StuG and JPIV Penetration

Some offtopics invis and the following discussion.

Open a new thread for Firefly if you will to continue it. You can bring other units to compare it with the OP, but don't make the discussion based only on the other units you bring up.

Don't you think that paying munitions to get better performance from an earlier tier unit to get a temporary buff makes sense? Like I suggested before give stugs some armor piercing rounds with some muni cost. Maybe add sone vet ability to slightly increase its sight/range.

Don't you think that paying munitions to get better performance from an earlier tier unit to get a temporary buff makes sense? Like I suggested before give stugs some armor piercing rounds with some muni cost. Maybe add sone vet ability to slightly increase its sight/range.

The M10 tank destroyer has a timed ability that increases its penetration to, iirc, slightly better than a base Jackson.

It's worth mentioning the M10's base penetration is a fair bit lower than the StuG's though.

The M10 tank destroyer has a timed ability that increases its penetration to, iirc, slightly better than a base Jackson.

It's worth mentioning the M10's base penetration is a fair bit lower than the StuG's though.

That's USF answer to some axis heavies. And I think that's the eay to go. US anti tank gun is a perfect example here. Sometimes people say it's crap but thanks to 2 abilities it has I use it a lot to finish off tanks. Extra range plus AT shot killed me so many vehicles as USF.

The M10 tank destroyer has a timed ability that increases its penetration to, iirc, slightly better than a base Jackson.

It's worth mentioning the M10's base penetration is a fair bit lower than the StuG's though.

The lower Penetration of the M10 it because it has better mobility and it can be used to flank.

It even has an ability called "flanking speed"

The lower Penetration of the M10 it because it has better mobility and it can be used to flank.

It even has an ability called "flanking speed"

not to mention the turret and crew

tbh the m10 is fairly well designed now that its tied to tech
however i think bp3/t4 unlocked munitions scaling for the stug would be right proper

bp3/t4 unlocked munitions scaling for the stug would be right proper

I'd use it as sort of rule of a thumb generally in similar situations. Make those less expensive units pay for having some timed abilities that make them scale better to late game. Like either build higher tier, field something more powerful and shoot with powerful stuff for free, or keep paying for some extra abilities with lower tier units (it has to be correctly balanced of course). Those lower tier units are still so much squishier have less healt and so on that it won't sttop people from building overall better units, but will give some sense to those units already on the field. It will also require some micro to activate those abilities.

Of coure extra range with vet is another path that could just complement it.

I still think 55 range will be better than more pen. With vet pen will increase and you have Panther and PaK40 for that job too.

Outrange is the problem

I still think 55 range will be better than more pen. With vet pen will increase and you have Panther and PaK40 for that job too.

Outrange is the problem

Yep. Good place to start with. I feel all turetless TD might have same range. The difference between them might be sonewhere else (dmg/rof/hp/pen/armour). It would 'feel' so much more logical, especially to new players.

Yep. Good place to start with. I feel all turetless TD might have same range. The difference between them might be sonewhere else (dmg/rof/hp/pen). It would 'feel' so much more logical especially to new players

You're going to keep going with that "feel"?
Should AEC have 50 range instead of 40 too? Or should Puma have 40?

You're going to keep going with that "feel"?
Should AEC have 50 range instead of 40 too? Or should Puma have 40?

I only wrote about turetless tank destroyers.

I really think it may put off new players from the game. Stuff like one TD has 5 less range than another. One unit throws the same granade further than another. The same type of smoke works differently when used by another unit. The same grenade in hands of one unit deals different dmg than in the hands of another and so on. One unit has a bazooka that deals that dmg and another with the same bazooka deals other damage. It's not very logical imo and if possible should be unified a bit but not kill the diversity at the same time - it's a delicate issue. Other stats od TDs should differ a lot imo (accuracy with range/accuracy/armour/penetration/unit speed/rof/etc.) but having arbitrary values for units that were known to engage from a distance makes the game sometimes overly complicated and not too logical at the same time. It destroys the 'feel' of the game and confuse a lot of players. They feel they have to read a manual before playing and discover things that are completely unexpected/illogical. So yes, imo it would be better to have same initial range for all turetless tank destroyers.

I only wrote about turetless tank destroyers.

I really think it may put off new players from the game. Stuff like one TD has 5 less range than another. One unit throws the same granade further than another. The same type of smoke works differently when used by another unit. The same grenade in hands of one unit deals different dmg than in the hands of another and so on. One unit has a bazooka that deals that dmg and another with the same bazooka deals other damage. It's not very logical imo and if possible should be unified a bit but not kill the diversity at the same time - it's a delicate issue. Other stats od TDs should differ a lot imo (accuracy with range/accuracy/armour/penetration/unit speed/rof/etc.) but having arbitrary values for units that were known to engage from a distance makes the game sometimes overly complicated and not too logical at the same time. It destroys the 'feel' of the game and confuse a lot of players. They feel they have to read a manual before playing and discover things that are completely unexpected/illogical. So yes, imo it would be better to have same initial range for all turetless tank destroyers.

It's not any different than having infantry units using the same weapons, having different performance on different ranges.
Range on tanks is not hard. 40/50/60 with some unique cases in between.

You could give the Stug 60 range, but then you would need to drastically increase the cost or make it deal 120dmg per shot as the Su76. Any drastic change means a rework, an effort which i don't think is needed when this types of units just need a nudge here n there.

It's not any different than having infantry units using the same weapons, having different performance on different ranges.
Range on tanks is not hard. 40/50/60 with some unique cases in between.

You could give the Stug 60 range, but then you would need to drastically increase the cost or make it deal 120dmg per shot as the Su76. Any drastic change means a rework, an effort which i don't think is needed when this types of units just need a nudge here n there.

Best would be to overwork the vet system and add an update.

e.g. remove the vet2 armor and hp buff, instead make split some vet3 reload with vet2.

With T4 StuG get can make a upgrade (100mp and 20fuel) to get armor and hp, +5 range. (rename normal StuG to StuG F, upgrade to StuG G) in real live they change the barrel to a longer version, so it would be authentic too.


Edit, same can be made with Panther and Panzer 4. Maybe only a armor buff but split the vet-ability, so they become faster better. Better armor needs a upgrade. (to get an answer for the Panther-redesign and Jackson thread. ;DD)

It's not any different than having infantry units using the same weapons, having different performance on different ranges.

Its a bit different. As infantry you are tdaking into account the quality of training as associated with price andv to an extent even the name. Conscripts and guards both use nagant rifles. It's not unreasonable to assume thar the guards might shoot it faster and moyre accurately

There is a clear human element in infantry that id lacking in armour.

Its a bit different. As infantry you are tdaking into account the quality of training as associated with price andv to an extent even the name. Conscripts and guards both use nagant rifles. It's not unreasonable to assume thar the guards might shoot it faster and moyre accurately

There is a clear human element in infantry that id lacking in armour.

Well, there is a type of ammunition used as that kind of factor for vehicles if we want to be picky, which is easy explanation for range, penetration and AoE differences bewteen StuG and P4 for example.
Training is still a factor as sniper also uses mosin and shoots further then conscripts or guards.

Pretty much the only weapons that are consistent across the faction are the ones that are exclusively for one singular unit.

And since CoH is arcade RTS and not simulator like MoW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with inconsistencies as long as desired balance of the unit is achieved. What weapon looks like, who uses it or how its named couldn't be any less relevant here is balance is end goal.

Its not like elchino is wrong there.

Its a bit different. As infantry you are tdaking into account the quality of training as associated with price andv to an extent even the name. Conscripts and guards both use nagant rifles. It's not unreasonable to assume thar the guards might shoot it faster and moyre accurately

There is a clear human element in infantry that id lacking in armour.

I should had specified. Not talking about the accuracy, but the damage the weapon does as well. Regarding range i was thinking how the weapon behaves differently, not just better (example Stg44).
Conscripts Mosins deal 12 a shot, while most if not all other Mosins deal 16.
Kar98 from most units deal 16. Osstruppen deal 8. Volks deal 12. PF deal 10.

Colourful note: by looking at Cruzz spreadsheet, i just realised that OKW Pak 43 crew is listed as using OH weapon crew cause they are using mp40s. Should launch the game to check if that is correct.

It's not any different than having infantry units using the same weapons, having different performance on different ranges.

With infantry it is different as they still shoot at different ranges just have different dmg profiles, which I find OK (feels intuitive).

With say stug, you have to constatly risk by closing in the unit with inferior range while the oponent backs off luring you into other AT options. Stug is really fragile and will just die in seconds not having even a chace to fire. Those TDs with superior range really shine here, especially because they have almost sniper accuracy at max range. I'd rather have the same range and worse stats for stug (pen/dmg'rof) when the bullet hits rather than inferor range. It would mean so much less microing it and dedicating some more time to other units. When I play against a competent player using su76 it is what I would like with stug.

Range on tanks is not hard. 40/50/60 with some unique cases in between.

You could give the Stug 60 range, but then you would need to drastically increase the cost or make it deal 120dmg per shot as the Su76. Any drastic change means a rework, an effort which i don't think is needed when this types of units just need a nudge here n there.

Agreed - it's a delicate matter. But that's why US style AT may be another option - to pay munitions for this extra penetration and/or range. Stugs/paks used to have great stun ability but it got nerfed and now there's a problem, especially with stug.

Well, there is a type of ammunition used as that kind of factor for vehicles if we want to be picky, which is easy explanation for range, penetration and AoE differences bewteen StuG and P4 for example.
Training is still a factor as sniper also uses mosin and shoots further then conscripts or guards.

Pretty much the only weapons that are consistent across the faction are the ones that are exclusively for one singular unit.

And since CoH is arcade RTS and not simulator like MoW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with inconsistencies as long as desired balance of the unit is achieved. What weapon looks like, who uses it or how its named couldn't be any less relevant here is balance is end goal.

Its not like elchino is wrong there.

Of course you can go deeper into the realms of ammunition but I think that's unrealistic to assume for a casual player, even one that's slightly into the genre.

A sniper by definition is better at using the weapon. Hardly a prime example.

As for the others it COULD be boiled down to making their shits count. The damage isn't as key as the DPS. The better solider, despite using the same gun, can kill quicker. At the heart of it that's not unreasonable.

A cannon however, having them preform radically different can lead to confusion to the avid ww2 "fan" (bad term Givin the death but idk what else to call it) but not someone all up in here asking for hard stats...


Like someone who knows the war might be confused that the pak43 deals 320 damage as an emplacement, 300 as an elefant, 300 as a JT but now with more range and 240 on the KT but with less range....
Or that the ZiS3 on the zis has less pen and damage when mounted on the T70 chassis.

I feel that it's simply more complicated than it needs to be. Obviously at THIS point there is no going back, but I almost feel that it would be easier in a sequel (and better for the casual player) if performance is normalizes and price is the defining balancing factor (that and things like ROF and accuracy which can be accounted for by crew conditions)

Its all simantic and theory now so I won't persue the discussion but I can understand the infantry variable but less so the vehicle one simply due to perception.


The player base is shrinking and its only hard fans left, I'd say in the future having the game simplified and more predictable and transparent will help the games health by allowing casual players to get deeper into the game without going out of their way

Of course you can go deeper into the realms of ammunition but I think that's unrealistic to assume for a casual player, even one that's slightly into the genre.

A sniper by definition is better at using the weapon. Hardly a prime example.

As for the others it COULD be boiled down to making their shits count. The damage isn't as key as the DPS. The better solider, despite using the same gun, can kill quicker. At the heart of it that's not unreasonable.

A cannon however, having them preform radically different can lead to confusion to the avid ww2 "fan" (bad term Givin the death but idk what else to call it) but not someone all up in here asking for hard stats...


Like someone who knows the war might be confused that the pak43 deals 320 damage as an emplacement, 300 as an elefant, 300 as a JT but now with more range and 240 on the KT but with less range....
Or that the ZiS3 on the zis has less pen and damage when mounted on the T70 chassis.

I feel that it's simply more complicated than it needs to be. Obviously at THIS point there is no going back, but I almost feel that it would be easier in a sequel (and better for the casual player) if performance is normalizes and price is the defining balancing factor (that and things like ROF and accuracy which can be accounted for by crew conditions)

Its all simantic and theory now so I won't persue the discussion but I can understand the infantry variable but less so the vehicle one simply due to perception.


The player base is shrinking and its only hard fans left, I'd say in the future having the game simplified and more predictable and transparent will help the games health by allowing casual players to get deeper into the game without going out of their way

That's exactly what it is But it could be amended more easily i hope (I'm an optimist by nature)- just making it more predictable would be enough. For the gameplay it could be better to have units that penetrate doing less damage consistently than to make them out of range. Stug is a relatively long barrel AT and should deal consistent damage to tanks at TDs range. Lots of players would find it natural. The heavier the tank the less damage stug would inflict. Su85 should have the same range but inflic more damage as it is bigger and has 85 mm gun. It would win against stug easily trading blows. But the situation when stug has to chase to even get this less penetrating and less damaging shot is just ridiculous to some players, and they abandon the game feeling that something is wrong here.

So back to the topic.

You have a cheap/moderate TD on one hand, an expensive heavy tank on the other. In terms of game balance, do you want a pen and how often do you want it?

IMO the most elegant solution would be a range nerf to all TDs, a RoF buff, an accuracy nerf and a penetration buff. That would make them better vs heavies, less of a total shut down of medium armour, and would prevent the sniping from far away which is so annoying and unhistorical.

===========

Could also remove all TDs. And buff all allied tanks to the level of the Panther.
Problem solved. Although then would need to remove the Panther's range buff to prevent annoying
and unhistorical sniping which the Panther was famous for (Really nice Zeiss sights).

Isn't perfect balance what should be achieved?