Profile of ullumulu

Jump back to quoted post17 Aug 2020, 10:03 AMachpawel

I still stand with what I wrote a couple of months back.

The way tank destroyers deal damage should be changed completely:
1. They should deal a fraction of vehicle heath's damage, not a fixed hp value. They should, for example, deal 25% damage to any vehicle. This will mean that they will kill every vehicle in 4 shots. It would be the same for medium and a heavy tanks (or even lights). By 25% I mean the hp value based on the full vehicle health, not what was left on the health bar (however, one could also experiment with this). If balance team decided that it would be better for them to deal, for example, 20% damage, it would mean that all vehicles will die to 5 shots.
2. Tank destroyers dealing damage this way would finally be balanced as they would never be a better answer to mediums than other medium tanks. Players would have to decide if they prefer an all rounder (AI capable as well) or a tank destroyer. In some scenarios it would be actually better to have a premium medium to deal with other mediums than a tank destroyer.

I hope what I wrote is clear enough

Jump back to quoted post11 Aug 2020, 12:00 PMProtos Angelus

Side to side of ISU and JGDT:

Armour and HP: Jagd wins with 110 more frontal armour and 80 more hp and 45 less rear armour
Damage and Penetration AT: Jagd wins with 60 more dmg and 100% penetration vs all targets
Damage and penetration AI: ISU 152 wins with switchable ammunition which takes %d seconds to swap making it impossible to target both AI and AT at the same time. HE ammo is exceptionally good vs soft targets.
Rate of Fire: Jagd wins with 8.55 vs 9-11 seconds reload.

Abilities: Jagd has more if I'm not mistaken. The 128mm howitzer shell for infantry and APCBC for long range through buildings.

Maneuverability: Pretty much the same

So. Raw stats you can see that Jagd denies all allied armour while ISU denies Axis infantry charges. Seems pretty asymmetrically balanced to me. The commanders in which the units are is a different story and should be looked at separately.

Point is: You would not choose ISU to fight tanks due to the long ammo swap and difficulty staying on target (eg fast Panthers and P4s) and you wouldn't choose Jagd to fight infantry.
Soviets for AT have 85 and OKW for infantry has stukas and obers. ISU 152 complements AI power for soviets and Jagd complements AT for OKW. Although with the existance of Jagdpanzer in OKW, Jagd in smaller modes is useless. Jagdpanzer has 230 armour and 60 range making it excellent vs ally tank destroyers as the ally TDs won't penetrate 100% and JgdPanzer will.

Jagdtiger is pointless in weak hands.

Jump back to quoted post11 Aug 2020, 10:10 AMMaret

I already suggested improve stock damage of SU-76 to 160 when T4 is built. But lock SU-85 and katy further away in terms of timing and resources. Current pen and 160 damage is more than enough to fight against P4. While it still fragile "3 shots to die" thing. Good against mediums and lower, very bad choice against top-tier guys.Without AI it also could be easily counter by infantry and ATG. While smoke shot instead of HE barrage give few utility.
Problem of SU-76 is timing. T3 tier for soviets is barrier on the road to T4. While this position there is, no any chances to make SU-76 playable.

Jump back to quoted post11 Aug 2020, 00:09 AMProtos Angelus

If the game was IRL-ready then pretty much every Axis tank except P4s would regularly break down.
There is no reason to play Jagd or elefant in 2v2 unless the enemy fields an ISU152. ISU152 can also be countered by pretty much anything. It's just a semi-stationary cannon in HE mode and mediocre TD in AP mode. Problem is, people expect to blob against it and win. Some maps are heaven for ISU152, even in 2v2 where you have a lot of unobstructed vision to snipe (same goes for axis HTD)