Profile of achpawel

i think what hes saying is having a little bit of extra armour on 1 tank over another doesn't make much difference ingame as the chance to pen only changes a little bit, so small its really insignificant. Ther are more important values that make more of a difference like health, accuracy etc.

Yes. Exactly.

One more thing to remember is that a gun can miss the tank entirely (likely), hit the rear armour (more likely than a bounce usually on medium tanks). It is also very important to remember that tanks have different penetration at different ranges. Some tanks have better guns than other tanks and it is usually more important than the frontal armour. Reload speeds, aim time, sight range, etc are also very important. Snares are the most important to be honest (whether it is an at grenade/faust, mine, button/shell shock, or a ram doesn't really matter here - a snared tank is most likely a dead tank)

OK we're wrong you are right. Math is wrong too apparently but you are definitely right. 160<240 is a lie because youve said so. 100%> 75% is a lie. 2+2=5. Why bother with any stats ever. At all.

I'm not saying it is a lie. It is just misleading to compare these values like You suggest. Such differences are just too small to have much impact on a vehicle vs at solutions performance. You are just overly focused on 20-70 front armour difference while forgetting that it won't matter that much on the battlefield

A separate thing is the fact that many allied vehicles are more heavily armoured than you seem to acknowledge.

A rak is fine as it is imo. The at gun that is better than all other are, is probably the ZiS that has a crew of 6, shield, barrage and very good at capabilities. This one is really difficult to decrew (remember that cons have merge here too)

I can list every stock tank that has a chance to bounce standard AT guns (180 pen at max range) and the data wouldn't do your argument well. It's true indeed the allies have some more durable armour doctrinal, but they are significantly limited in access. The okw for example has more units stock that bounce standard AT than usf has total that can bounce it. Soviet, whome have the largest selection of doctrinal heavy Armour only match okws stock armour count for tanks that can bounce AT guns at max range, and they are all exclusive with one another.

The claim that most axis armour has a higher armour value is extremely true, even when considering doctrinal armour. Doubly so when you consider accessibility. You are guaranteed to fight a tank that will bounce AT shots when facing the okw, and highly likely from ost (if my Stat memory serves even a vetted stug has a very tiny chance to bounce)

Its a very valid claim.

What you are trying to prove is wrong imo.

1. Allied are 3 factions against 2 axis factions. Some of the tanks are the same for both axis factions. Because of that allied stock+doc rooster has way more tanks than axis, and allies also have many more heavily armoured tanks than axis. Churchill could be a stock example of such a really heavily armoured tank, but the plethora of Sov and UKF doctrine tanks just makes it even more varied and numerous. How can anyone not see that? It is very possible that an axis player will face a completely different mix of tanks/tank destroyers/at guns in each out of 10-20 matches. Allied player will only see a few tank compositions repeated in each game. The difference is huge. It is simply a myth that axis have more thickly armoured vehicles. Now even usf have self-service dozer shermans.
2. Even if there are those tiny differences between medium tanks they mean very little. It is a very similar number of at shots to kill such tanks. If you pay significantly more in terms of manpower/fuel you might buy a panther as axis, and that would be, realistically speaking, the only more heavily armoured stock tank on the axis side. But even paying more resources might just give you 1, max 2 more at shots before it gets destroyed. The higher price tag on the panther and not being able to deal with infantry (in relation to how much you pay for it) just makes it a bit of a weirdo tank. It can be kited by tank destroyers so it is an at tank that is just too expensive for what it does. I'm not mentioning KT as it is just too slow and has no firepower (in relation to tech and cost) to realistically be used in 1v1.
3. Axis generally don't have that many reliable 60+ range tank destroyers. This basically means there is not much sense of having this 1-2 shot more durability if you can be kited and either destroyed or lured into at guns, mines, handheld ats, etc. You can be forced to be constantly repaired, which is a perfect tactics of denying axis arnour have any significant battlefield presence.

To sum up, allies have better armour, as it is cheaper and can reliably deal with both tanks and infantry and can be backed up by much better tank destroyers. Making raks less durable just makes no sense imo, as allied tanks are simply better than axis tanks (and very often even more amoured). How can one want to nerf rak if Soviets have dual purpose, even more durable ZiS guns?

I personally really like the 'unpredictability' factor that the game has because of abandon mechanism and all crits for that matter. They all make the player, a commander in charge of some soldiers/crews who can, like in real war, behave unpredictably. Often mere luck plays role on the battlefield and the game conveys it nicely.

Alternative idea to adjust auto attacks. Make the max model affected to 1 they probably adjust the scatter and radius to make this consistent. This way the mortars will afflict 'attrition' while not in constant use but have some independence.

This is one of the things I liked about your mod
I would even add the mechanics that would make units drop models more consistently, rather than drop health first and only then models. It would be so much easier to balance different model count in squads.