If you want to create a new class of vehicles go ahead but you will have to create a total of 4 to also categorize ISU-152/KV-2/M4A4. I doubt many people will follow your categories and semantics not that important.
We don't have to create a new class and I didn't said that. I said 76mm unifies two classes in one unit.
That is not very accurate, Guards/Shock troops become OP when they where moved from CP 1 to CP 2.
Since it only was about a T4 tank which timing is regulated by tech costs I excluded that. Yeah timing and population are further factors. Although you got it somehow wrong here. But I can provide the stats for you if you want to. You want to check yourself?
Only this is not about what you have suggested (twice already, but without providing an actual price) but about what Easy ♠ has suggested that 76mm should get HE as is with no price change.
I just put it into the overall context of this thread and other posts. A price adjustment was part of the further discussion.
That's not true. The M10 is very good at it's role, which is to counter medium tanks. You rush one or two out, counter axis' mediums and unleash the damage with the howitzer Sherman. Also the M10 is a beast at crush damage and is an unorthodox way to deal with blobs. Combined with the dozer sherman you have a lot of wipe potential.
The problem with M10 is that its role is somehow undefined. Somehow it makes you believe it is a flanking tank (fast speed and accleration + flanking speed) but on the other side it is just made for frontal combat (50 range + good pen + Vet1 HVAP + too low turret rotation) as the poor man's Jackson. The unit isn't very well designed. They should have decided which role it is made for.
Swapping "problem" is way overblown on this forum. The delay is as long as reload itself and it is only an issue if you do it in armor combat, a.k.a "get caught with your pants down".
If you don't hit shell switch instantly after you fired you loose a few seconds up too the full ability delay. It gets more complicated (micro intensive) if you have multiple tanks. Thats clearly a disadvantage. If it wouldn't it simply could be one single shell with both attributes instead. The 76mm would be pretty good that way for its cost. It is a problem too if you get charged by AT infantry while you have AP locked in because any shoot at the advancing squads is valuable for your own survival.
now if in your opinion 0.07 bigger OHK radius is more important than AOE radius of 4 I can not really help you because you are cherry picking stat and painting a false picture.
Sherman HE round are simply not inferior to PzIV/T-34/85 as anyone can see from MMX analysis.
I thought OHK of HE shell would be 0,88 as the other Sherman shells. Yeah 1.08 to 1,15 / 1,13 is neglectable.
Again cherry picking and quoting half my post just so that you can compare different things. This is what I posted and what you deliberately left out.
While you are doing this constantly (deliberatley leaving out that half of posts where you can't argue about anymore) that wasn't what I did (look further below, there I declare why I compared to TD). In addition I just admitted I was wrong (see above), haven't seen you doing this once since I'm at this forums. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
"The 76mm has the most cost efficient AT shell and it penetration values are way high than other units of its class.
M10 and M36 are decided TD and not in the same class as the 76mm.
The switch mechanism does not make the unit change class.
The class is defined by its shell. One of its shells is like beeing a medicore TD, the other shell is like beeing medicore generalist tank. So there is no other unit that can be compared to 76mm. This only would be true if shell switch would be instant, but that is not the case. 76mm can change between role of TD/generalist tank. It is both of two worlds. It is logical to compare its AP shell which has no AI value to the shell of other TDs which have no AI value too.
I am not sure why you want to argue semantic here, things are pretty simple if 76mm had both HAVP and HE shell it would be simply be OP.
Op is defined by performance in comparison to cost. If a unit is too cost efficient it is op. Having HE and AP shell simply has to be taken into account if you calculate cost. So as I said two times already in this thread a cost adjustment has to be made in that case.
You can check Tanks shell here and see why HE Sherman is superior.
The M4A3 deals more consistent damage over a larger area, that is out of question. So it does more overall damage. Still its OHK-radius is worse than PZIV and T34/85. This game is about unit preservation. Killing a full four soldier squad is just plainly better than killing 3 soldiers of two different squads each with two single soldiers running away and preserving veterancy and upgrades. Without the menchanism of veterancy and purchasable unit upgrades Sherman HE would be clearly the best AI shell. But as it stands the shell with the higher wipe chance is the stronger one.
I would question that. There are two more cost efficient ones in the same faction alone:
76mm: 40 Range 220/180/165 6,35RoF for 380MP/125FU
M10: 50 Range 180/160/140 5,85RoF for 300MP/80FU
M36: 60 Range 260/240/220 6,55RoF for 400MP/145FU
I do think that M10 and M36 have a more cost efficient AT shell. They both do have a Vet1 HVAP shell in addition that drastically improves AT performance for some MU cost.
...and it penetration values are way high than other units of its class.
There is no real other unit of its class, because of the shell switch mechanism. Technically, if you refer to medium tanks, than keep in mind that other medium tanks with lower penetration have good AI damage with the same shell without having to swap.
I skipped through it, because I don't know what I should look for. The only thing this video shows that is reffering to Mechanized: You were able to micro your WC51 well until it payed for itself.
- there were no Cav Rifles
- there was no M21 HT
- there was no M3 HT
- 76mm showed up as the game was won already and added nothing, before you owned opponent with regular M4A3s and AT-Guns already
- did you use combined arms somehow in that game?
You would have won this game without choosing a commander at all. You just played way better and controlled the game with nondoctrinal units and abiliites. What do you want to show with that video? Yes, we can see that you are able to play the faction very well.
Yes it would be OP, having a single vehicle with the best HE round and the Best AP round is simply too much. Changing shell is close to simple reload so it less of an issue than it presented.
Dont know why you are only refering to the label HE and AP. Overall it isn't the best AI shell nor the best AT shell. At AI I like the shell of other mediums like PZIV and T34/85 a lot more, both deal less consistent damage but have a higher chance to wipe. Higher Wiping chance clearly outshines more consistent damage with less wiping chance in a game that is about unit preservation. Keeping your vetted troops alive is key. In addition PZIV and T34/85 don't need to switch shell to be efficient vs armoured targets. A further advantage.
We don't need to talk about AT, there are multiple tanks better than 76mm in that compartment. Thats fine of course because 76mm should be more of an allrounder.
In the end beeing op is just about a unit being too cheap for its performance in ressource cost and population. I already said that a cost adjustment could be necessary
As a lv19 USF 1v1 player who uses Mechanized every single game against OKW, I find this thread hilarious.
Maybe you can elaborate about your tactics so that other players see the benefit of this commander? Overall its only place 6 in commander loadout in 1vs1 and non-existent in any game mode above it. Maybe you played it in 2vs2 or up too and could tell us about that too? If you came just to say that you find the thread hilarious without saying a single word about how it should be used yout post is just useless and insulting. If you tell us how it should be used and why other people underestimate it your post could be actually really useful. I would appreciate that.
There a reason, if 76mm had both HAVP and HE rounds it would be broken
I'm not entirely sure about it. The shell switch delay does make the switching of shell in the middle of a combat pretty much useless. So if we assume we have two of them and are fighting a mixed force 2x 76mm would be still worse than a M4A3/M36 combo. Why? While one 76mm would be just a more expensive copy of M4A3 with HE shell which can do nothing versus tanks, the other one would still underperform in AT comparison to M36 with an AP shell that does nothing versus infantry.
The bonus in variety would be using both with HE or AP shell if you are fighting infantry or tanks only of course. Still you would have your pants down if you run into the other kind of unit type. In addition the 76mm doesn't scale very well versus the late game tanks. I do think it wouldn't be broken. And if it turns out to be too good after all you could just balance by delaying the shell switch further or adapting unit cost.
Either way HE/AP shell switch could work out because 76mm would be a straight upgrade of M4A3 instead of beeing inferior to M4A3/M36 at AI and AT.
if balance was symmetrical I would have agreed with your opinion, but otherwise I do not, because every faction have its unique stock units, that totally stand out compared to others. The obvious examples would be, pgrens, obers, comets and KT. So logically when you include those units this reduces amount of units available. E.g. comp consisting of several cons,2 zis,2 engies, single katy and an armada of t34 76 gonna be bigger then UKF analog but with comets.
Handling population the same way at all factions does have nothing to do with symmetrical/asymmetrical balance. I never said lets PGrens cost the same population as Conscripts for example, I said let them all cost according to their own overall power level. So yeah one army may be way bigger as another one of course, as long as the overall power level of all units together is the same in comparison to the smaller army of the other player. I just don't like the argument that FF has to be lowered because UKF is a population heavy faction. It should be lowered because its powerlevel is about population 15. There should be no population heavy faction, units should cost exactly the population they are worth in game value. This leads to a small army if each unit is powerful. Again, an army can rely more on munition, fuel or manpower but population should be an independent tool to balance the lategame.
Judging by patchnotes in recent history Jackson was never 15 pop, it used to be 14 before 17th of May 2018, then they bumped it to 16 (read my comment with a spoiler). So I have no idea where you've got this info from.
So it was 14 and went to 16? Seems I didn't remember correctly.
My guess for FF change is because the faction is very popcap heavy with Churchills and Comets, so reducing FF popcap cost slightly buffs lategame composition.
As for Jackson it is obviously (although not everybody agrees with that) stronger then FF with its 0.75 moving acc, excellent speed with acceleration, great penetration scaling and AP shells.
No idea why Su85 has this cost, but the pop adds up. I'd even say that SU is generally better then FF. Even though the FF has a turret its rotation speed is pretty bad (I guess it is still better then not having a turret)
Imo most patches seem like reactionary tweaks from initial idea of supposed price/performance.
BTW Jackson is 145fuel now, that makes it 400mp 145 fuel.
I do think population is the value that should balance the game when everybody is maxed out. For me there is no faction thing about it. No faction should be anyhow more population heavy than another. A faction may lean more to being depended on a resource manpower, fuel or munition but this shouldn’t be the case for population. Population has to be balanced across all factions the same way around combat value and versatility, else some factions will be more powerful in lategame than others. That should be avoided.
Population should not only include the Vet0 out of the box performance of a unit but should integrate how good a unit scales into lategame with veterancy and available upgrades.
Regarding the SU-85 same population for FF/SU-85 is fine, they are around the same combat value in lategame. But I can’t see how the big cost differences are justified. SU-85 may have a fixed turret but it also has the highest basic dps of all allied TDs, scales fine, is a great sight tool (especially at vet1) and is the most durable allied TD due to its clearly lower target size. I do thing FF and SU-85 should meet somewhere in the middle.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
