Every time this is brought up i say: we need better hit detection and probable accounting for angles between both vehicles, before we can consider side armor.
I'll rather have the armor vs penetration of a shell be considered based in the relative position of both targets rather than taking into account at which part of the hitbox the shell collides with (specially with scatter shots).
ah well, a man can dream!
though having proper side armor would go a long way already imho. or at the very least having the ability to change the size / proportions of the front and rear armor hitboxes so no longer half of the vehicle counts as 'rear armor'...
very cool! i'm in the same boat as gunther and having a website with stuff like this would be truly awesome. coh2.org (and before gr.org) used to have a ton of very informative and well written guides, but somehow the creation of content like this ebbed off in the recent years.
i might be a bit old school in that regard, but i prefer reading guides or builds rather than watching a youtube video, and i guess i'm not alone.
in any case, gl with the project... stoked to see how it turns out!
Do you know how much DPS the gun contributes in the mid-late game to the overall DPS (meaning, against a squad of RA 0.6-0.7). I usually feel I want the gun back when infantry is close, especially since your tank needs to move when the infantry pushes in, so capping can often not be finished.
I've just run a quick sim of a T-34/76 against Vet 3 PGrens in their default wide formation (that arrow-like template) at 20 m. Using a target size of 0.57, the average total DPS and KPS after 30 s is about 10.6 and 0.130, respectively, with a whopping 76% of the damage and 68% of the kills coming from the hull/coax MGs.
Adding yellow cover to the mix (TS = 0.285, the DPS/KPS drops to 8.3/0.091 and the MGs still contribute about 63% of the damage and 48% of the kills after 30 s.
These numbers would of course change quite drastically depending on distance and if the squad clumps up a bit more, but I'd say the overall contribution of the MGs is quite significant in any case. This of course also assumes the tank is always oriented in a way that the hull MG can fire at all models, which won't likely be the case in a real game.
That information about stuart killing/greater AOE is very informative. Though I feel like if you were going to kill a stuart you'd of done so because it was low and you were chasing. I can see instances where a stuart is caught out against a P4 and you want to kill it fast and thats when the HEAT shells would be good. I'd be ok with the ability not being universally useful if the other commander traits made up for it.
My issue is if you don't get a 221, then why bother going that commander? It's a deadslot and I always think commanders feel worse if something isn't an option, but a BAD option.
If a tank has a sight range of 35, and it gives 45 range that's still not that much. I think around 50+ is the sight range that turns out really good. Otherwise you can barely see an MG but not much else and if you want sight you're better off with units that have stealth/scout way better since you aren't putting the tank in danger.
Also I dare someone to try calling that tank commander arty on AT guns. Not only do you have to be somewhat pointblank, but it takes longer then normal artillery to land, takes a good 8 seconds. It's a weird argument that a basic LMG upgrade competes with what should be a highlight feature of a commander.
The Sturmtiger I think becomes an interesting unit at vet 1. The grenade launchers cause a constant threat and force enemy targets to move and I think that's where the ST shines. Forcing your opponent to constantly reposition in and out of cover. The issue is that the sturmtiger shot is inconsistent and just doesn't wipe or hit properly. Wheras the Avre is consistent and hits the target everytime and wipes.
I'm generally convinced that not all commander slots always need to be useful for a specific build but can instead also be valuable by simply providing options (think of Airborne's MG and AT-gun drop, for instance, or the Opel Blitz in Firestorm). However, that doesn't really apply for the 221 as it more or less pigeonholes you into going Battlegroup due to the steep fuel cost, especially for the 223 upgrade. So while the unit itself is pretty good IMHO i can understand the frustration that it effectively locks out teching options rather than to create ones.
Concerning the Panzer Commander, the +10 sight range may not turn the Tank into a recon vehicle but it effectively allows you to use it without spotting support, such as when flanking or hunting down wounded tanks or rocket arty. The greater vision also means you're much more likely to get the first shot off against enemy armor, which can make the difference between winning and losing a fight. It also helps against running into snare-range by accident when attack-moving through the map, as well as letting you see a potential AT-gun ambush from decently farther away.
Also the off-map may be rather crappy and take ages to come down, but it's not so much about actually killing AT guns with it than forcing them to move OR get killed. For a mere click you'll force that little bit of extra micro tax on your opponent that might be lacking elsewhere in return, plus moving the AT gun(s) will often take them out of the fight for long enough to overwhelm them or get out of their firing arc.
Is all that worth passing on the pintle MG? Maybe not always but in many cases I'd argue it is. After all the Panzer Commander upgrade wasn't removed from the OKW Tiger for no good reason a couple of patches ago.
As far as the Sturmtiger goes, I agree that the Vet 1 grenade launcher is pretty decent. I also feel the changes to projectile speed/arc further made it quite a lot more reliable, at least as far as I can tell from my limited testing. Not sure if that'll be enough to make the ST more competitive, but it sure is a step into the right direction.
I personally would not like it since these performance differences should be communicated to the player somehow. If I get units with the same name, I expect them to work the same. Especially if the unit is supposed to be an import from the other faction.
However Allies often shipped second grade material (or 'first versions' that had issues) to the Soviets with often a lack of spare parts iirc. So some performance difference would actually reflect that point.
yeah that is actually what i've been trying to say. the performance of the same unit in different factions should remain the same, as everything else would be kind of counterintuitive (though i agree the unit quality/spare part availability issue of the lend-lease program could be a suitable explanation for why the soviet M4C might be a tad bit worse than the USF version). however, balance could still be adjusted by the unit's cost and/or build time and i see no good reason why a soviet M4C has to have exactly the same pricetag as a USF one.
You do remember that the doc M4C Sherman come from has con repair kit. And now that even penals can repair, Your entire army not just the 2 engines can repair the tank, it already has access to versatile repairs as you can you use your front line infantry.
lol, yeah i actually forgot about that. partly because i'm not a huge fan of the conscript repair package as, usually, mainlines are busy enough capping and fighting to make the extra repair tasks kind of a burden. though that of course doesn't take anything away from the fact that it is a valid repair option and frees up engies to go after other duties (e.g. mine laying or sweeping) every now and then.
i'd still think vehicle crew repairs would be nice to have for the M4C as it doesn't bind any of your forces (except the tank itself maybe) for the time it takes to heal up your tank.
The idea that unit shared from two faction should be identical is flawed. If that was the case Ostheer Puma/Panzer IV should have 5 vet level.
If there is a need one can change the price.
When it comes to Soviet M4 it is already has smoke over other Soviet tank and it is also easier to benefit from radio net than USF one.
As for the unit I would rather have cost the same a normal Sherman and adjust stat so that USF unit combined the two unit.
a price adjustment would of course also work. and while performance differences between units shared between factions would always require a bit of suspension of disbelief (did they forget to send the manuals with the tank?), i've always wondered why the price for the USF and Soviet M4C has to remain the same. a bit of flexibility here would probably make it easier to fit it into each faction's roster without becoming either too good or barely usable in one or the other.
The T-34/85 is a fantastic tank and is perfect in it's current state. Touching it would be a massive mistake. Even if it's Vet 1 ability is a little irrelevant that's okay since it's such a minor issue at the end of the day.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the new M4C Sherman which is basically worthless at everything compared to it's peers. When looking at Soviet Armor options previously every one of them had a preferred role that they fulfilled. Specifically in this instance the M4C Sherman was a designated AT Premium Medium. Since the Firerate Nerf the M4C Sherman loses so much punch vs Armor that both the KV1 and the T-34/85 come anywhere from significantly outperforming to being at worst comparable in At capability even with HVAP. Not only that but the M4C Sherman both requires a 60 Muni upgrade to be able to even think about fighting infantry, and even then it pales in comparison to all other Soviet options available vs infantry, even losing to the KV1 in damage output.
There is literally no reason to ever want to build this unit anymore. it's actually completely invalidated in it's existence by both the T-34/85 and KV1 while it's attempting to solo as effectively the cornerstone of an entire doctrine by itself.
It's probably a bit harsh to conclude the new M4C will be comparatively worthless after the ROF nerf, but I agree it certainly lost a lot of its appeal over the other premium med options the soviets can field. I'd wish the 76mm could get at least a bit of its ROF back via Vet to make up for the drop in both AI and AT performance. That way it wouldn't be too oppressive right out of the gate and keeping it alive would be more rewarding.
Another thing that could make the soviet M4C more interesting would be some sort of compensation for not having access to on-the-field repairs through vehicle crews like its USF counterpart has. Obviously soviet vehicle crews are out of the question, but what if the M4C could get a vehicle repair ability, maybe gated behind Vet 1 if needed, to make up for this?
As for the secure mode ability, I'd go for either improving cap/decap rate as suggested before, or just allow the hull/coax MGs to fire while it's active. Right now it feels highly situational and apart from maybe blocking a last-minute VP capture attempt I haven't seen anyone make good use of it in a while.
I agree with the point that the 221 kind of locks out going Mechanized due to the delay caused by the 221 (and upgrade to the 223). This is pretty unfortunate since the Puma synergizes quite well with HEAT shells, but ofc you always have the option to skip the 221/223 altogether. Other than that I feel you vastly underestimate the utility of both the Tank Commander upgrade and HEAT shells.
I don't understand the point of this upgrade. It gives a little more sight range (Not much) but you lose out on an important LMG upgrade. Then, you get what should be a good Artillery call in. Thing takes forever to land and doesn't drop as much as you'd hope.
The upgrade (unless this was changed somehow) adds a whopping + 10 sight, which translates into 29% greater sight radius for the P4 or KT and effectively lets them self-spot up until max range. This is huge and IMHO easily worth the slight loss of DPS in most cases (especially for the KT). And that doesn't even take the extra 10% accuracy into account which is always nice to have.
The arty call-in is admittedly not really that great on paper, but can be really helpful in forcing team weapons to relocate. This comes especially handy against AT guns and can often keep them out of a fight long enough to safely assault and overwhelm an entrenched position or get out of harms way without being picked apart on retreat.
These are okayish? You'd want to use them on a P4 since the Pen on them aren't great at all or even a Puma. Thing is, the dmg boost is negligible against everything other then a heavy tank. So it just sort of feels underwhelming. The Jackson heat rounds are valuable because of its base high pen mixed with fighting extremely heavy armor. Plus I think it buffs the Jacksons accuracy?
The damage boost (30%) is only really ineffective against medium tanks, but helps enormously against pretty much anything else. Considering the ability lasts 20 sec, you're guaranteed to get 4 HEAT shots for the P4 if you time the activation correctly (assuming the worst-case scenario of drawing 3x the max reload of 5.7 s this sill gives you a 1.7 s window to activate). That translates into a huge advantage (without even considering the 30% bonus pen you get on top of that) in the following scenarios:
400 HP targets die in two shots instead of three. This lets you two-hit things like Stuarts, AECs, Scotts and Calliopes.
720 HP targets, such as the Easy 8 or Dozer will die in 4 shots instead of 5. In fact, you can even afford to miss one of your four HEAT shells and will still be able to finish off the tank with a regular 160-DMG shell mixed in somewhere.
800 HP targets (i.e. the Comet and T-34/85) will also require 4 shots instead of 5, although you'll need all 4 HEAT shells to hit in this case.
Everything bigger will usually require one less shot to take down as you can only achieve a ~192 dmg surplus compared to regular shells, but if you have 2 P4s with HEAT shells firing at the same target, heavies will melt even quicker than that 1 shot difference
On top of that, HEAT shells also give you quite a sizeable boost in AI performance. A KT with HEAT activated will have a 40% greater OHK area than with the regular shell which is very much noticeable in-game.
i like the idea to move the riegel mine to vet 3 so it has an actual chance to see some use at least every once in a while. otherwise the unit is fine... a bit too pricey for its combat performance but able to make more than up for it resource-wise later on.
yeah it's kind of slow, unfortunately. 2k iterations clock in at about 10 min on my (rather crappy) laptop, but unless you need to use excel in the meantime it can just run in the background.
as to your analysis, i'd say that is spot on. the squad size plays of course an important role for the amount of damage that can be dealt - the more models available the more absolute damage can be dished out, which can skew the results a bit. one way to circumvent this artificial overestimation, especially when comparing the performance against squads with different model count is to rely on the relative damage (i.e. percent of total squad hp). this would probably interesting if we'd want to compare the performance of, say, the Tiger and IS-2 against a typical mainline of their respective opposing factions (Tiger vs Cons; IS-2 vs Grens)
with respect to the squad spacing, the models in the sim setup are exactly 1 m apart from each other. however, each entity has also a circular hitbox with a radius of 0.5 m around it so, in theory, the Tiger should be able to OHK 3 models at once if it directly hits one in between two others. this is next to impossible via scatter, but since there's a ~1.5% chance from accuracy rolls for this to happen it should show up with the same probability in the data... but it doesn't.
i've recalculated the data for the Tiger once again after fixing the error and now the triple OHK shows up as expected with a 1.5% probability.
as far as reliability is concerned, i'd agree heavies are quite good in terms of damage output. though it has to be said that the damage and kill numbers from the 2nd shot onwards already include the contribution of the MGs. if these are excluded (i.e. at a range greater than 35 m) i'd expect the damage distribution to change quite substantially.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
