Rebalancing of tanks needed!

[CzaD]

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

Thats the main reason tanks were created.

Yes, you are right about their creation. But we need to look at their evolution for a bigger picture: see, for example, how they were used in the Battle of Kursk.


The MP tanks only battles could be improved a lot:

- by making them more historical (you choose the year in which you want to fight a battle);
- making them more realistic ( increasing and varying the range of fire: tiger 1 is a kitten in MoW coz it was robbed of it range and control fire);
- doing something with the fog of war( it is funny that I can see a small fence destroyed in the distance but I can’t see the huge tank that had knocked it down);
- by adding more tanks to command (one tank or two are not enough to plan your battle field strategy).


As to balancing, I played a game that didn’t have the problem, coz you could set the exact year in which you wanted to fight the battle. The fact that you can wait a few seconds more to get a new, shiny King Tiger is a bit gamey.

[Crni vuk]

I am not sure how people get the idea German tanks or equipment are "weak". Try playing with the Brits or Japanese armor only battles against the US or even more important the Germans and tell me its "uneaven" for the Axis. It ends many times enough in Tiger II killing most armor while the Sturmtiger do the rest. With the japanese as enemy you dont even need any Sturmtiger. Russians and Axis are somewhat the best or at least can be mirrored better. Though the ISU152 makes a bad Sturmtiger ... but thats obvious since the gun is much smaller.

The Tiger 1 can be a great tank. If used correctly and with a bit thinking. In battles with 600 points for each side its of course less usefull but you cant expect that from it when you have IS3s, Su100 or M36 and Pershings around every courner. As simple as that. And I had enough times where the Tiger 1 still proved to be a hard target on biger ranges. Angling is the key here. Anyway. The Tiger 1 can be very good. But you cant just roll it in to battle expecting to blow everything away. A intelligent player will always try to counter enemy armor so he doesnt get overrun. Either by infantry (took out a lot of enemy armor with well placed anti tank infantry!) or of course own tanks. Just never forget the moment you can get a Tiger 1 or Panther even the enemy will eventualy have access to weapons which could counter them. Talking about the 17pf the brits BEST choice, I many times go for the 17pf used by the infantry cause its cheap and the best british gun! So if you get a Tiger or Panther the enemy is loosing a lot of points, if your gun gets killed its bad but you dont loose half of your spend points and its harder to get overrun early on! Dont forget either that MoW doesnt portray "realistic" engagements. For each Tiger 1 the soviets would use almost 400(!) armored vehicles which includes everything from the T60, to the BT and of course T34. The Tiger 1 was capabale of destroying eventualy 5 vehicles before it was destroyed though. Now do the math. But that happens cause the Tiger 1 was many times facing inferior armor like light/medium tanks which could not take it out except with suicide runs. Particularly in the west. If the normandy champaign would have seen for example a large use of 90mm guns from the begining and not just with the November/December of 1944 the loost numbers of allied tanks would have been probably much smaller the Soviets already in 1943 deployed with the SU85 guns that could "potentialy" deal with the Tiger 1 from the front at least from already 700-800m which was a huge difference to the 76mm guns of the T34 which could do nothing to the front the idea to get the 85mm gun as fast as possible to the front before better guns and designs arrived was coming exactly from the knowledge of the Tiger send to the Soviets from the Brits, by own Spies and of course experiences around Leningrad when they faced it the first time the Tiger saw action on August 29th of 1942 already and later again in Semptember/November which gave the Soviets a rough estimation of its arrival and enough time to at least consider some possible counter.


The First Captured Tiger from sPzAbt 502 on display at Gorky Park in Moscow.



Interesting are as well battle reports of the British attacks in the Caen region after the beach landing so the American units could break out. But it meant at some point the British forced had to somewhat face (aprox) 70% of the German armor ~ acording to Wiki. And here they made very positive experience with the 17pf in the Sherman Firefly which was luckily ready for the normandy landing some single tankers achieved to destroy for examples a couple of Panthers and Tigers succesfully on usual combat ranges. Particularly when used defensively.

So dont expect in MoW the Tiger 1 to be a unstopable killing machine as it wasnt one in real life either. It only became one cause A ) of its very well trained and experienced crew and B ) the time it saw service it most of the time was fighting inferior tanks like the T34/76, IS1, SU85 etc. Shermans and light tank destroyers M10 etc. In such battles its no surprise the Tiger 1 achieved many victories. Just as the KV1 did some 1 or 2 years before in 1941 when the Panzer III proved to be useless against its armor. So in MoW you play most of the time "theoretical" battles then "realistic" ones. The values of armor and guns reflect only somewhat rudimentary realistic numbers tweaked for gameplay though.

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

Thats the main reason tanks were created.

yes and now. If we are talking about certain tank designs like the Stug (early) or Panzer IV E. They have been designed as infantry support weapons. And thats a great role for them in game as well.

But weapons like the Tiger 1 and most particularly the Panther have been designed to counter enemy armor as primary targets. Infantry support was important as well every good design should be able to deal with both tanks AND infantry in some way but many designs have put a focus on some aspect. One big issue with the Firefly for example was the weak characteristics of the 17pf (76mm) HE shell compared to other guns like the 2QF and similar they had a slightly smaller caliber but the shell contained much more explosives. The brits didnt managed before the end of 44 to supply their troops with good 17pf HE shells. And even then they still have been much less powerfull compared to the 75mm weapons of the cromwell or shermans cause the casing of the 17pf shell had to be very thick to be used with the high velocity gun. Actualy every gun of WW2 had similar issues. High velocity means high preasure in the gun which means the shell needs thick walls to not burst in the barrel increasing the thickness means less room for explosives which make it of course less effective etc. etc. Of course a 88mm shell will suffer much less such issues to the 75mm of the panther or the 76mm of the firefly. But still.

So in general you could say WW2 has seen many different designed tanks (much more then today) with specialiced roles and some have been either more or less succesfull. Today many different ideas are combined in the MBT (main battle tank) like the Abrahamns, russian modern T series ~ T70,80,90 etc. and the Leopard 2 with the intention to both support the infantry and attack enemy armor efficiently. Almost all nations today follow more or less the same principle and thus have armor with very similar classifications. No more light, medium, heavy tanks. A modern tank has to combine the versatility and mobility of light/medium armor but the protection and most important the firepower of heavy designs. Thus the idea of a main purpose or main battle tank was born. The idea is not an new concept and the Brits, Soviets and Germans thought about such concepts ~ some even think the KV1s was the first "try" in such a direction but thats not sure. But it was not possible at that time to get a project working that could effectively combine the advantages of each classification without its dissadvantages heavy gun, great protection and good mobility. Particularly since the resources have been needed to counter already existing designs like to the T34 and KV1 tanks the Axis encountered in larger numbers by the end of 41 and start of spring 42.

[Korsakov829]

You can't make MP historical. I've seen people play Soviet Union vs Soviet Union in North Africa, just plain wrong.

[KnightFandragon]

All that about the Tiger being good in game and how it was in RL. maybe in game it is decent but how do u explain it's shells bouncing off M4A1 Shermans and T34s. The Tiger should kill them easier then the 90s and 76s kill it. Yeah I realize this is a game and it needs play balance but the Tiger isnt play balanced its crap. If it was play balanced its gun would have the effectiveness of the M4A4VC Firefly of the British...as for now its worse then the M4A1 75M3 gun, or atleast not alot better. Although the penetration numbers on the description say its better, field testing proves its not. I played a Tank only battle not to long ago, my dad bounced no less than 5 rounds off my T34/76 M43 from reletivly close range, having no further effects past the broke turret which I think came from his Panzer IV H. The map was warehouse and that isnt a big map from DZ to DZ, so his Tiger bouncing like that off 47mm of armor on the T34 is pretty bad. Sure the T34 has its slope but it doesnt save it that well. Even in Singleplayer I lose atleast half my T34s I get on the Penal Unit mission to those Panzer IVs. For a Heavy Tank the Tiger is garb in MP when compared to others....its my last choice. The Panther is decent but its side is like melted butter. If MoW isnt ever going to give it it's real gun atleast give it it's real armor so Sherman M4s have a harder time killing it. Even the 85mm gun ofthe Russians is only 50% chance from the front in Squad Leader, that game is based almost entirely off realistic numbers and such.

[KnightFandragon]

Lolz, while were on the topic of tanks and thier guns in this game, let me ask this one thing.......why do your shots sometimes go through the tank like its a ghost or something? I am messing around in the editor w/ Fireflies vs Panthers. Ive given the Fireflies my modded 76mm Mk5 and it has like 185mm penetration max. I roll up beside this panther, kissing it with my tank barrel, fire and my round hits the ground on the other side of the tank with no effect. Same thing happened twice in the same editor battle. Then the same thing has happened over and over and over and over.....I cant put enough overs in there.....but yeah. I fire at a tank and my round hits the ground right behind the tank, or the ground underneath it while going through the thing entirely while missing it. That is prolly the #2 most annoying thing to me in this game. #1 is definitly gun vs armor penetration. my Mk5 has 185mm penetration, I was shooting the Panthers w/ like 120-145ish penetration with a green circle and the Panther side armor is I think 45, 52 at best, yet it takes me 2,3..4......5? shots to kill it seriously....like what the ........#3 Is why do tanks disappear even though your staring it right in the face? ive again and again gotten into tank matches, both in the editor and mainly online where both tanks are just shooting each other, not moving yet after every shot the tank will just disappear.....I understand the fog of war...atleast to some extent but seriously? Cloaking Devices and Transparent tank hulls? Just no, this is a WWII RTS, not some World of Warcraft or Everquest magic show......

Onto another topic that has nothing to do w/ tanks but with stealth....what does it do for infantry? Or does it just not work in the editor? Ive made a group of Canadian Marine troops and I gave them the perk "stealth". So, last night I was testing it to see what it did, in the editor, and i was crawling my Marines into bushes, walking up on them, then taking regular guys and walking up on them and both troops were seen at the same ranges. Also, used the same soldiers and tried crawling across a road to see if maybe stealth lowered the detection radius of men...conclusion...nope....Of course ive seen the Scouts in MP and they have Stealth...they are invisible for all practical purposes. I guess the effect doesnt work in the editor just as the Binoculars dont?

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

All that about the Tiger being good in game and how it was in RL. maybe in game it is decent but how do u explain it's shells bouncing off M4A1 Shermans and T34s.

Distance. As simple as that. Obviously the how guns work in MoW is NOT realistic. Its just derived from reality. The Sherman and T34 could deflect the Tiger 1 shell. If the distance was big enough. But we are probably talking here about a distance where you could not even see or hit the tank in a real battle. The maximum you would engage in combat would be around 2000m. Usual ranges have been between 700 and 1500m succesfull hits by Tiger crews on 1500m have been quite common cause of the good balistics and gun. For example in Men of War the T34 sees a lot of richochets from the Panzer IV H as well even though when the T34 hull (75 and 85) could be penetrated by the Panzer IV H up to 2000m from pretty much any angle.

I am not defending Men of War. I find it sometimes quite frustrating as well. Particuiliarly when using heavy guns like the SU100, or ISU152 which should be a lot more powerfull. But on the other side. Its not like the Tiger 1 is useless in MoW. And people playing the game somehow maybe exepect to be Wittman, Carius or Panzer Mayer or something ... no clue.

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

Lolz, while were on the topic of tanks and thier guns in this game, let me ask this one thing.......why do your shots sometimes go through the tank like its a ghost or something?

cause its a game and not real life ? Game have bugs, errors, lags etc. etc. etc.

Com on I understand most of your points and I do complain quite often my self as well. But dont complain cause of the sake of complaining. Men of War is a improvement over past games. And maybe we will see more in the future. If there will be new games.

[CzaD]

"You can't make MP historical. I've seen people play Soviet Union vs Soviet Union in North Africa, just plain wrong."

It is just one of the examples of the lack of polish in MoW MP.



Best Way is responsible for that by allowing it. In other games, you choose the exact year and the historical theatres of war for the two fractions you want to play.


@ Crni vuk

Great post. Long but informative.

“So in general you could say WW2 has seen many different designed tanks (much more then today) with specialiced roles and some have been either more or less succesfull.”

I like that sentence a lot. The problem with MoW is that you can’t really appreciate some of the tanks coz many of them are getting outdated too soon during the SINGLE BATTLE, rather than during the WAR.

To be honest with all of you, I like the infantry only battles best. They are most tactical ones, whilst all weapons and tanks only matches remind me of technological race, rather than tactical game. Of course, WW2 saw huge technological race in the course of war, but jumping from early WW2 tanks to late tanks during the same battle is gamey. But you can make it more historical by setting some additional rules for the game, like buying only early WW2 tanks or only selected weapons.


I hope we see eras and hitorical battles in AS.

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by CzaD

I like that sentence a lot. The problem with MoW is that you can’t really appreciate some of the tanks coz many of them are getting outdated too soon during the SINGLE BATTLE, rather than during the WAR.

Thats cause many go for the big bang for the small money (points). meaning 600 point games. Seriously dont play them if its to stressfull or anyoing. I only sometimes play them when I dont want to care if I loose a expensive unit or not.

Just play more games with only 450 or even just 300 points available and you will see a lot more vehicles which are not becoming obsolete so fast and with a bit of skill can dominate the battlefield. In some games you will not ever see a super heavy tank even and just have maybe 1 Panther in front of you.

One game I remember we played 2vs2 with medium numbers and for almost the most game we would not even use more then infantry, anti tank guns and eventualy 1 Sherman 76w. I got some Tiger 1 and my gun was destroyed after killing 2 Panzer IV as well. So he loost probably more then 100 points and who knows how much with infantry trying to take out the gun but I have probably not even loost half of it. In the end we won cause we only had half of not less of the casualites our enemy had to suffer. He rarely used some infantry or guns. I noticed how anti tank guns can be quite a good thing sometimes! Its hard for tanks to spot them and they pack some punch once you have a chance to shoot the flank or weak parts. And if you loose them its not like the whole game is over.

Less points available can change a lot and actualy make the game much more tactical. Well more then 6 or 7 Queen-Tigers with 3-4 Sturmtigers as back up ...

[KnightFandragon]

Lolz, idc what money setting you put it to....ive buy a Panzer IV H early a few infantry squads and then wait for my King Tiger.....=D The Americans and Russians will always have those uber sluggers, 76ws...yeah.....

[Evilsausage]

Buying just one tank and that saving for KT is not always a good choice. Specially if your panzer 4 H get fucked up.

Personaly i normaly always get highest score in my team without playing with King Tigers. Prefere to be able to get good control of the battlefield instead of saving up for a super heavy tank.
Also Jagdpanthers can normaly do the same job as the KT, Unless IS-3s, T-29s are out on the field.