Cromwell MGs

that is much as a argument as for the p4 (ostwind and stug)

it already has the best AT of all medium tanks (50% reload at vet 3, best pen profile with high pen at all ranges, commander give extra accuracy and sight)

i would prefer a little buff to the mg too, to kill stranglers when u hit them with the 75mm

It's not quite the same because OST has the StuG.

If OST goes for an Ostwind, it can get a StuG to support it. UKF doesn't have that sort of cheap AT tank to support the Centaur unless it goes for Lend Lease Assault Regiment.

That leaves the Centaur reliant on anti-tank guns for AT support, which heavily limits its mobility. That means the Centaur needs a hefty AI advantage over the Cromwell to make that sacrifice worth it.

That's currently achieved by the Cromwell having trashy anti-infantry. If you buff the Cromwell's anti-infantry ability, you risk rendering the Centaur off-meta to obsolete.

Hence my suggestion to buff the Cromwell's AT instead, filling the midrange anti-tank role UKF currently lacks.

You could also just slash the price on the Cromwell.

Underperforming means it needs buff.
You'd rather see the gun having lower scatter or reload and significantly increase one shot wipe potential or have MGs buffed to increase AI reliability that way?

In fact, I believe that T34 approach to MGs should be how AI is balanced for all generalist tanks.

Your claim that according to patch notes T-34/76 has "shit perfomance in its main gun" is simply false. That is actually your own personal opinion and if you want to back it up I suggested you provide a comparison of the guns of meduim tanks including AOE profiles, scatter and reload values or in game tests.

If you want to do so pls do it in another thread since this one is about Cromwell's mgs.

Now pls move on.


When it comes to Cromwell I would suggeset a redesing to a "flank tank" (for T-34/76 also) a unit with improved perfomance at close with higher penetration and reload at close range. I see litle reason why the main gun of most vehicles have the same reload at all ranges.

Your claim that according to patch notes T-34/76 has "shit perfomance in its main gun" is simply false. That is actually your own personal opinion and if you want to back it up I suggested you provide a comparison of the guns of meduim tanks including AOE profiles, scatter and reload values or in game tests.

If you want to do so pls do it in another thread since this one is about Cromwell's mgs.

It wasn't labeled as underperforming due to lack of mobility or armor you know.

And cromwell would go a long way if its MGs were buffed in similar manner as its AT performance isn't bad, in general brit meds are pretty lacking in AI department.

Your claim that according to patch notes T-34/76 has "shit perfomance in its main gun" is simply false. That is actually your own personal opinion and if you want to back it up I suggested you provide a comparison of the guns of meduim tanks including AOE profiles, scatter and reload values or in game tests.

If you want to do so pls do it in another thread since this one is about Cromwell's mgs.

Now pls move on.

When it comes to Cromwell I would suggeset a redesing to a "flank tank" (for T-34/76 also) a unit with improved perfomance at close with higher penetration and reload at close range. I see litle reason why the main gun of most vehicles have the same reload at all ranges.

===========
I disagree. He's right. I do remember the whole discussion about the T34's performance.
T34/76 used to do 80 dmg with main gun, but had great AOE. When this was increased to 160, then
it over-performed. So the solution was to lower the AOE of the main gun (who now wiped every squad)
and instead buff the MGs. When you forget why something was done and go back on it, the problem it
fixed tends to resurface.

He's saying it's good for the Cromwell for a similar reason.

As for redesigning (you made a typo) the T34/76 and Cromwell into close-range tanks,
no. There is absolutely no reason why the reload time should change because of range.
This was actually discussed for snipers (making them aim quicker at short range).

- Changing reload times because of distance is non-sensical as well as unhistorical.
- What you mean is aim times. Less aim/wind-up time when target is up-close.

That makes more sense.
But ultimately, it'd make them into more of infantry wipe machines.
Then you'd eat your words.

Leaving them as such with buffed MGs is the way to go.
The whole point of that it doesn't insta-wipe infantry squads while not being completely useless.
Also it has more reliability than RNG nothing-or-wipe HE guns

It wasn't labeled as underperforming due to lack of mobility or armor you know.

And cromwell would go a long way if its MGs were buffed in similar manner as its AT performance isn't bad, in general brit meds are pretty lacking in AI department.

Cromwell mobility kept getting nerfed because of crushing infantry issues.
- Cromwell was designed as a cruiser tank (mobility) so when that was crushed,
it caused issues.

The underperformance is because :
it used to insta-wipe squads because of RNG.
Germans complained, so it's scatter was increased. It's accuracy on the move was raised a lot
it's mobility was decreased...

Yea. Upping it's MGs goes a long way towards helping it in a way that doesn't insta-wipe axis squads.
Same story as the T34 really. Germans may complain about the T34s machine-guns, but that's because
they forget the original problem which the buffed MGs helped fix.

Miragefla had a few lenghty posts explaining all of this. He's the one who came up with the idea.

Comet was buffed this way because of how well it worked for the T34.
- Comet wiping infantry is unacceptable.
- Comet having Panther-level AT is unacceptable.
... What justifies it's high cost now, then?!?!
It was clearly over-nerfed long ago.

Upping it's MGs brings back it's AI advantage without insta-wiping all infantry
and without upping it's AT (which would make the Panther crowd howl).

Honestly, it just seems like allies 'just shouldn't have anything nice'
or 'allies get a toy, axis should ALSO have it"

It's not RNG-based and doesn't insta-wipe, so, just let go...

===========
I disagree. He's right. ..

No he is wrong. The user claimed that according to the patch notes the T-34/76 has shit perfromance. That is simply not in the patch notes.

If in your opinion the T-36/76 has a bad main gain you can prodive a comaprison to the AOE profiles to scatter valuers and ROF but do it in another thread.

There is absolutely no reason why the reload time should change because of range.
This was actually discussed for snipers (making them aim quicker at short range).

You are actually mistaken here aslo. Actually sniper have the exact opposite desing and fire slower at close range. Quite frannly comparing a sniper with the main gun of tank is completly misleading.