[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

[LeoPhone]

just stop twisting the whole story.

it is about sherman > pershing

[Hasek10]

just stop twisting the whole story.

it is about sherman > pershing

Obviously. I of course, was not the person who brought the M10 into the debate. If you'd like me to stop replying to Mysthalin's clever non-sequitur, then we can get back to the Pershing not needing buffs against its fragile-but-effective hard counter.

[gamesguy2]

It is true however that armor can do nearly nothing against an 88.  Cally is worthless against it and mortar is only effective if there is a building it can hide behind.

Not sure why pershing is worse than a sherman against 88 though.

[Smokaz]

I am the steel fallos symbol of strategy! Nothing is unbeatable! Do not listen to this criminal who posted above me.

1) Sniper
2) Mortar smoke (duh you actually want to mortar it?)

with mortar smoke it opens for the regular smoke vs hardpoint options, just decrewing it with flamers and nades, stickies do okayish damage to it, armor engineers can still buy demo charges if you have enough smoke and more than 1 squad they have to be expecting it and bring their own stuff to stop you

also, the 88 relies on your fear of its range and its support, block off the support with mortar smoke and then just an all out rush with several tanks instead of getting life leeched from your tanks slowly by the 88

you can get away with having utility in your company in 3v3s and 4v4s, this is where 1 player with a very well designed and versatile company can become the ultimate con man using the presence of large amounts of forces not directly engaging eac other all the time and send in his specialized force to solve shit like bunkers and 88s and mgs everywhere, get that double sniper, double mortar with demo engies in there, and if the ygot like 8 x 88s well you got hustled bro, it happens

[Tymathee]

meh, someone tried to smoke my flak and charge me with several tanks but u know what i did? i was smart, i had schrecks near by, raped the m10's when they went behind the smoke. If there were flames, grenades or the flak artillery.

[Mysthalin]

A Howitzer far outranges any artillery that defensive has to throw at it

Because Pershing companies are known for their reliance on howitzers? The Howitzer IS a direct counter to the 88 - noone will ever argue against that. The thing is - armor companies have no access to howitzers.

How exactly is a Sherman dealing more damage than a Pershing?

Both will more or less have enough time to fire off 1-2 shots before they die horribly. The Sherman deals more damage per shot - ergo it will deal more damage. If we move in 2 shermans(still cheaper than a pershing) - the 88 will die. And - as I pointed out and you agreed - even 2 M10s(Much cheaper than the pershing), which are tank destroyers - will do better against the 88 than the Pershing, which is a Heavy Main Battle/Assault Tank.



SX - the thread is not about nerfing the 88s damage output vs tanks.
It's about making the Pershing better against the 88 than the Sherman is.

Not sure why pershing is worse than a sherman against 88 though.

At least gamesguy understood what Leophone was trying to say.

[Jazzhead]

A Howitzer far outranges any artillery that defensive has to throw at it

Because Pershing companies are known for their reliance on howitzers? The Howitzer IS a direct counter to the 88 - noone will ever argue against that. The thing is - armor companies have no access to howitzers.

Callis??

[Mysthalin]

And calies are howitzers? :O

No, calliopes are utter fail versus howitzers - you can fire barrage after barrage and the 88 will just stand there, being happy that you're not barraging stuff you can actually kill.

[SX23]

I don't actually understand the point of this thread....
Leophone, you are asking to lower the dmg of the 88 against the only thing it can counters, wich means tanks? I'm gonna give you a tip leo. If you see and 88, don't charge a LONE pershing up to it and then come posting in the forums that the pershing should win against the BEST anti tank from axis...

You dont understand it because you dont READ IT.
Again, I do NOT suggest to lower the dmg of flak vs pershing,  i suggest to increase the dmg of the pershing vs the flak so it will AT LEAST match the sherman damage.

Erhm, pitching pershing dmg vs the flak will make the flak weaker against the pershing, no?
And just like that, did you ever tought that it the pershing gun was actually way better than the sherman's ? MIGHT be the reason why it don't do that much against the flak, to actually give the 88 an EFFECTIVE status of the supposed "BEST" german anti-tank?

[Mysthalin]

The 88 doesn't become worse than any other AT in the german arsenal if the pershing's damage vs the 88 is improved. 

[SX23]

The pershing is easily the best allied tank. If it's dmg vs german's best at is improved... Well, who said that pershing needed a buff anyway?

[Mysthalin]

And, as the best allied tank it should be better against the same target as a weaker allied tank that fullfills the same role, no?

[SX23]

And, as the best allied tank it should be better against the same target as a weaker allied tank that fullfills the same role, no?

It's already better due to main gun dmg difference. And again, who decided that we needed a post to talk about the pershing vs 88? Does it take into accounts any balance problems right now? Or is it to fix a one in a hundred occasion ingame?

[Hasek10]

Because Pershing companies are known for their reliance on howitzers? The Howitzer IS a direct counter to the 88 - noone will ever argue against that. The thing is - armor companies have no access to howitzers.

Myst, if you took my post in context you'd know I was responding to Uunderfire's post concerning the T3 that allows Flaks to defend themselves from Mortars. In that same post, I thought I also adequately addressed the idea that Flaks will kill a Sherman far faster than it will kill a Pershing. With no appreciable speed difference, I posited the Pershing will both live longer and inflict more damage to a unit that is meant to counter it than a single Sherman.

Yes, I understand the Sherman does more damage to the gun per shot than the Pershing. Is it a problem? No. Simply put, there are enough other factors that need to be taken in to consideration when an armor player chooses to attack a Flak that I think the Pershing is just fine the way it is. What if the 88 isn't scouted for? What if the turret is turned the wrong way and the Pershing insta-gibs the Flak crew (who still take the full 135 damage from the Pershing's gun btw)?

Create as many scenarios as you wish, but I guarantee that completely destroying the Flak in one glorious charge is far less likely than simply decrewing it (something that a calliope CAN do effectively, even if its rockets don't do enough damage to destroy the gun itself).  And you know what? I think that's just fine.

At least gamesguy understood what Leophone was trying to say.

Right now, your entire argument rests on the idea that "A Pershing must always deal more damage than smaller tanks to everything because that's how it should be." Not because the Pershing is less effective or because the Sherman/M10 is too good (It isn't and they are not)- because dammit the gun on a Pershing is bigger and I want to make things explode with it.

If you must muck with things to make everything consistent, then lower the Sherman damage to the Flak 88 to bring it in line with the Pershing. Maybe that will make people think twice before running Shermans across a field in a style reminiscent of British tactics in the Crimean War.

[Mysthalin]

Far faster being roughly 1 less shot taken by the Sherman than by the Pershing? Sure.

Taking in other factors in which the 88 isn't scouted for, there's a shotblocker allowing the tank to get close and so forth - our argument that the Sherman is stronger only gains validity. The sherman will die in 3 shots at point blank, the Pershing will die in 4. In that time, they'll both fire off the same ammount of shots - and the Sherman will simply deal more damage. Somewhat underwhelming considering how much more expensive in every single way the Pershing is.

If the 88 is pointed away, the pershing will still target the gun, not the crew. If the Pershing does by some miracle shoot a crew member - that's all it will do, shoot one crew member. Then the 88 will turn around and make you pay for slaying one of their own(which will be done to the Sherman as well).

But I guarantee that completely destroying the Flak in one glorious charge is far less likely than simply decrewing it

No - because vehicles target the gun over the crew.


My argument rests not on the idea that Pershing is bigger therefore it should be better. It lies on the argument that the Pershing costs more in every single way, fills the exact same role and should be better for this exact reason - it COSTS more.

[MittinsKittens]

Mys, Wouldn't it be possible to attack ground where the crew is?
Or what that cause utter fail from the Tank gun because they are missing their shots?

[Mysthalin]

If the 88 is looking away - it MIGHT be viable. That is, of course, ignoring that you'll be sacrificing your nearly perfect accuracy for complete reliance on scatter.

From the front it's completely impossible because the shield protects you completely.

[Hasek10]

Far faster being roughly 1 less shot taken by the Sherman than by the Pershing? Sure.

Taking in other factors in which the 88 isn't scouted for, there's a shotblocker allowing the tank to get close and so forth - our argument that the Sherman is stronger only gains validity. The sherman will die in 3 shots at point blank, the Pershing will die in 4. In that time, they'll both fire off the same ammount of shots - and the Sherman will simply deal more damage. Somewhat underwhelming considering how much more expensive in every single way the Pershing is.

If the 88 is pointed away, the pershing will still target the gun, not the crew. If the Pershing does by some miracle shoot a crew member - that's all it will do, shoot one crew member. Then the 88 will turn around and make you pay for slaying one of their own(which will be done to the Sherman as well).

An interesting, though ultimately flawed analysis of what would happen if these two tanks decided to throw caution to the wind. Let me point out some Myst-akes. I will be assuming, as you did, that through an error in judgement there is a shotblocker that has allowed the tank to close range between the Flak. At short range, the reload for a Flak is 4-3.5 (I assume this averages out to 3.75 for convenience). There is also a wind-up/wind-down time of .75s for the Flak, totaling an extra 1.5s.

While the wind-up is important to note in case you felt like circling the flak and causing it to misfire, we'll assume as you did that this is a slugfest. Both Sherman and Pershing have reload times of 6 seconds. The Flak with a reload of 5.25 seconds. If the Sherman is able to get a shot more than .75 seconds before the Flak can fire, it will survive to fire three times. If it does not manage to fire first however, it will die before the third shot.

3 * 87.5 = 262.5 damage for a sherman with a quick trigger finger.

2 * 87.5 = 175 damage for a less lucky sherman.

The Pershing's situation is nearly identical. Reload of 6s, but this time its gun is only doing 137.5*.45 = 61.875 damage per shot.

If the Pershing fires first, it will be able to take 4 shots  before dying.

4 * 61.875 = 247.5 damage for a Pershing with the spirit of Patton.

3 * 61.875 = 185.625 damage for a Pershing that had a bead drawn on it already.

Not that impressive, nope. The Pershing performs roughly on par with the Sherman. What I'm not taking into account however, is penetration. the Flak has a 90% chance to penetrate the Pershing at point blank. The Pershing will always penetrate a Flak. The possibility of a Flak shot being deflected here is too low for me to concern myself with.

But wait! Here comes another Pershing! Whats going on here? This one is stopping before reaching point blank! Could it be that the hubris of its unfortunate predecessor has tempered its advance?!?!

The Pershing is able to use a shot blocker to approach the flak at a range between 30-40 units. At this distance, the Flak has only a 45% chance to penetrate the Pershing and a 1.5 reload modifier. For its part, the Pershing is at long range and has an accuracy of .75%. It still penetrates the Flak every time.

The flak now has a reload time of 7.875 seconds and will penetrate less than half the time, dealing 121.5 damage on a deflection.

Assuming now that the Pershing and Flak fire about the same time, the Flak requires 5 or 6 shots to kill the Pershing. The Pershing will be able to take  6 or 7(!) shots before it dies, though 1.5 of those shots will miss. I will calculate on the lower end.

5*61.3 = 309.375 damage. This is enough to put the Flak 88 below the 5% threshold (15.625/325 = 4.9%) needed for a red critical.


The Sherman would fare much worse. With the same accuracy penalty as the pershing, but a much worse penetration modifier, the Sherman would die in three hits from the Flak, (only able to deflect <1/5 shots), while being able to return fire thrice. The chances that atleast one of these three shots would deflect or miss are not inconsequential.


The point of my above examples is not that a Flak won't always beat a Pershing or a Sherman/Pershing do comparable damage at short range with the Pershing edging out the Sherman at long. To assert that would be baseless theory crafting. There are too many variables.

 Rather, it is to illustrate that a damage increase to the Pershing versus the Flak to a level at or beyond what a Sherman is capable of will allow the Pershing to easily overwhelm a Flak 88 at the range it is meant to be used at, no theory crafting necessary.

If the 88 is pointed away, the pershing will still target the gun, not the crew. If the Pershing does by some miracle shoot a crew member - that's all it will do, shoot one crew member. Then the 88 will turn around and make you pay for slaying one of their own(which will be done to the Sherman as well).

A Pershing's splash is large enough that even if it targets the gun, should it be pointed in the wrong direction, it will murder one if not both of the two Flak attendants.

[Tymathee]

ok, so while we're doing this back n forth, i just had a game yesterday where a Sherman and Pershing came at me at the same time and attacked my 88 and i see why relic did it. The Persh bounced quite a few 88 shots like i say about maybe half while the sherman like 1 out of the 4 that hit him so, the reason whyh it does less damage is so the pershing isn't a pure counter to an 88, it has a lot of health, and the 88 doesn't always penetrate, so basically what would happen is if u had a persh and u saw an 88, u rush the presh at the 88 and ping ping ping, 88 done.

[gamesguy2]

An interesting, though ultimately flawed analysis of what would happen if these two tanks decided to throw caution to the wind. Let me point out some Myst-akes. I will be assuming, as you did, that through an error in judgement there is a shotblocker that has allowed the tank to close range between the Flak. At short range, the reload for a Flak is 4-3.5 (I assume this averages out to 3.75 for convenience). There is also a wind-up/wind-down time of .75s for the Flak, totaling an extra 1.5s.

While the wind-up is important to note in case you felt like circling the flak and causing it to misfire, we'll assume as you did that this is a slugfest.

If you're going to make a statement like that, you need to make sure you have all the numbers right.

Also it is impossible to circle a flak with a sherman or a pershing.  Not even an M8 can do it.  I've seen a jeep sorta outrun the tracking once.

If the Pershing fires first, it will be able to take 4 shots  before dying.

Pershing will never ever fire first unless the 88 is engaging something else.   Flaks have no aim time, all tanks have a 1.5s aim time.  Not to mention the flak rotates a lot faster than a pershing.

But wait! Here comes another Pershing! Whats going on here? This one is stopping before reaching point blank! Could it be that the hubris of its unfortunate predecessor has tempered its advance?!?!

The Pershing is able to use a shot blocker to approach the flak at a range between 30-40 units. At this distance, the Flak has only a 45% chance to penetrate the Pershing and a 1.5 reload modifier. For its part, the Pershing is at long range and has an accuracy of .75%. It still penetrates the Flak every time.

You're forgetting the pershing has another .75 acc mod against the flak.

The flak now has a reload time of 7.875 seconds and will penetrate less than half the time, dealing 121.5 damage on a deflection.

Assuming now that the Pershing and Flak fire about the same time, the Flak requires 5 or 6 shots to kill the Pershing. The Pershing will be able to take  6 or 7(!) shots before it dies, though 1.5 of those shots will miss. I will calculate on the lower end.

5*61.3 = 309.375 damage. This is enough to put the Flak 88 below the 5% threshold (15.625/325 = 4.9%) needed for a red critical.

Ignoring the absurdity of having a perfect shotblocker at 35 range for the pershing to sit behind for a moment.

Flak does 243 dmg per shot, 90% chance to hit, but with a scatter angle of 2.5 and the huge pershing target it will likely hit always.  45.5% chance to penetrate, 50% deflection dmg, and 7.125s between shots.

That comes out to 24.8 dps and thus an average of 5.6 shots to kill, or about 32.7s of firing.

Pershing does 61.88 dmg, 56.2% chance to hit, scatter angle is 7.5 so fairly unlikely to scatter in. Always penetrates, 6s between shots.

That comes out to 5.8dps and thus an average of 9.3 shots to kill. or 56s of firing.

So no, even in this incredibly contrived scenario the pershing gets owned.