Rebalancing of tanks needed!

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by Nikitns

2. Make ERA specific battles. I have heard this ALLOT ALLOT ALLOT! JESUS this pisses me off. Make era specific, where you could choose 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 ET CETRA. So, for example, in 1940 Infantry would be very powerful, and Panzer-3 would be considered a strong tank.

Yes. I would support this as well. It would also allow for battles with a bit more logic in mind and also battles where you see certain units in large numbers while other units never or in very few limited numbers. By 1944 for example the panzer IV H should be a quite common sight, while the T34/85 very expensive. On the other side by 1941 the Panzer III should be common and the T34/76 as well while in 1942 any panzer IV G expensive.

Maybe to make it a bit more simple one could jost go with Late, mid and early as designation for the units. Where in early engagements you would see more the T34 with 76mm and in mid war the 85mm and also more tanks like the KV85, IS1 and the IS2 beeing extremly expensive for example.

Originally Posted by Nikitns

3. Make Su-100 more powerful.

This is something I can only agree with. The SU100 is such a weak gun that its not funny anymore. Logicaly, it should have NO issues to take out a Panther or Tiger 1 from its front as it was a gun designed with such tanks in mind. Yet you see here many times richochets and hits without any effect or you have to get so close to them that you can hug them to do damage. On the other side the Su100 is quite expensive and lacks any considerable protection on its front so either the Tiger 1 or Panther have not much issues taking it out even on large distance. At least I never fear the Su100 which is different to the Jagdpanther which gives me a headache sometimes if deployed well.

The ISU152 should get a good boost in damage as well. You see to often Panthers and Tiger 1 get shoot without effect either ... and even the mighty Tiger II should NOT just simply shrug shoots of even to the front like its nothing. It should while not penetrate the armor have a fair chance to take out its infantry inside. Or do some more damage then just the tracks. There have been enough cases where Kingtigers suffered damage from lighter guns (see Ardenes offensive, Kampfgruppe Peiper) with damage to the electrical firing mechanism for example. This was not that uncommon.

Originally Posted by Nikitns

Panthers should be cheaper and have much worse side armour.

I can as well only agree. But in general, all tanks should actualy get weaker armor in game. Particularly when you use medium/heavy guns to attack their flank. Already the "smallest" angle can prove sometimes to be a serious issue ... and the panther at least really didnt had any noteworthy side protection.

If all enemy armor would get weaker side armor, this would help actualy the sides which do not have such good armor present like the japanese since flanking manouvers would be emidiately more succesfull and not become sometimes a "game of luck" how I call it where a perfectly well placed shoot to the side is doing nothing at all ...

Originally Posted by Evilsausage

Also the US Calliope is the weakest rocket artillery in the game. Its great for dealing with infantry, dont get me wrong and it got great armor.
But it can't really kill anything else then Infantry. It can even have trouble taking out AT-guns etc..

Also the Calliope only got 150 in range. Which makes it pretty easy to counter.

The issue with the calliope is that its quite easy to obtain and keep compared to the Katyusha and axis rocket lunchers AND it has a adequate self defence capability with its gun and machineguns. While realisticaly the artillery for example can take out the rockets lunchers quite easily since neither the Katyusha or other Rocket artillery have any considerable armor protection even a hit close to it will take it out and destroy it. To get the calliope with artillery is much more difficult. It would be here eventualy nice to consider a destruction of the rockets from a nearby hit by artillery and thus leave you with a simple Sherman without rockets. I mean if some 150mm gun hits very close it should do some signifcant damage to the rockets which have a quite high profile.

But I dont see that as a serious issue when you consider the superiority in armor and guns for both the Axis and Soviets.

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

Whats bad about he SU100? ive seen it tons and it seems to be pretty dang dangerous as is.

That its to expensive for the potential use. Before I spend points for the SU100 I would send 2-3 Su85 (as support) or simply go for a IS2.

When you have the luck to eventualy do a flanking manouver or get very close to the enemy the SU100 can be extremly dangerous. But unlike the Jagdpanther it cant take much of a fight since most medium / heavy guns can take it out and since MoW is degrading somewhat the penetration on distance heavily the SU100 is loosing a lot of importance on long range.

The time you can get a Su100 its almost not worth to get it anymore cause thats almost the time you see heavy tanks that cant be clearly penetrated anymore.

I am not asking for a super SU, but its hard to believe that the 100mm had better characteristics compared to the 122mm when you see how bad it performs already against panthers and tigers.