 of medium tanks.

How about we stop complaining that tank destroyers are able to hurt tanks? Just because you invest in a Heavy Tank doesn't mean you should be invincible to stock units.