Tank destroyers should be less accurate

The biggest culprit is the insane clustering of target sizes for medium/heavy tanks, which is also what makes pakwalling so insanely effective.

While I mostly agree with the suggestion, you should keep in mind that the size of a King Tiger/etc is 26, whereas the size of a typical medium tank is 22-23.

That's like like a measly 18% accuracy bonus for TDs to shoot against Heavy Tanks. That amounts to nothing, if you account for the fact that there have to be deflected shots (because 100% penetration is as BS as 100% accuracy), and the fact that heavy tanks need to have a significantly higher health pool than medium tanks.

The second most important culprit is that accuracy declines linearly. For most tanks, the accuracy difference of firing at max range to firing at point blank is in the area of 40%-50%. Since people wouldn't tolerate point-blank misses for any tank, generalist tanks have a near-certain hit chance at point-blank range, and pretty decent accuracy at far. And then, specialist tanks have to be even more accurate than generalist tanks at all ranges, which is probably why you get the hit chances that you do.

So, I'd just fix target sizes to account for the fact that lighter armour is more mobile (thus more difficult to hit) than heavier armour, and punish the medium-far accuracy more than near-far.

I explicitly mentioned that I am not including the ATG in the very first sentence. On my closing sentence I also reiterate that I am not including the atg, as well as adding that I am not including the stug to the discussion.

I doubt you actually read my post carefully before trying to rant, if you somehow missed my first and last sentence.

- No reason why ATG should be discriminated against as compared to Tank Destroyers.
Why should Tank Destroyers which are more expensive be LESS effective than ATGs?

All tanks which have long guns or AT capable should have a -99% accuracy penalty.
All ATG, AT mines, PzFaust, PzShrek, PIAT, Zooks, AT tank guns to receive a -99% accuracy penalty.

Why not the StuIIIG? It's a tank destroyer. Puma. -99% accuracy nerf and ROF nerf as well.
Pz4, Panther, Tiger, T34/76, T34/85, IS-2, ISU152, Elefants, JgTiger.

Only the Sherman 75, Pz2, Centaur, and Stuart and T70 (Puma to be hard nerfed) keep original hit values.

I think suppression and damage should be removed on all grenades, HMGs, mortars.

Isn't the topic to remove all and any counters from the game?
If you remove counter to German Heavy Armor, then either the game becomes an instant German I-win
button, or you open the door to massive heavy nerfs to German Armor.

- And ATG and StuIIIG would need to be hard nerfed as well.

Definite case of "I love scissors, but please remove rocks, as they ruin my scissors"

Ultimately, your proposal removes allied Destroyers from play, making Germans invincible.
And strong Axis bias if you believe Pak40s and Pak43 and StuIIIG should not be nerfed too.

"Allied Rocks annoy me. But it is important to keep axis rocks to squad Allied scissor spam"
We are no longer talking rock paper scissors, here (ie: Strategy).

It's more a case of "only axis should own guns"

"* Does your proposal include things like -50% chance to hit, say, from a tiger or Panther firing
at Shermans and T34s?

As the Panther is rather much of a Tank Destroyer, it should also receive such a nerf.
... Would would make it completely useless.
Remove suppression from HMGs, you make blobs unstoppable.

And so forth.

Just thought of something. If you hard nerf heavies by -99% accuracy, then they wouldn't be played.
Then TDs are also no longer necessary and can be hard-nerfed -99% accuracy (including ATGs and STUG)

The OP allied TDs exist because of OP German end-game armor. Remove both (and ATG and new balance).
SU76 and StuIIIG and Puma must also receive the same treatment.

- No reason why ATG should be discriminated against as compared to Tank Destroyers.
Why should Tank Destroyers which are more expensive be LESS effective than ATGs?

The issue that comes to mind is that PaK-walls can be dealt with by indirect fire, while tank destroyers and assault guns are harder to displace. The way I see it, casemate guns (ideally) trades effectiveness for mobility and protection.

A flavorful way to describe it is that it's a lot easier to engage things when you're not in a cramped fighting compartment and when your view isn't restricted to a few periscopes.

The issue that comes to mind is that PaK-walls can be dealt with by indirect fire, while tank destroyers and assault guns are harder to displace. The way I see it, casemate guns (ideally) trades effectiveness for mobility and protection.

A flavorful way to describe it is that it's a lot easier to engage things when you're not in a cramped fighting compartment and when your view isn't restricted to a few periscopes.

==================
Casemate. Casemate gun. Not in my vocabulary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casemate Oh.
In armoured fighting vehicles that do not have a turret for the main gun,
the structure that accommodates the gun is termed the casemate.

Ok. Now I understand.

I suppose. But shouldn't that then also apply to Tanks?
Note: SU85, SU76, ISU152, Elefant, JgTiger, StuIIIG, JgPz4, JgPanther have casement guns.

Are you saying ATG should not be nerfed, but TDs should, and tanks shouldn't?

*Confused*

Also not valid in context to him saying StuIIIG shouldn't be nerfed

The biggest culprit is the insane clustering of target sizes for medium/heavy tanks, which is also what makes pakwalling so insanely effective.

While I mostly agree with the suggestion, you should keep in mind that the size of a King Tiger/etc is 26, whereas the size of a typical medium tank is 22-23.

That's like like a measly 18% accuracy bonus for TDs to shoot against Heavy Tanks. That amounts to nothing, if you account for the fact that there have to be deflected shots (because 100% penetration is as BS as 100% accuracy), and the fact that heavy tanks need to have a significantly higher health pool than medium tanks.

The second most important culprit is that accuracy declines linearly. For most tanks, the accuracy difference of firing at max range to firing at point blank is in the area of 40%-50%. Since people wouldn't tolerate point-blank misses for any tank, generalist tanks have a near-certain hit chance at point-blank range, and pretty decent accuracy at far. And then, specialist tanks have to be even more accurate than generalist tanks at all ranges, which is probably why you get the hit chances that you do.

So, I'd just fix target sizes to account for the fact that lighter armour is more mobile (thus more difficult to hit) than heavier armour, and punish the medium-far accuracy more than near-far.

1) keep in mind that with the current heavy tank size of 26, the TD get 104% accuracy at far range. It's literally impossible for a stationary TD to miss a tiger or king tiger.

2) secondly most medium tank get .05 accuracy at close range. Against the "average" size of 22 it meant 110% accuracy roll at literal point blank range.

3) lastly I know about target size. In order for the target size to be meaningful, the extreme accuracy of TD would need to go down first.

I suppose. But shouldn't that then also apply to Tanks?

aside from the Firefly and m36, most turreted tank gun have accuracy of .025-.05 or .03-.06.

It's really the TD with the insane accuracy.

Everyday people in here are whining moaning and crying about MUH BALANCE MUH RNG, however then this happens. However one of the most frustrating elements (tanks missing important shots), one of the FEW RNG which actually CAN DECIDE A GAME is to beenhanced?

WTF you have literally no idea how that is in decisive moments of a competetive game, which is easily stressed by the lack and not providing your playercard

==================
Casemate. Casemate gun. Not in my vocabulary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casemate Oh.
In armoured fighting vehicles that do not have a turret for the main gun,
the structure that accommodates the gun is termed the casemate.

Ok. Now I understand.

I suppose. But shouldn't that then also apply to Tanks?
Note: SU85, SU76, ISU152, Elefant, JgTiger, StuIIIG, JgPz4, JgPanther have casement guns.

Are you saying ATG should not be nerfed, but TDs should, and tanks shouldn't?

*Confused*

Also not valid in context to him saying StuIIIG shouldn't be nerfed

Personally, I'd like to see all closed-top casemate vehicles have that restricted vision cone thing that the JP4 has until they receive a top gunner upgrade. (SU-76 is open top, so no vision nerf there) I'd also like the StuG III's damage to be nerfed to 120 1) to match the SU-76 and 2) to create a further distinction between the roles of the StuG as a medium killer and the Panther as a heavy killer.

Anyway, ATGs shouldn't be nerfed, but TDs should because Allied TDs are a bit overperforming right now, and StuG still vies for AT roles vs even the recently buffed Panther. Tanks shouldn't be nerfed per se (if following cramped compartment train of thought: logically, because most tank guns ATM are nowhere near as effective as the dedicated ATG) but should have their target sizes tweaked to further differentiate HT and MT and even LT sizes.

I think TDs should be nerfed via RoF (for heavy tank killers like SU-85, Jackson) and mobility and possibly even sight, but not a blanket nerf to accuracy. To reflect how hard it is to hit the tanks, the tanks themselves should get their target sizes tweaked.

- I noticed OP wants "(TD meaning the su-85, jp4, jackson, and the Firefly. I am not including the atg)" (Nerf Allied AT, not any Axis AT). Nerf all, or don't nerf any. Else, your topic means nothing. Why not change it to "Nerf all allied counters to Axis armor supremacy?".

- Aye. People bitch against RNG, take it out of equation, people will
still bitch.

- Is there a difference between .06 and .060 ? I noticed you type
.05, .06 for Germans, but .050, 0.060 for allied. Is there a any difference?

Once upon a million years ago, I advocated a vision nerf to all closed-casemate armor.

I liked the Jpz4 and SU85 vision mechanics.

(especially early T34s that did not have a turret). The idea was in
wanting to justify the low T34 cost. And giving them that sort of vision
nerf made it harder to do pure T34 spam, and it encouraged combined arms.
- Top gunner removes vision penalty.
- Open turret does not have vision penalty.

Figured it'd work for Axis tanks as well, and encourage people to
purchase the top MG.

In my proposal, side/rear vision was restricted to ~ 1/3 while front
had normal vision cone.

I like the basic idea, but it would nerf some units too much.
I like the STUG as it is right now, further nerfing it would be too much.
Unless Tank Destroyers are nerfed, in which case StuG and Panther and Jp4
should be nerfed too (and ATG). And any tank with a long gun (T34/85, Pz4, E8, Comet, Tiger)

Everyday people in here are whining moaning and crying about MUH BALANCE MUH RNG, however then this happens. However one of the most frustrating elements (tanks missing important shots), one of the FEW RNG which actually CAN DECIDE A GAME is to beenhanced?

WTF you have literally no idea how that is in decisive moments of a competetive game, which is easily stressed by the lack and not providing your playercard

coh2 is built off on rng. Even with 100% accuracy tank combat still have to deal with armor system which is rng as well.

If you want no rng the tank combat would be either purely dps or realistic armor and pen (technically possible but not likely to happen).

actually, even the historical penetration data we have on record are stated to be "50%" probability of penetration. even under controlled condition, the engineer have to settle for 50%.

as it is now, medium tank doesn't really have any defense against TD beside not being shot at. the most reliable way is to have enough armor to bounce shot.

- I noticed OP wants "(TD meaning the su-85, jp4, jackson, and the Firefly. I am not including the atg)" (Nerf Allied AT, not any Axis AT). Nerf all, or don't nerf any. Else, your topic means nothing. Why not change it to "Nerf all allied counters to Axis armor supremacy?".

there are fundamental difference between a support weapon with exposed crew and mandatory setup time after moving, and a tank destroyer that's operating on vehicle hp and no set up time.

to view atg and tank destroy as the same as because of their shared 60m range is a gross mistake.

- I think RNG is a good thing in this game. It can be infuriating.
But it is overall a good thing, as nothing was certain on the battlefield.
I recall people freaking out at crashing planes wiping armies
But take away rng and you take away the excitement, the uncertainty.
Everything becomes clinical. And that's not "reality"
================
- Fundamental difference between exposed crew and...

- M36 Jackson has Exposed crew.
- SU76 has exposed crew.
(Marder 3, Rhino, Hummel also have exposed crews)(I know, not in COH2)

But you are taking 'reality' in a 'balance' GAME.
My question is : Does this also apply to JgTiger, JgPanzer 4, JgPanther,
Elefant, StuIIIG, Panther.

You propose nerfs to allied tank destroyers while using 'realism' arguments that also apply to German tanks and tank destroyers.

To tanks as well!

Should your proposal hit
- German tank destroyers (StuIIIG included)
- All Tanks (German tanks included)

Your topic should be "Let's nerf all allied AT".

PS: Actually, I just had a thought. RNG is also a factor in allowing German super
armor to be penned. You are trying to inch towards German super armor being un-penetrable.
Removal of RNG here would mean German super armor would be totally immune.

Personally, I'd like to see all closed-top casemate vehicles have that restricted vision cone thing that the JP4 has until they receive a top gunner upgrade. (SU-76 is open top, so no vision nerf there) I'd also like the StuG III's damage to be nerfed to 120 1) to match the SU-76 and 2) to create a further distinction between the roles of the StuG as a medium killer and the Panther as a heavy killer.

Anyway, ATGs shouldn't be nerfed, but TDs should because Allied TDs are a bit overperforming right now, and StuG still vies for AT roles vs even the recently buffed Panther. Tanks shouldn't be nerfed per se (if following cramped compartment train of thought: logically, because most tank guns ATM are nowhere near as effective as the dedicated ATG) but should have their target sizes tweaked to further differentiate HT and MT and even LT sizes.

I think TDs should be nerfed via RoF (for heavy tank killers like SU-85, Jackson) and mobility and possibly even sight, but not a blanket nerf to accuracy. To reflect how hard it is to hit the tanks, the tanks themselves should get their target sizes tweaked.

- I'm an allied fanboi and even I don't think StuIIIG dmg should be nerfed.
- And I actually LIKED Panther and Heavy Tanks doing 200 dmg. They're heavies with
low ROF. Why should do less DPS than mediums?
But balance, whatever.

But StuIIIG as the top axis tank killer in WW2 ? Just... no.
(I shudder at the irony, I know)(An allied fanboi clamoring for axis NOT to be nerfed)

If anything, I think a tank being penned should stun it, or something.
Metal flying all over inside a tank is a traumatic experience.

Sorry. Been playing WarThunder too much lately
I'd like the Panther to be considered sort of an armored Jackson, but with less
ROF and less range. But it should have more shock to it's gun (200 was nice, during
one of the pre-patch mod test releases).

- I'm an allied fanboi and even I don't think StuIIIG dmg should be nerfed.
- And I actually LIKED Panther and Heavy Tanks doing 200 dmg. They're heavies with
low ROF. Why should do less DPS than mediums?
But balance, whatever.

But StuIIIG as the top axis tank killer in WW2 ? Just... no.
(I shudder at the irony, I know)(An allied fanboi clamoring for axis NOT to be nerfed)

StuG has long since been considered over performing and a crutch for the Axis. Additionally, it allows people playing to dwindle down the path of "stay at T3" instead of getting a Panther because it kills mediums better and is available cheaper and earlier. Putting the StuG at 640hp and cloning the SU-76 120 damage will mean it still has the health edge on the SU-76 while keeping solid firepower against mediums. It would be a good distinction between the PaK, StuG, and Panther.

StuG has long since been considered over performing and a crutch for the Axis. Additionally, it allows people playing to dwindle down the path of "stay at T3" instead of getting a Panther because it kills mediums better and is available cheaper and earlier. Putting the StuG at 640hp and cloning the SU-76 120 damage will mean it still has the health edge on the SU-76 while keeping solid firepower against mediums. It would be a good distinction between the PaK, StuG, and Panther.

=================
I understand what you are saying, and I disagree.
Partly, because I dislike further homogeneisation.

- Health of STUG/SU76 used to be 400/360 I believe. With the StuG stun being stronger.
They nerfed it's stun to buff it's health from 400 to 480. And SU76 health from 360 to 400.
I feel things are just about perfect right now.

An additional nerf of sorts was to increase it's pop from 8 to 10? I believe.
I DO agree that StuG feels way preferable to Panther in desirability.

When playing Germans, I Pz4 spam, I rarely, if EVER make a Panther.
I feel the Panther's popcap is waay too high for it's DPS.

StuG is yay while Panther is meh.

I'd go with putting it's dmg per shot from 160 to 200 (Panther's).
Especially in context with it's armor having been nerfed (rightfully as the 90'/180' angle thing)
- I believe that with the pop and armor nerfs, it's justified and can do a lot to bring back the
Panther into the yay range.

(And, yes, this coming from an allied fanboi)

I'd go with putting it's dmg per shot from 160 to 200 (Panther's).
Especially in context with it's armor having been nerfed (rightfully as the 90'/180' angle thing)
- I believe that with the pop and armor nerfs, it's justified and can do a lot to bring back the
Panther into the yay range.

(And, yes, this coming from an allied fanboi)

The problem is this in practice does very little against mediums and heavies. For example, Soviet heavies are all 1040 hp iirc, which takes 7 (actual is 6.5) hits from a 160 damage gun and 6 (actual is 5.2) hits from a 200 damage gun. All mediums barring premediums have 640 health, which takes exactly 4 hits from a 160 damage gun, and still takes 4 hits from a 200 damage gun. Couple that with a Panther's (still) relatively slow fire rate and you'll find a minuscule difference in the heat of an engagement. The only benefit that is relevant would be increased vet per shot. Perhaps maybe it makes for one less shot for vehicles that are only 90% repaired or took some deflection damage from autocannons or damage from infantry AT.

I think that both StuG and SU-76 is overperforming still, and it wouldnt be "homogenizing" factions per se. Perhaps the "clone" part of my explanation was taken too literally. I would like a SU-76 armor pen (maybe also range) nerf while StuG gets a 40 damage nerf and a slight ROF buff. In the end, the guns wouldn't be equal, but the StuG and SU-76 would perform in a similar fashion. The StuG if given 640 health would mean it is as survivable as a medium tank (can take an extra hit) while the SU-76 dies in 3 hits. The two units are still very different, and we avoid making a new special snowflake 200 damage class when even heavy tanks still only do 160 damage.

While in a 1v1 scenario a 200 damage gun makes no difference the name of the game is combined arms. Shreks for example deal 120 damage, so a shrek hit and a panther hit currently deal 280 damage, with a buff to 200 for the panther thr pair would deal 320, same as 2 proper AT gun shots. 2 hits of each would now be a kill on a medium whereas before it would require an extra hit from something. A panther and shreked pgren would be able to take on allied mediums fairly reliably. This scales upwards as well. Might take 6 shots to kill an IS-2 but that extra 40 damage adds up when other thinks shoot too

I think that both StuG and SU-76 is overperforming still, and it wouldnt be "homogenizing" factions per se. Perhaps the "clone" part of my explanation was taken too literally. I would like a SU-76 armor pen (maybe also range) nerf while StuG gets a 40 damage nerf and a slight ROF buff. In the end, the guns wouldn't be equal, but the StuG and SU-76 would perform in a similar fashion. The StuG if given 640 health would mean it is as survivable as a medium tank (can take an extra hit) while the SU-76 dies in 3 hits. The two units are still very different, and we avoid making a new special snowflake 200 damage class when even heavy tanks still only do 160 damage.

the stug is a special case.

they only have 50m range but still pack the firepower of a TD in a cost effective package.

I was going to suggest a penetration nerf (140-180), an accuracy nerf, and a range buff to make it the second weakest TD in the game (after su-76), to provide more of an incentive to go t4 for the panther.

the pzgrenadier change I suggested earlier is to also make the wehr less reliant on t3. The end goal is to provide the wehr with a smoother power scaling from t2 to t4.

the stug is a special case.

they only have 50m range but still pack the firepower of a TD in a cost effective package.

I was going to suggest a penetration nerf (140-180), an accuracy nerf, and a range buff to make it the second weakest TD in the game (after su-76), to provide more of an incentive to go t4 for the panther.

the pzgrenadier change I suggested earlier is to also make the wehr less reliant on t3. The end goal is to provide the wehr with a smoother power scaling from t2 to t4.

What the fuck. Is ostheer just supposed to try and catch the bouncing shells like a football player? You're suggesting it become a 60 range TD machine gun. It'll still decimate mediums, but do nothing vs heavies.

Idk... Stug spam is the go to cancer for ost... Making them 60 range without the durability drawbacks the su76 has (which is annoying enough as it) would be beyond game breaking. Especially at t3. It would incentivise ignoring t4 even harder and spamming stugs even more

What the fuck. Is ostheer just supposed to try and catch the bouncing shells like a football player? You're suggesting it become a 60 range TD machine gun. It'll still decimate mediums, but do nothing vs heavies.

for reference, the USF 57mm penetration is 130/140/150. the APCR provide 50% penetration bonus, so 195/210/225.

and the idea is to provide more incentive for the axis to upgrade to the panther. To do that the stug needs to stop being the ultimate answer to allies armor. The stug is still decent against medium with 140/160/180, enough for the axis to buy t4 for the panther.

and as armadillo explain below, the 60m range provide safety for the stug, even if the shots are bouncing.

lastly the pak40 is still there. They can provide firepower the stug can't provide.

Idk... Stug spam is the go to cancer for ost... Making them 60 range without the durability drawbacks the su76 has (which is annoying enough as it) would be beyond game breaking. Especially at t3. It would incentivise ignoring t4 even harder and spamming stugs even more

for reference, the pen on the su-76 is 180/190/200. a penetration nerf on the stug in exchange for a range buff is meant to make it less powerful but less risky.

and as shadow explain above, 140/160/180 means the stug will bounce regularly off the allies heavy.

allies heavy.

The what? How many allied heavy do you see those days? Increasing range and lowering pen is just going to sign off the end of USF faction.
Second point is if one or two stugs aren't enough to pen heavies, build another one. 3 Stugs will always be better than going t4 and building a Panther.