One could say that the penetration is fine, but it is the long range accuracy (scatter) that is affecting the AT performance of this vehicle.
It is actually accuracy in general. For a tank that is supposedly so much better armoured than its counterparts to the point it has such a low penetration, it should at least hit often enough to make up for that.
This is basically the infantry problem all over again: The game heavily favours mobile units. That's why Maxim spam works (although squad size also plays a role there), that's why the Cromwell is so ridiculously good. It's also why the Panther isn't so obviously rubbish, because it is at least heavily mobile which makes up for a lot of negative points.
But the Panzer IV isn't particularly superior in mobility most of the time, so it is hurt pretty bad by not being the best in some other stat. Combine that with the higher moving accuracy of all but the Soviet (and some OKW) tanks, and the problem is pretty obvious.
I'd rather see the actual armour and penetration stats remain the same, and instead see the moving accuracy of all tanks adjusted. As a start, all tanks should have a 50% penalty against other vehicles, while some tanks like the Sherman (which is primarily an infantry support tank) should keep their penalty or receive less of a penalty against infantry. That would level the playing field considerably, and finally equalise things between Cromwell and Panzer IV. |
That means we need 45 more players to start contributing replays to the thread. Why don't you become the 6th such contributor?
Because that would require a) any players in my time zone playing with the mod (not the biggest problem, due to me playing mostly 1v1s) and b) the game not to perform horribly with replays recording in the background. And no, my computer isn't the issue, as I'm running on an i5 4570, GTX 1070, 16GB RAM, with both the game and the system installed on SSDs. As soon as I unlock the replay folder, the game drops to about 20 FPS on medium to low settings, which is unplayable in my opinion.
Hector, Le Saucisson Masqué, The Lnt.599, Danyek and Finndeed have already been carrying the entire community.
Ah yes, that good old argument at it again. Or in other words, why don't I just shut up because my ideas are not considered of enough grandeur to make me part of that mythical group that is responsible for this community even existing?
You have no idea what ideas we have already hatched to make the Greyhound, the 250 or the WC-51 to make them both useful and sexy.
No, I can't read your minds and since you people don't tell anyone outside of your "gang", nobody but you people knows. What I do know is that especially transport vehicles in a game of this scale are a particularly moronic idea to implement in the first place. Which is why "buffing" the 251 to transport mortars was about as useful as sewing a knob to my cheek, compared to simply bringing it up to the level of other forward reinforcement vehicles (either by going the way of the American ambulance, or the Soviet M5). Taking the hilariously complicated and time expensive work to transport your units around the field works in game like War Game, because the scale matches the amount of units on the field. But in a game where your infantry on foot arrives barely five seconds after the vehicle (especially with the pathing issues), and embarking plus disembarking together takes more mirco and 4 seconds (at least in v1.1 WBP it does take that long) it doesn't make any sense.
Unless you want to entirely rework the 250 (which is what I am arguing against), there is no way to make it useful. Of course, I don't pay you and thus I don't get to order you around or anything, but don't be surprised if acceptance and player input is so low when you focus on things like the StuG E (apart from nerfing it to make the boring meta go away) and potentially the 250... |
- Save Greyhound/250 from uselessness
Please, simply ignore the 250 and don't waste any resources on it. The Greyhound to some point warrants using those resources, because it could be an actually useful unit. The 250 on the other hand is simply bad by design, not just because of its stats.
It's the same as with the StuG E, that thing should have simply been nerfed to remove it from the annoying and boring meta strats, and then be forgotten. That unit brings nothing of value to the game, spending any resources on it to "fix" it like you people tried in v1.1 (which still doesn't help it at all, that unit's initial nerf in v1.0 crushed its back and nobody is sad about that) is a complete waste of time.
Sure, that way isn't the elegant one (i.e. "every unit is beautiful"), but it works. Some units would simply take so much tinkering and trying and changing to make them usable without them being OP, that the time is better spent on more important things. Having stuff like the faction problems arising from "early infantry prowess vs. tank superiority" being solved is much more important than fixing some weak doctrinal units. The same could of course be said about the Greyhound, but some sort of prioritisation should be made - units that are actually salvageable like the Greyhound are much higher on the "unimportant things"-list than stuff like the fucking useless 250. |
|
Remove one man from Gren, PzGren and Pioneer squads. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) |
Discussing terminology and ingame classifications are irrelevant.
It is somewhat relevant (even to this topic), as people expect certain units to behave in a relatively similar fashion to their real counterparts. Nobody expects a StuG to start flying around the map and act like a plane, because it didn't do so in reality. People don't expect the Panzer IV to outclass the Tiger, because it didn't do so in reality.
If some people now start throwing wrong labels around, that may wake the wrong expectations with other participants.
Of course the game takes some freedom with those labels (the Panther wasn't a tank destroyer, despite behaving like the German equivalent of the Jackson in the game), but those work within the boundaries of the actual roles of these units in reality. Of course the StuG for example is not great at fighting infantry, but it does a significantly better job at it than an actual tank destroyer in the game would (for example the Jagdpanzer IV/70).
TLDR: If people start calling a tail a leg, and use that as the basis for their arguments, the argument itself becomes convoluted to the point of making no sense anymore. |
Alright, I get you. Although I still think the functionality of a StuG separates it considerably from the Puma regardless of what they might kill.
So much so that I wouldn't lump them together except in very cursory categories.
That's because his definition has nothing to do with the actual definition. The term "heavy" or "medium" or "light" in front of an armoured fighting vehicle never refers to anything but the vehicle itself. That may be a gun definition (which is why the Panther was a medium tank for the Germans) or a weight definition (which is why the Pershing was not a heavy tank for the Americans). The supposed opponents of a vehicle are irrelevant to that classification. |
|
@Mr.Smith: I may not agree on many of those changes, but it is good to see you explaining them so thoroughly. Compared to how Relic acted like (even in their forum) this is a significant step forwards. Thank you. |
Considering it comes with the useless "Cold package" which is why I suspect it's price is what it is, more so when you consider Pgrens get 1x shreck at 60 muni (120 for whole package(2x shrecks)).
And then we take a look at all the factors at play here (instead of omitting everything that doesn't suit our point), only to see that Ostheer teching is more expensive in return, and that PzGrens are a more vulnerable, more expensive unit. "HOW DARE THEY BE BETTER AT SOMETHING WHILE COSTING MORE", to more or less use your words… |
Btw, what about a little buff of sturmtiger in the next patches, when you will work on heavy tank.
This unit is almost never used in 1 vs 1;
That's because the requirements to make it economically useful are not met in 1v1 matches. The Sturmtiger is the ultimate blob-counter, when 1v1 matches don't allow for the massive blobs necessary for the Sturmtiger to become interesting. On top of that, actually blobbing in 1v1 and recovering from losing such a blob is basically impossible, so the Sturmtiger becomes a one trick pony, which is not sustainable for such a massive investment.
So the issues are similar to those of the Elefant, ISU-152, and Ostheer Tier IV in general. Does that mean these tools should be buffed? No, not every tool is the right tool for a specific job, and as such some units simply won't be effective in 1v1 matches. |
I think it´s pretty senseless to discuss only the current early game changes. Allies naturally have better early game than Axis which compensates later. Of course they have to perform better with their infantry. You can´t expect US infantry to be only on par with Ostheer when they don´t have tanks on the level of other factions lategame vehicles.
That design idea, while correct, is based on the assumption that Axis tanks actually are superior to their Allied counterparts. Which in the case of Ostheer tanks is simply not true, considering the state of the Panther and Panzer IV. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
