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.

[KnightFandragon]

Originally Posted by Crni vuk

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.

Exactly, id just take the IS2....sure it has like 15 rounds but the advantages over the SU100 is it has better manuverablilty in that it has a turret, so a detrack, which is waaaaaayyyy to easy to obtain, doesnt totally take it out of the fight till its fixed and it has AA Machineguns for Infantry attacks. IDK what the 100's armor is but the IS2 Late has good armor. I dont play at all w/ Assault guns but I dont see the reason for buying them over tanks. THey have the same guns, most dont have AA Mgs and thier armor isnt that much better.

Something that id think needs to be fixed is how easy it is to detrack stuff. 50cal MGs fire 5 rounds and detrack both tracks...thats retarded. One HE round from basically anything can knock it off. 20mm's do it w/ ease. Tracks werent really that weak now were they? I mean they are built to support a 60+ ton tank so id imagine they are thick enough to be completely impervious to 50cals and give 20mms a major headache.

[Crni vuk]

it doesnt happen that frequently though. Never loost my tracks cause of 50cals or soviet Dshks. 20mm guns, thats a different story. But the trick is you have to get quite close to have a clear shoot at it. And the vehicle is most of the time loost afterwards.

He shells particularly of biger size should definetly damage the tracks. At the moment I even think they dont do enough damage, considering the powerfull nature of 150mm and biger calibers they should have a fair chance to harm the crew inside a tank cause of shock !

It was many times a used tactic by allied troops to take out the tracks of the enemy armor particularly with heavy vehicles and simply flank the imobilized tank or even simply leave the target to the air force or shell it to death with artillery. Many German vehicles probably meet their fate not by enemy anti tank guns but by planes and artillery.

I am glad that you can take of tracks from vehicles. Otherwise taking out heavy axis armor would be a almost impossible task. Particularly weapons like the Sturmtiger or Jagdtiger.

[KnightFandragon]

Originally Posted by Crni vuk

it doesnt happen that frequently though. Never loost my tracks cause of 50cals or soviet Dshks. 20mm guns, thats a different story. But the trick is you have to get quite close to have a clear shoot at it. And the vehicle is most of the time loost afterwards.

He shells particularly of biger size should definetly damage the tracks. At the moment I even think they dont do enough damage, considering the powerfull nature of 150mm and biger calibers they should have a fair chance to harm the crew inside a tank cause of shock !

It was many times a used tactic by allied troops to take out the tracks of the enemy armor particularly with heavy vehicles and simply flank the imobilized tank or even simply leave the target to the air force or shell it to death with artillery. Many German vehicles probably meet their fate not by enemy anti tank guns but by planes and artillery.

I am glad that you can take of tracks from vehicles. Otherwise taking out heavy axis armor would be a almost impossible task. Particularly weapons like the Sturmtiger or Jagdtiger.

I dont want de-tracking to be impossible just harder to bedone by smaller caliber weapons like 50cals 20mms. It should be able to be done by direct hits from large calibers like 75's and up. That makes more sense, but now you can hit a tank w/ a few 50 rounds and it falls off.

[Nikitns]

I want eras. Seriously.

And yeah, in 1941 a Panzer 4 should be VERY expensive, while in 1944 Panzer 4's should be cheap and Panther being decently priced.

In 1944 T-34/85's should be cheap, while T34/76's shouldn't be able 2 be built.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE BEST WAY/DIGITALMINDSOFT!!

Make this change.

[Nikitns]

also nerf the ******* calliope. I hate it so bad!! Except when Im using it but that is rarely.....


also Su-100 should have a better armour penetration stats, and so should the Zis-2. Zis-2 is a toy gun compared 2 what it was IRL. This thing shat on Panzer 4's, and that is why the Soviet high command stopped production of them in 1941 - they were 2 expensive and useless at firing HE, because a Zis-3 could fire both HE and being able 2 take out Panzer 4's. It was not until Panthers started showing up that the Soviets resumed production of Zis-2!

[Nikitns]

also the D-10S gun of the ISU-100 had stronger penentration (185mm at 1000m) than the German Kwk 88 43 gun of the tiger 2 (160mm at 1000m)!!!!

This is ridiculous and LAME....

[KnightFandragon]

Originally Posted by Nikitns

I want eras. Seriously.

And yeah, in 1941 a Panzer 4 should be VERY expensive, while in 1944 Panzer 4's should be cheap and Panther being decently priced.

In 1944 T-34/85's should be cheap, while T34/76's shouldn't be able 2 be built.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE BEST WAY/DIGITALMINDSOFT!!

Make this change.

T34/85s atleast in squad leader, and that is a pretty much realisitic board game has the T34/85 not even available till mid 44', the KIng Tiger isnt available till like August 44. The T34 should be available, the KV1 shouldnt be but yeah. Im sure if we all come up w/ ideas maybe they will incorporate them eh? would be wicked awesome to see a Era patch haha. The Pzr III would be a friggin beast in 41', 42 ish. The T34/Sherman would stand better against it though.

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by Nikitns

In 1944 T-34/85's should be cheap, while T34/76's shouldn't be able 2 be built.

Though in 1944 the T34/76 was still one of the most common if not THE common vehicle in the soviet army. The T34/85 was produced in large numbers trough the war but it did actualy not simply replaced the T34/76 but more served next to it one might get the idea the soviet army jumped on the new design as soon it was going in to production but even during almost the whole year of 1944 the soviets had to rely very much on the t34 with its short 76mm gun which makes the Su 85 a important adition to the soviet army wich saw service already in 1943 already. The 85mm gun was quite late used with the T34 and the first units which got equiped with them have been elite units usualy like the tank guards or what their name was no clue. So as said it should not just simply replace it even when it was available in large numbers.

Originally Posted by Nikitns

also the D-10S gun of the ISU-100 had stronger penentration (185mm at 1000m) than the German Kwk 88 43 gun of the tiger 2 (160mm at 1000m)!!!!

This is ridiculous and LAME....

Would be nice to know about this statistic.

The 100mm which was a version from a naval gun had for a soviet gun quite good capabilities particularly against panthers and the tiger 1 even on large distances.

But I doubt it was powerfull enough to penetrate the front from a Tiger II. As both the turret and hul have been quite thick. Around 150mm angled for the hull and 180mm for the turret. I have no clue how acurate the page is but Battlefield.ru gives for the Su100 125mm penetration on 500m shooting a 60° angled plate, 155mm on 90° using the BR-412 APBC (Armor pearcing balistic cap).

Remember the Germans used with ther famous 88mm Kwk (Kampfwagen kanone) many times not just simple armor pearcing (AP) but as well APCBC (armor pearcing capped balistic cap), or even rare APCR (Armor pearcing composit rigid). So the Tiger II should if using the APCRC outclass the Su100 with its APBC definetly. Even the standart APCBC-HE Panzergranate 39/43 for the PAK43 seems to penetrate more then 180mm of armor already on 500m and even more then 200mm with the rare APCR Panzergranate 40/43

The only gun that might have outclassed it (but thats not certain!) is the gun of the Superpershing which was a modified long version of the 90mm gun and late war designs like the british 105mm using APDS and APFSDS (modern shells)

3AD's "Super Pershing" vs. Germany's "King Tiger"

But one should always remember that this is the internet afterall. So any informations should not be considered as simple fact.

[Evilsausage]

One source says:
That the Su-100s gun was almost equal to the Tiger IIs 8.8 cm KwK 43 gun.
180mm penetration at 1000 meters which means it would had been able to take out a king tiger frontally.

However another source says that it could only achive 150 mm penetration at 1000 meters. And only 162 mm Penetartion at 500 meters.

So its hard to know what source is true.
But either way the Su-100 could need a cost reduction, since germany get JP 4s with slightly better armor for only 50 points.

And if they buff the gun to almost the same values of a high velocity 88. It might get a higher cost then it has now. Since then it would be almost as deadly as a Jagdpanther.