StuG and JPIV Penetration

I am not sure what method you are using to get the numbers but you are still missing my point.

Compare the units at vet 0 and at vet 2 you will probably come to the conclusion that SU-85 trades significantly better at Vet 2.

I do not argue with your stats, because there is nothing to argue. In a Panther vs SU85 engagement, the SU85 performs better at vet 2 than at vet 0 vs the same vet Panther, this is true and I never doubted that. I argue if your point makes that much sense, because your Panther should not regularly exchange shots with a SU85 in the first place.

(Exaggerated example
If your PaK40 faces off against the 6 pounder, and the PaK gets an accuracy bonus while the 6 pounder gets a pen bonus (just making this up as an example), then the PaK will win this fight. This does not mean that the 6 pounder would need a fifth man to become tankier, because it cannot fight off a PaK40. These units just should not shoot at each other.

I do not argue with your stats, because there is nothing to argue. In a Panther vs SU85 engagement, the SU85 performs better at vet 2 than at vet 0 vs the same vet Panther, this is true and I never doubted that. I argue if your point makes that much sense, because your Panther should not regularly exchange shots with a SU85 in the first place.

(Exaggerated example
If your PaK40 faces off against the 6 pounder, and the PaK gets an accuracy bonus while the 6 pounder gets a pen bonus (just making this up as an example), then the PaK will win this fight. This does not mean that the 6 pounder would need a fifth man to become tankier, because it cannot fight off a PaK40. These units just should not shoot at each other.

Then you agree that there is something wrong with veterancy bonus which is my point.

Quoted for emphasis.
Maybe now if certain individual reads it coming from someone who IS ENFORCING CURRENT RELIC BALANCE PHILOSOPHY DIRECTLY BY WORKING ON BALANCE PATCHES, that certain individual finally will get it and stops rambling that tank hardcounter can't hardcounter its own hardcounter or negate its own hardcounter vet by its own vet.

Since you seem to take the post a Certain member as being correct you also have to take other comments of the same individual also as correct.

If you just want to make the Jackson bad against mediums, you could just nerf its ROF instead of going through all the creative trouble of adding multiple shells. Either would make USF unable to deal with mediums unless they have a 76mm/E8/M10 commander, so I'd say that wouldn't be very ideal.

The Jackson needs to be strong (overpowered) because it's the only thing holding USF late game together, because they have a severe lack of other good AT options. If it's too cost effective against all targets, and mostly against mediums, I'd say it's a good start to... just make it cost more than a medium and make it a bit less likely to penetrate Panthers and heavies at max range.

Which clearly say that allied TDs are OP at max range and need a nerf.

Now it high time you realize that all individual are entitled to an opinion not only certain and that you should respect that opinion (and the individual) instead of going on crusade to prove them wrong.

By the way have you decided, if the Sherman is the most cost efficient medium, yet?

Then you agree that there is something wrong with veterancy bonus which is my point.

Please read again.

But it can if it gets into 50 range without being shot. Two more hits.

Sure, and it should, given how much more expensive it is. I'm just saying that with vehicle roles in mind, the Panther isn't supposed to roll over dedicated TDs, although for its price it should be (and is) able to put up a fair fight.

In your opinion, what would be the impact of giving the StuG switchable rounds that give it Panther penetration but only 80 damage? That'd give a StuG pair with the rounds toggled on the same damage output as a lone Panther.

It could be an option, although in my opinion it might stumble a bit into StuG cost effectiveness issues territory. I'd rather wait to see what the new changes will do for the StuG and Ostheer T3 in general before doing any more to the StuG. Small changes (traverse and target size) can have large impacts.

In a hopefully not too distant future heavies will be tied to tech, so it should be easier to replace a StuG with a Panther to face one.

Please read again.

The hole in the theory that they are not meant to fight each other, is that SU-85 is meant to counter the Panther and Ostheer have no stock vehicle to counter the SU-85 so when it comes to vehicles the Panther is their best bet.

The hole in the theory that they are not meant to fight each other, is that SU-85 is meant to counter the Panther and Ostheer have no stock vehicle to counter the SU-85 so when it comes to vehicles the Panther is their best bet.

Ost has an excellent Pak, even the Stug faires well on paper, and then there are Panzergrenadiers that can deal with TDs very well. The problem is that the last two units have their own problems and therefore are not build which reduces OSTs current options to Pak and Panther. The problem is not the Panther but Panzergrenadiere and Stug in my eyes. If we also look at 1v1 frontal assault scenarios only (like you implicated with the SU85), the Panther does well against Jackson and Firefly (cost-corrected).
To clear things up: What is your suggestion? How much do you want to buff Panther / nerf SU85?

I think it is better so spread out the AT capacity over multiple units. We can see with USF what happens if the AT gun is trash against actual tanks and the bazookas are only mediocre: USF must completely rely on the Jackson from the mid-game onwards.

In a hopefully not too distant future heavies will be tied to tech, so it should be easier to replace a StuG with a Panther to face one.

The notion of this is the problem. If the StuG is meant to become obsolete, then what do you do with it when it does?

I can only think of four AT vehicles that don't have the following:

• High enough penetration to reliably damage the heavy tank from the front.

OR

• A turret.
  
• High enough speed to get behind the heavy tank.
  
• High enough penetration to reliably damage the heavy tank from the rear.

Those are the three low penetration casemates (SU-76, StuG, JPIV) and the Stuart.

The Stuart has blind and a hard snare from Vet 0. The SU-76 doubles as an artillery piece. Both units have early timings.

It says a lot when an IS-2's weight in Pumas stands a better chance than its weight in StuGs.

At least we getting somewhere recognise problem with Wehr veterancy and late game.

That said, i totally disagree Panther shutdown medium and heavies. I say allies Td shutdown Axis tanks is more correct, especially on vetted late games.

By shutdown i mean, the tanks are not able to move freely.

In 2v2, med allies tanks are often seen in 2 scenario. A quick one, to harass the field before moving to heavy, or risk all med spam rush. The first is not worth the cost of panther. The second, Panther will probably die with it.

Panther definitely dont shut down heavies. It trades well with Pershing and IS2 solo. But in army composition, i doubt Allies heavies are afraid of the panther.

That brings me again to pop cost. Wehr pop costs is also too inefficient. For example, why should Panther trade well with SU85? Because it cost more.

In 2v2 with brit or usf, you cannot win an all out tank battle because of how the repair advantages. Crew repair, RE with Zooks, Eng with piats. These make the pop bleed very heavy.

So thats why Panther, Jp4, Stug needs more vet bonus to scale well.

The Panther is fine. Since SBP it does its job and does it well. Start another thread if you want to keep pushing your Panther ideas.

As for solving the StuG and JPIV's issues with veterancy, units only gain veterancy when they're doing their jobs. If a unit requires veterancy to do its job, then the design doesn't work.


The StuG either needs a munitions ability like the M10 that lets it fight heavies, or it needs to be able to do something other than shoot tanks.


The JPIV is a dedicated 140 FU AT vehicle and I can't for the life of me understand why it's geared towards mediums in a faction that already has the OKW P4. It'd geniunely be more useful as an SU-85 clone.

Its is more about scaling though. Like vipper said, vet0 ok. Late game vet late game heavies, not ok.

Its is more about scaling though. Like vipper said, vet0 ok. Late game vet late game heavies, not ok.

If you're talking about the JPIV and StuG, veterancy penetration buffs is NOT a solution. If your StuGs can't reliably penetrate, you won't be able to vet them up in the first place.

If you're talking about the Panther, you're off topic and should start a separate thread.

The Panther is fine. Since SBP it does its job and does it well. Start another thread if you want to keep pushing your Panther ideas.

The JPIV is a dedicated 140 FU AT vehicle and I can't for the life of me understand why it's geared towards mediums in a faction that already has the OKW P4. It'd geniunely be more useful as an SU-85 clone.

I think because the panther is more geared towards heavies. If the jagdpzr4 also would geared towards heavies the overlap would be to great. Either one will will suffer for it and need tuning again.
But thats just my opninion.

I think because the panther is more geared towards heavies. If the jagdpzr4 also would geared towards heavies the overlap would be to great. Either one will will suffer for it and need tuning again.
But thats just my opninion.

They'd still both have a role if they had identical guns because of the huge differences in the chassis.

One is a 140 FU 60 range casemate with no anti-infantry to speak of.

The other is a 185 FU 50 range turreted vehicle with solid anti-infantry performance.

They'd still both have a role if they had identical guns because of the huge differences in the chassis.

One is a 140 FU 60 range casemate with no anti-infantry to speak of.

The other is a 185 FU 50 range turreted vehicle with solid anti-infantry performance.

And people would still go for panther exclusively due to that high durability and AI.

I do really hope in CoH3 relic will hold back on axis megalomania and cut panther from stock roster-its nothing but trouble ever since coh1(PE panthers).

And people would still go for panther exclusively due to that high durability and AI.

I do really hope in CoH3 relic will hold back on axis megalomania and cut panther from stock roster-its nothing but trouble ever since coh1(PE panthers).

Heavy tank megalomania in general, imo.

None of this would be a problem if they capped armour at 300.

None of this would be a problem if they capped armour at 300.

The problem is the lack of side armor. It's what would've made heavy tanks vulnerable while having reliable strong front armor and what would've given ATGs/TDs with lower penetration a chance to deal damage when deployed on the flanks. There wouldn't have been a need to give Allied TDs such high penetration to stand a chance.

The problem is the lack of side armor. It's what would've made heavy tanks vulnerable while having reliable strong front armor and what would've given ATGs/TDs with lower penetration a chance to deal damage when deployed on the flanks. There wouldn't have been a need to give Allied TDs such high penetration to stand a chance.

That's not possible to implement though.

Editing high armour tanks though? That's doable and it's realistic with our present resources. There are only five tanks with armour values over 300 to edit, and as heavies they're all up anyway in the rebalance.

Doing away with the IS-2's frankly stupid 375 armour for example would go a long way. Why does it even have that much in the first place?

Doing away with the IS-2's frankly stupid 375 armour for example would go a long way. Why does it even have that much in the first place?

Doesnt seem that dumb. Its the same armor as the KT which has more health and better gun. I think the IS2 was given that armor so that the allies would have something comparable to the KT. I dont think it always had that much

Jp4 should trade some of its armour for pen. It doesnt need 230 armour. Maybe make it a little faster/give it faster rotation too.

That's not possible to implement though.

Editing high armour tanks though? That's doable and it's realistic with our present resources. There are only five tanks with armour values over 300 to edit, and as heavies they're all up anyway in the rebalance.

Doing away with the IS-2's frankly stupid 375 armour for example would go a long way. Why does it even have that much in the first place?

Because its pen for its gun is quite low. Its rof and acc are not as high as certain other tanks that come close in terms of armour.

That and axis dont always need to have the heaviest armoured tanks.