My point was and is that it is generally better to use already existing systems.
Target tables are already an existing system even in COH2:
Brumbar
ST
AVRE
Luch
PTRS
Bazooka
Shreck
Piat
Satchel
AT satchel
Land mattress
Tullip
all use target table just to name few.
Changing normal stats, abilities like switchable shells and abilities in general that for stat reasons work better on certain targets. These are all logically and intuitively clear to the player.
The problem with current implementation of HVAP M93 Shells or HEAT shell is that they are better shell regardless of target and not against specific targets.
One can combine the target tables with abilities explaining that the specific round is specifically design vs super heavy tank.
While target tables can work on a gameplay level, they are often forgotten down the line during balance. Although you want to use them rarely, the way put it makes me think they will be used more frequently than you probably think. Heavy TDs get bonusses vs heavies, a logical extension will be AI specialists getting negative modifiers for vehicles or positive ones for infantry. Basically most specialists could get a modifier to reinforce their role. That might be a decent chunk of the units in the game getting modifiers.
Target tables got a bad name due to COH1 where units of the same type like infatry used different types of "armor" and thus where extremely durable vs certain weapons and very weak vs others. The system was confusing and made little sense and one had to know what work against what.
We are talking about something completely different. Grouping weapon and targets in a way that makes sense will help player and developers. In the end of the day it does not matter how many units have modifiers as long as the system has clear rules that are easy to understand and make sense.
This can make it quite obscure how some units function. Why does my heavy TD a lot of damage to heavies, but not so much to mediums? Gameplay wise this might be quite desirable, but it does not communicate well to someone not digging stats. It is easier to understand if either the unit itself is designed for a slow ROF with high penetration or if I can force this via abilities.
Because it designed as a hard counter to Super heavies. The system of lower ROF was tested in COH2 and was partially removed for units like the M36.
Imo it is pretty easy to explain to player that a certain unit is designed specifically to counter super heavies and it much more disable than a unit that counter everything from kubel to KT with the same ease.
The former makes it consistent vs all targets, the latter gives the player a logical reason why the unit suddenly behaves differently: Because - simply put - he pressed a button to make the unit do that. But target tables don't. They just force different outcomes for the same event. That's why my whole point so far is to not use them unless there is no other option or an actual logical and obvious reason for it, such as damage vs buildings/emplacements.
Only it's performance should not be consistent against all target because that make other units obsolete.
Why would one bother to build a SU-76 that can not fight heavily armored target when a SU-85 can fight both medium and heavily armored units better?
Imo target tables is not the cause of a problem but the solution in better designing rock/paper/scissor units and it is being implemented in number of other games.
Problem starts when one uses target tables but creates that is inconstant and "illogical" and creates unique solution for similar issues. Actually this happens also to be the case in CoH2 but thankfully in small degree (and same uses of target tables do not make sense).
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
