the state of panzer4

The panzer 4 should have weaker armor and more powerful gun.

historically the panzer 4 had weaker armor than the sherman and t34/76, unlike it is portrayed in game.

the panzer4 had 50mm of armor on the turret + 80 mm of armor on the hull. This was thinner than the 90mm of armor on both the hull and turret on late war sherman and t34.

The cromwell, meanwhile, was roughly equivalent in terms of armor to the panzer 4, with 76mm on the turret and 62mm on the hull.

This present a interesting situation, as it means the three factions with advanced medium tank (panther and comet) also fielded regular medium tank with thinner armor than the two faction with only one medium tank (USF, SOV).

focusing more on the panzer4, the main reason it had thinner armor was in large part due to its gun. The 75mm kwk40 was an very good gun on par with the US 76mm and Soviet 85mm, but mounting it pushed the pz4 chassis to its limit.

This was an acceptable trade off for the german, and the more powerful cannon allow the panzer4 to remain competitive with the 75mm sherman and t34/76.

Currently in game, the panzer 4 's combination of superior armor and gun allow allowed it to tackle the USF's sherman comfortably, when in reality the late war m4a3 75w was a formidable match for the pz4. (the t34 had other issue, the cromwell was similarly thin skin with a weaker gun)

With the presence of the panther tank in both the wehr and okw tech tree, the panzer4 need not to be dominate against the t34/76 and the sherman.

The panzer 4 should be a thinly armored vehicle whose greatest strength is the flexibility of its firepower. Its firepower would allow it to fight comfortably on the defense, but its thin armor make it vulnerable on the offense. In late game the panzer's firepower make it an effective flank protector for the german big cat.

Here's my proposed penetration and armor value for the wehr panzer4:

penetration: 140/160/180 (current 110/115/125)
armor: 140

AOE, reload, and the mg would remain the same.

You understand that would be a buff to the p4 right? And the p4s currently are pretty kickass for price.

You understand that would be a buff to the p4 right? And the p4s currently are pretty kickass for price.

as a simple summary/preview for the other tanks:

sherman: hp to 800, armor to 180, pen to 90/110/130, size to 23. (durable)

t34/76: pen to 90/110/130, armor to 180, size to 20. speed to 6.9 accel 2.5. (mix of speed and armor)
Ram now use faust rule on self. (a full hp t34 no longer suffer engine damage after a ram.

cromwell: pen to 90/110/130, armor to 140, size to 20. (speedy)

as a simple summary/preview for the other tanks:

sherman: hp to 800, armor to 180, pen to 90/110/130, size to 23. (durable)

t34/76: pen to 90/110/130, armor to 180, size to 20. speed to 6.9 accel 2.5. (mix of speed and armor)
Ram now use faust rule on self. (a full hp t34 no longer suffer engine damage after a ram.

cromwell: pen to 90/110/130, armor to 140, size to 20. (speedy)

Ah yeah I needed that part. And some certain people (Katitof) wouldn't like you making all of the tanks have the same stats.

It says ostheer p4 stat changes? so what about the OKW one?

With those current cromwell changes, it would be even more useless. Ostheer p4 would have 100% pen and RoF adv on it. Speed means nothing unless you can get on the rear in a 1v1. Otherwise it's just rotating from sides of the map to push infantry. and with its current scatter (awful) I'd still go centaur 2x AT gun.

Although I like the idea of USF kind of having a beefy type tank, they'd have to rework price MAJORLY for those stats.

T34 is pretty meh. slight pen buff from current (+10 to each). Again they'd have to rework price for it. I always wanted ram to be similar to a reliable snare under snare threshhold. You could make the tactical decision of making a tank useless like it does currently for the guaranteed snare under threshhold. Your ram I feel wouldn't help ram at all unless you made a successful flank on the tank. If you just dive in 1v1 and then take damage as the ram is delivered you basically just screwed your own tank over. And even if you did make the successful flank on the tank you can always go for the block or just attack the rear, again possibly making ram not worth it since there are better options.

Ah yeah I needed that part. And some certain people (Katitof) wouldn't like you making all of the tanks have the same stats.

It says ostheer p4 stat changes? so what about the OKW one?

With those current cromwell changes, it would be even more useless. Ostheer p4 would have 100% pen and RoF adv on it. Speed means nothing unless you can get on the rear in a 1v1. Otherwise it's just rotating from sides of the map to push infantry. and with its current scatter (awful) I'd still go centaur 2x AT gun.

Although I like the idea of USF kind of having a beefy type tank, they'd have to rework price MAJORLY for those stats.

T34 is pretty meh. slight pen buff from current (+10 to each). Again they'd have to rework price for it. I always wanted ram to be similar to a reliable snare under snare threshhold. You could make the tactical decision of making a tank useless like it does currently for the guaranteed snare under threshhold. Your ram I feel wouldn't help ram at all unless you made a successful flank on the tank. If you just dive in 1v1 and then take damage as the ram is delivered you basically just screwed your own tank over. And even if you did make the successful flank on the tank you can always go for the block or just attack the rear, again possibly making ram not worth it since there are better options.

the biggest problem with the current ram is the fact it usually screw over the soviet more than the german. A full health t34/76 should be able to escape after a ram. the size buff and armor is meant to increase its survival.

as it is currently stand, the 160 armor on the cromwell is good against the panzer and puma mainly. the smaller size is a more reliable mean of survival. It used to be size 18 and I thought about lower it back there. In addition the cromwell could use a buff to its mg or to its scatter.


I make a thread regarding TD accuracy not too long ago. https://www.coh2.org/topic/69042/tank-destroyers-should-be-less-accurate

if TD accuracy does get nerfed, size 20 should be small enough to make the t34 and cromwell hard to hit. Size 18 was good against the current TD accuracy so it would probably be OP if the td accuracy got nerf.

in real life the t34 had no radio, no sight and the bad trained crew was overdosed with task in a little turrent. no effency and a inaccurate gun with no good aiming

in real life the p4 would have a nice radio to other units with a well trained crew, good task managment, nice gun with excelllent aiming and good view over the war area.

in real life the t34 had no radio, no sight and the bad trained crew was overdosed with task in a little turrent. no effency and a inaccurate gun with no good aiming

in real life the p4 would have a nice radio to other units with a well trained crew, good task managment, nice gun with excelllent aiming and good view over the war area.

Not to mention that the P4 crew were nicer people, right?

Not to mention that the P4 crew were nicer people, right?

i dont know them..you?

Not to mention that the P4 crew were nicer people, right?

maybe you'd like to argue with facts to back up your point?

maybe you'd like to argue with facts to back up your point?

What is the point of arguing real life facts in a gameplay discussion?

What is the point of arguing real life facts in a gameplay discussion?

i wasnt the guy who startet with real life fakts..

So I guess this is the 51st State.

I have to point out that one should not only take into out the basic stat of the unit but also the veterancy.

For instance if one would want to "change" the PzIV to become more offensive oriented one would be better of in replacing the vet 2 armor bonuses with offensive properties like penetration/accuracy/reload.

The majority of units have only the base stat stat changed while keep their old vet bonuses which are unfit for their new role/stats.

On the current state of PzIV I have to say that it might need to have its scatter increased it seem to be too lethal vs infantry. Or even better maybe reduce the "kill radius" but increase the far damage making the damage less rng.

OT: When I see "But in real life it was..." in a balance thread I stop reading.

in real life the t34 had no radio, no sight and the bad trained crew was overdosed with task in a little turrent. no effency and a inaccurate gun with no good aiming

Whooping 400 early 1940 model T-34s had no radios.
Model 1941, with the F-34 gun had standard 9-RS radio set, and even thicker armour.
Gun was not inaccurate and optics were similar to these on Shremans.
Bad performance was a result of bad Training, so at lest that you got correctly.

However, in CoH2, both T34 and P4 are represented alright.
T34 did had much better armor, especially later models, but P4 had superior armament.

Vipper its CoH2, ist DEFENSIVE bonuses that allow you to be aggressive and offensive.
This is why tanky infantry can be offensive.
This is why more beefy tanks can push further.
Armor vet does play into offensive capabilities, especially against handheld AT and other meds.

....
Vipper its CoH2, ist DEFENSIVE bonuses that allow you to be aggressive and offensive.
This is why tanky infantry can be offensive.
This is why more beefy tanks can push further.
Armor vet does play into offensive capabilities, especially against handheld AT and other meds.

Can you pls stop writing inaccuracy just to claim that I am wrong.

Armor has very little very little affect as an offensive bonus especially against handheld AT because of deflection damage.

The vet 2 armor bonus on 140 armor would offer very little to the unit.

Whooping 400 early 1940 model T-34s had no radios.
Model 1941, with the F-34 gun had standard 9-RS radio set, and even thicker armour.
Gun was not inaccurate and optics were similar to these on Shremans.
Bad performance was a result of bad Training, so at lest that you got correctly.

However, in CoH2, both T34 and P4 are represented alright.
T34 did had much better armor, especially later models, but P4 had superior armament.

Vipper its CoH2, ist DEFENSIVE bonuses that allow you to be aggressive and offensive.
This is why tanky infantry can be offensive.
This is why more beefy tanks can push further.
Armor vet does play into offensive capabilities, especially against handheld AT and other meds.

The T-34/76’s one great weakness was its fire control efficiency. It suffered from the same two-man turret syndrome as other Soviet tanks in this period, namely that the tank’s commander, gun aimer, gun firer and platoon commander (if a platoon leader), were all the same person. Exacerbating this was the fact that the T-34/76 had relatively poor main gun optics quality, no turret basket, a very cramped and low turret (the gun could not depress more than three degrees severely restricting use on a reverse slope or at close range), poor turret drive reliability, no radios, and generally poor target observation and indicator devices (including no turret cupola and only one vision periscope for the tank’s commander).

Make a mod yourself and see how it goes

in real life the t34 had no radio, no sight and the bad trained crew was overdosed with task in a little turrent. no effency and a inaccurate gun with no good aiming

in real life the p4 would have a nice radio to other units with a well trained crew, good task managment, nice gun with excelllent aiming and good view over the war area.

m

Yeaahhh but the soviets has better mechanics the Germans better tech.

in real life the t34 had no radio, no sight and the bad trained crew was overdosed with task in a little turrent. no effency and a inaccurate gun with no good aiming

in real life the p4 would have a nice radio to other units with a well trained crew, good task managment, nice gun with excelllent aiming and good view over the war area.

The T-34/76’s one great weakness was its fire control efficiency. It suffered from the same two-man turret syndrome as other Soviet tanks in this period, namely that the tank’s commander, gun aimer, gun firer and platoon commander (if a platoon leader), were all the same person. Exacerbating this was the fact that the T-34/76 had relatively poor main gun optics quality, no turret basket, a very cramped and low turret (the gun could not depress more than three degrees severely restricting use on a reverse slope or at close range), poor turret drive reliability, no radios, and generally poor target observation and indicator devices (including no turret cupola and only one vision periscope for the tank’s commander).

a quick look at the game stats show the t34 reload slower than the panzer 4 (6.1s vs 5.5s), with a worst scatter ( distance_scatter_max 6.9 vs 6.4).

hence, what you say about the t34/76 is true, and already represented in game. There's no need to dwell on them

The bad fire control doesn't really change its effective armor thickness, top speed, power to weight ratio, low ground pressure, or small size.

Infact, a large part of the lack of radio and poor turret ergonomic is precisely because the turret is so small. Hence the t34 should be a smaller target than the panzer4.

Make a mod yourself and see how it goes

are you offering to help me test out the changes?