Make the game more "believabale"

[Evilsausage]

Nah it just depends on where the shots lands. Also the tank penetrations in the editor/single player is very off.

[Crni vuk]

well that the penetration is FUBAR in singleplayer is obvious anyway (Sherman 76w taking out Jagdpanthers from the front ? sure ...).

Thing is just that it feels to me like in multiplayer many believe Mow to be "realistic" when infact it isnt or to explain it more that way just alows for a small glimpse in to realism. Well that MoW is not a simulation and never was sold as one is obvious but that you get punished so many times for trying tacatical flanking or anything similar is not very supportive to the gameplay either in my eyes.

To that you can also add the the rather strange behaviour of guns like the 122mm of the IS2, British 17pf and a few other guns which are all way to powerfull. I would like to know what base they used for the 17pf for example. Was it the usual APCBC or the very rare APDS shell ? While the APDS had quite outsanding qualities (on paper ...) it was nearly useless in combat, somewhat reliable APDS shells didnt arrived before the end of 1944 on the front and still had only an accuracy of maybe 30% on 600m (aprox), they could "theoreticaly" penetrate the front of the Tiger II turret but the shatter gab would not allow that which as the high speed and small mass of the shell would simply cause the shell to shatter on the enemy armor instead of penetrating it (which was an issue with many allied guns including the 76mm HVAP on the armor of the Tiger 1). The gun of the IS2 seems to be ridiculous overpowered as well though while beeing weak in other situations (had to many cases where the IS2 was doing no damage to the side of heavy armor ...). It is as well a question what kind of damage one can expect to the turret for example as late versions of the Tiger I got 200mm protection for the turret. Last time I also had a situation where on point blank range the KV85 took 3 shoots of the Stug from the front ! Needless to say that such situations when you KNOW it should penetrate leave you somewhat with frustration. And I will not even go in to the details of armor quality which was well usualy very poor for the Soviets (compared to early and mid war designs of German armor).

But as said I am not asking for 100% realism either (that would leave most of the allied tanks in a very unfair situation since realisticaly not even the 90mm would have much success against the Panther). But a bit more authenticity regarding combat would be nice. Like No tank taking side shoots by powerfull guns that easily anymore. Actualy that is almost all I am asking for ... even powerfull tanks like the Tiger II, IS3 or IS2 and Pershing should be very vulnerable to medium guns from the side. What one can see though is that people use the Puma for example, to drive close to the IS3 and shoot its side ... sometimes with success even ... how is that in any way "authentic" ? Would it not be better to sneak eventualy (if possible) with good guns to the side of the enemy and score a hit and not make it simply a game out of "luck" ? Even the Tiger I should have a very good chance to penetrate the side armor of the IS3 on distance ...

[KnightFandragon]

Lolz id like tem to take a Advanced Squadleader Armor To-Kill sheet and base their numbers roughly off those. Thats what I use for my guns. If they did use that, you would quickly see that the Puma CANT kill an IS3 from any angle. To kill is 11, armor of the IS is 26 on the front hull and turret, back is 11 Hull, 13 turret. The TK on the 50L is only 11......and to get a kill you need to roll and have your to-kill # and die roll = 2 or lower then the armor factor.....so youd need a 8 or lower to kill it....wont happen. The Puma would have fun killing even a Sherman on its front hull and only has like 50% on its front turret which is like a 6. The Tiger I would smoke anything lower then a Is2. The T34 has armor factor of 11, I guess ASL aded in its slope for the armor factor and if a tiger hits it, you need a 9 or less to kill it on 2 6 sided die. To kill of the Tiger is 20....it cant possibly NOT kill what it shoots half the time. The Panther and King Tiger.....I dont care what you have out there...Panthers and King Tigers shoot it, its dead, dont even have to roll dice really. As for the 17OQF...its as good as the Panther gun.....Im sure the panther gun was better but as for the Allieds its thier best AT gun. And as for Side shots on the Tiger, King Tiger....The Russian 85, US 76L, Panzer IV 75L only has 50% chance to penetrate. Of course this is all based off ASL T/K chart which my dad says is based off realistic numbers and stuff. It makes sense that it coulda been. I try to base all my modded guns off those chart and so far it works for me. In my weird mod the Sherman dies.....just like it should. T34....crumples like a coke can under my tanks tracks when it gets hit by my King KItty =D muwhahahha

[Korsakov829]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

That Puma's 50mm was put there to engage tanks. The thing in the game is the Puma is way to accurate when its on the move. Its like the best Anti Tank Vehicle in the game, its cheaper then dirt, faster then that French TGV Train plus it has more ammo then ti really should. I swear I read somewhere it only had 12 rounds. In game it needs to be made stupid inaccurate to discourage people from using it like a guerilla vehicle....they just run it in circles around the enemy tank and blow the hell out of everything. Atleast it has butter for armor so it dies...just nothing can ever track it before it kills the target.

I've taken out a T29 two days ago with the Puma. Your right, the armor is thin, as anything 12.7mm or bigger will destroy it but their too fast. Their annoying, I've lost 6 tanks to one of these before.

[KnightFandragon]

Lolz my first ever Tank only battle was my dad and I vs some other people, we were Russia, them Germany and every tank they sent against us, be it Panthers, Panzer IVs, Jagdpanzer IV, we blew up and we were winning for awhile. Then they made 2 King Tigers sat out aways and didnt ever kill anything with the King Tigers, instead they kept sending in Pumas.....we would manage to kill every one of them but for every tank they killed (is2, KV85, T34/85...we needed to kill like 8-10 Pumas....it was retarded. They just ran up, kissed our rear and ran circles around us. Oh and it was only like 2 tanks per side so there was no way we were going to get the coverage needed to guard our flanks and rear. Even when we did both get a tank on the field, the puma was moving to fast for the other tank to get a clear, zeroed in shot before the other tank died. Ill toss in that was like my 10th battle of the game, so I was a newb then to but still......it was retarded.

[Korsakov829]

If that ever happens, bring in a Anti-Tank rifle. Or get a .50 cal, that should protect you from them.

[KnightFandragon]

Right, I woulda had infantry and stuff but it was tank only, there was only tanks and AT guns I think.....maybe there wasnt i forget and a supply truck......if there was an AT gun I just didnt buy any.....whoops but i dont think there was. In a normal game I put infantry in front and behind b/c ive been raped in the rear by Dynamite-Scouts to many times now. I ensure maximum coverage with infantry...works pretty well. Smgs and Rifle squads are dirt cheap compared to Storms...never realized that until the last time I played haha. 18 points I pumped out like 3 squads of 8...was crazy tons of men. I play the Germans 99% of the time....only tiems I play other nations if I just get that bored and decide to do it or in the editor hahaha

[Crni vuk]

just to say that, the 17pf with the usual APCBC amunition was slightly better then the Panther, though not by much so it was definetly very comparable.

The advantage of the Panther was its main gun in combination with the optics which have been some of the best in war. And its armor together with a great suspencion (again one of the best the Germans ever produced). The Panthers engine as well saw much use not just in the Panther design for example as it was a reliable and powerfull design.

The 17pf has never seen a good use before the Centurion and Comet eventualy (why is the comet not in game by the way !!!) as the Achiles, Firefly and Archer have been al just designs to fill the gab before better designs could be developed and send to the front. While the Cromwell was one of the most reliable British vehicles though it was not possible to squeeze the 17pf in it without designing a more or less completely new vehicle (which happend with the Comet but it shared many mechanical parts with the cromwell). Thankefully the idea with the Firefly just came right in time for the normandy champaign as luckily the first prototypes have been ready just before the invasion in france but even to achieve that was not easy and the crew inside the firefly turret really had NO room. The 17pf when deployed against the Panther proved to be a deadly weapon at least up to 1000m with a shoot to the turret. The structure was a different case as there have been panthers with different armor quality deployed in the west at least (on the east probably as well). British and US tests revealed that there have been somewhat 3 levels of quality in the armor of the Panther, with low, average and good. While Penetration (with both the 17pf and 90mm) was not achieved on the good armor plate they did have success with the low and average quality Panthers. The panther was a very good vehicle as there are enough Panthes which survived countless shoots from heavy guns, even some 122mm shoots though there are also Panthers in normandy which have been penetrated on the front by smaller calibers (starting with 76mm).

[Korsakov829]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

Right, I woulda had infantry and stuff but it was tank only, there was only tanks and AT guns I think.....maybe there wasnt i forget and a supply truck......if there was an AT gun I just didnt buy any.....whoops but i dont think there was. In a normal game I put infantry in front and behind b/c ive been raped in the rear by Dynamite-Scouts to many times now. I ensure maximum coverage with infantry...works pretty well. Smgs and Rifle squads are dirt cheap compared to Storms...never realized that until the last time I played haha. 18 points I pumped out like 3 squads of 8...was crazy tons of men. I play the Germans 99% of the time....only tiems I play other nations if I just get that bored and decide to do it or in the editor hahaha

If I were you I would keep a Officer around. But they seem a little expensive, might as well buy a sniper for a few more points.

[KnightFandragon]

My usual line up is I play in 3v3, myself, my dad and another person as Germans. He focuses mainly on infantry but I still buy some. I start off with a Pzr H and my team usually buys the first infantry squads. I then buy a tank squad to man the AAMG followed by a storm squad and as of late several SMG and Rifle squads and I set up my screen of infnatry. Then as the game goes on I have started buying scouts instead of officers b/c scouts carry around really big boom sticks in thier hip pocket which ive put to great effect atleast 1 time now. IM trying to get out of my tank whore box and work more with infantry, so far its going pretty good as weve won pretty much all our games. Of course we play 400-450pt combat w/o arty...Germany vs w/e nation the other team wants. Seems alot of otehr people dont do the infantry screen and instead go for the big guns of the IS2 and 3 but fail to get proper recon in and wind up getting a pretty flat angle side shot to the rear end of those IS's b/c they inch forward not knowing whats where due to thier lack of infantry......yeah its awesome. One thing I wish 1c would do is restore the power of the AT nade. While I didnt like it that infantry were so powerful I now hate it that infantry are not that good anymore. Reducing the power of AT nades adds to realism as AT nades prolly weresnt that good but it kept tanks in their place and made infantry really AWESOME....one thign I like about this game.