Rebalancing of tanks needed!

[Crni vuk]

they didnt attacked in 41 with the Panzer II alone. It saw some service but the main force was consisting of Panzer III and Panzer IV with short guns and they also had a few captured tzech tanks available which have been quite good. So letz not exagerate it.

[Korsakov829]

Their main force consisted of 20mm and 37mm guns. Either way the KV-1 wins against Panzer II, III, and IV. Might be able to disable a KV-1 or get lucky with a shot to the rear. It has happened, 3 KV-1s totally destroyed a tank column in a ambush. Lt. Kolobanov, a KV-1 tank commander had 100+ hits on his hull but the 20mm and 37mm only dented his tank. I don't think Kolobanov would have liked a evenly matched fight, where the Panzer II could kill him. Everyone wants a technological advantage over the enemy. The Soviet Union had that advantage, easy to produce tanks that were the best for their time.

[KnightFandragon]

In Real Life noone wants a Play Balanced fight, but in a game there has to be and in every game the Germans are worse and the US/Russian stuff is unrealistically more powerful then the Germans. Even if the units stats arent stright up higher or better then hte Germans there are minor little things that make teh Allies better. In CoH the Germans have to follow some long ass expensive tree before they can get a Panzer IV G that you need 2 to be able to beat 1 M4 sherman, 3-5 to take on a M4 w/ the 76L upgrade. In MoW the Germans are less accurate, thier tanks crew slower, move slower, turrets traverse slower, which this is true for the Tiger and King Tiger and such but the Panzer IV/Panther, those kinda had turret motors did they not? The US guys are pin point accurate at all ranges in comparison to German guys, thier turrets can turn faster then their hull and can practically track a Jeep moving full speed, then commence to actually hit it while both vehicles are moving. maybe not the Short barrel guns but the 90 and 76 definitly, ive done the whole move and shoot thing over and over and over so I know thats how it goes. The Japanese imo are better then the Germans in this game. Sure they dont have King Kitty and IS3s but atleast they can hit something AND kill it from a good distance. The Chi To....that tank has a VERY good gun and decent armor, PLUS its a hellva lot more accurate then any German tank Ive used. Since 1.17.5 I got in some Japanese playing mood and played like 6 matches w/ them and I killed more Allied Tanks at longer ranges with less shots then I ever did with the Germans in all my games combined. I was quite amazed at how good that Chi To was. It even got hit quite a few times and didnt die as easily as the Panzy IV or even the Tiger I. I know were going ot go that Chi TO was never produced and was a 1944 tank but still, im not talking RL, im talking purely in game. The Japanese Infantry are not even that bad. THey lack in the AT Infantry dept. but they have some pretty good tanks. THe Chi Ri and Chi To are good the Chi Nu is decent, atleast equal to the Panzer IV G but with a better gun

[Nikitns]

Originally Posted by Crni vuk

equal armor on the side like the front? That would be quite bad if I got you right here.

~ though I noticed the T34/85 hull is quite resistant to the Panzer IV H. To resistant as the T34/85 had literaly the same armor values compared to the T34/76. And those could be destroyed by the panzer IV H succesfully on all distances regardless the angle. Sadly in Men of War, I never have reasons to fear the Panzer IV as its gun isnt even close to the pentration it should have.

1. Early T-34/76 was built as a versatile tank. Not only an anti tank weapon. It was also built for attacking, fighting in cities et cetra so having decent side and back armour would be pretty useful.
2. T-34/85 had significantly upgraded armour.
3. Panzer 4H is fine. Realistically the T-34/85 and Panzer 4H were pretty equal from what I've heard. While I would prefer a Panzer 4H over a T-34/85 (a bit better gun, cheaper) I never buy Panzer 4H. U could buy a much stronger Hetzer for the price of a Panzer 4H. Just like I rather buy Kv-85 than a T-34/85.

T-34's could be taken out from the front pretty easily by Panzer 4H's. I believe T-34/85 only has 60mm or so frontal armour, so the Panzer 4H should take 1 out at 80-90 meters.

[Nikitns]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

I know the editor stats are different from MP....Also, if just a mere angle of any kind puts the Panzer IV gun from god to worthless then that just shows the German guns need to be upped more so b/c no Angle on any German tank saves it from anything....ive tried it w/ my Panzer IV and King Tiger, Panther, Tiger.....all the Allieds need is the side to be visible and they can hit it and kill you regardless of angle. Ive done it to Panthers and Panzer IVs, Tigers I just simply hit the front lower bumper and it usually blows up like an Atomic bomb hit it. Also, that T34 wasnt angled hardly at all. I Know it has that 60 degree slope in its armor already and so I try for as stright on shots as I can get. My side shot that killed it was as straight on as you can get, I made sure of it, got nice and close and straight on....pow, dead haha. As for the armor is the armor i see in the .def files that different from MP? I see no where that it has that "from MP" not a mod" line for armor, its there for some guns penetration, fuel load and speed but not for armor. The T34's armor is on the hull "52/47/47/22ish. Turret: 47/47/47 ish, it shouldnt stand to a Panzer IVH and its KWK40 L48 gun at angle.....yet in MOW it does..very well. Only the T34/85's turret should stand even a slim chance of not being killed. The T34/85 in MP is the same hull armor as the T34 but its turret is like 90 on the front...so yeah. as for the Sherman...its armor is shit, it is in fact a worthless tank w/ a high silouhette so it really shouldnt be standing up to 7-8 side shots from the Pzr IV G at any distance. Its armor in game is like Turret: 64/37/37/25 Hull: 76/42/42/25 or something. So yeah, I had like 86 penetration at like the 110m I was against his side armor yet didnt go through. So I guess after all this im not convinced the Allies are balanced and I cant convince you the Germans suck eh? haha

lol wut? duno why u hate Germans and think their under powered. most people think the opposite. U just bad at playing them maybe??

Also always angle Tiger tank. It almost becomes invincible if angled.

Angeling a Panther is unwise, as it has very bad side armour.

[Crni vuk]

issue with angling your tiger is that you expose your tracks and then your tiger is soon enough dead.

The Germans are not bad. They are just overkill. You end often enough in situations where you dont use the appropiate gear to counter the enemy armor like a Tiger I or Panther which have been excelent units but simply go for the "kill it all think later solution" that are the King, Jagd and Sturmtiger. And those are many times the vehicles you see. It doesnt mean that you dont see other vehicles. The panther is one of the most usefull vehicles if used correctly. Its just a bit ridiculous that you have trouble to penetrate sme tanks like the IS2 for example already from the side only cause the game decided now that youre shell is almost ineffective cause youre shooting from to far away ...

[Korsakov829]

I prefer my game to be more realistic then balanced. The Germans have their big guns and land mines, and the Soviet Union had mass waves of infantry and fast tanks.

[MiKye200]

Originally Posted by Nikitns

I want eras. Seriously.

Totally agree.
Close Combat had eras and a HUGE variety of troop types; that game was in some respects much superior to MOW, although MOW is vastly superior in the eye candy department.
MOW has the illusion of a variety of troop types but when you sit down and look at what is available to the various factions, it really is all much the same for everyone, eg. tanks will come in small, bigger, big, and ginormous.
Pretty simplistic really.
And no eras.

[KnightFandragon]

go get GSM Mods, those have the semi Era thing going on and TONS more troops or the BoW 1.5 mod....they have loads more stuff to...atleast the Germans anywho, the Allied nations are pretty boring in any game, the US gets Shermans, the Russians get T34s and thats that haha

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

I prefer my game to be more realistic then balanced. The Germans have their big guns and land mines, and the Soviet Union had mass waves of infantry and fast tanks.

Then I think Men of War might be eventualy the wrong game for you. Without the intention to sound cocky or insult you. I thought about the game in a similar way and it meant a lot of frustration, at least in the begining. Till a friend told me I should not play realistic but witht the rules of the game. And now it works a lot easier and better. Men of war is a complex RTS with WW2 as theme. Its in no way a battlefield simulation. What ever if the intention was to give units realistic values or not but fact is that its a game first and anything else later. I personaly prefer realism over a lot of other things as well. But for a RTS you cant simply make evertyhing realistic. Not if you want to have some fun as well. Otherwise you would see Kingtigers destroy anything on ALL ranges with pin point accuracy (almost), sounds not all to fun does it ? Though now you would have to give the other side either a powerfull airforce and/or artillery units, making the Tiger II eventualy very vulnerable to mechanical problems meaning that only 5 % of them would see the battlefield in the end. Not that fun either ...

Its incredible hard to make a realistic game.