[WM] Flak 88

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Hasek10]

Aha, an additional accuracy modifier on the Pershing vs Flak. I didn't notice that. I defer to your superior statistical knowledge, Gamesguy. The Pershing does indeed not have much of a chance against a Flak head on.

That said, and I believe I have followed your math correctly, a Flak will take 23.4s to kill a Sherman(Assuming the sherman is small enough to avoid missed shots) or 3.9 shots on average. The Sherman has a DPS of 9.8 against the Flak. This comes out to more damage overall, though with a lower lifespan than a Pershing.

The  damage increase to the Pershing proposed by Leophone would give it a DPS of 8.1 against the Flak, an average of 6.6 shots, or ~39.8 seconds to kill.


While I question Relics judgment in making Shermans superior Flak fighters to Pershings, I would assume they wanted VCoH's defensive doctrine to have something besides a Panther that could take on the allied super-tank and have a chance to beat it.

[Mysthalin]

Even without the aditional accuracy modifier there's the long range accuracy modifier all tanks have - you should have factored that in from the get go.

What Relic wanted is absolutely irrelevant. Read the guidelines - vCoH is a terribly balanced game, and no balance argument should ever be made under "Relic wanted it that way".

Defensive has plenty counters to Pershings - the rather cheap and pop-unintensive pak being the most namely candidate to that role. Panthers do well too - as you pointed out. Heck, even WITH the change to the Pershing vs 88 damage the Pershing would lose unless under a very extreme fluke.