Mainline tank buff?

[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

[Smokaz]

We need someone to do a modifier comparison with all the new units I think. A sherman 75" struggles to kill a 50mm for instance.

[Mister Schmidt]

If we're talking vanilla tanks, then yeah, the Sherman is the go-to.

In all my years of playing, the only company that was focused around medium tanks that I ever found to be viable was dual T-3 RCA Cromwells, that was fun as hell, I wish there were more doctrines that made medium tanks so fun to play with. At the moment, especially with the prevalence of reward units, there's basically no reason at all to go for medium tanks.

[Hicks58]

The 76mm Sherman is on top of the vanilla food chain, not the 75mm Sherman.

In my opinion the vanilla food chain at the moment goes as follows:

76mm Sherman
Skirted PzIV
75mm Sherman
Unskirted PzIV
Cromwell

That order of effectiveness would be in mediums vs mediums. When it's mediums vs infantry, the ranking would change, when it's vs LV's, it would change again, and when it's vs heavy armour, it'd change yet again. Doctrines would then throw it up in the air again.

Medium tanks struggle with things like 50mm Puma's due to the 87.5 damage gun vs 300-400 health, requiring 4-5 hits to make a kill. Mano-a-mano they'll obviously take them on, but they'll take substantial return fire in the process and you'll rarely destroy a 50mm Puma or an Upgunned Hotchkiss in one sitting unless the LV user did something very silly. Such as sit still.

Also, a Sherman focused company is viable when support weapons and super heavies can be dealt with appropriately by teammates, or focus on those two elements shift out of the metagame. You can also have some laughs by getting 3 people together with 5-6 Shermans a piece and blotting out the sun with Shermans.

[Mister Schmidt]

I wouldn't really consider an upgraded tank as vanilla...

[PonySlaystation]

It's never a good idea to use unupgraded pzIV or sherman. The upgrades may as well be standard.

[Mister Schmidt]

That's not the point, an upgraded tank is not vanilla. That's like saying a Riflesquad with grenades is vanilla.

[GrayWolf]

That's not the point, an upgraded tank is not vanilla. That's like saying a Riflesquad with grenades is vanilla.

It is, 40 fuel... Really ?

[CrazyWR]

I haven't used 76mm Shermans in like 2 years so I have no idea how much better they are than regular shermans, but I find regular shermans do just fine.  I think P4's are in much worse trouble due to the extra amount of AT they face, the amount of which has only increased due to the new meta of boys AT spamming.

[Hicks58]

I wouldn't really consider an upgraded tank as vanilla...

I use the term vanilla to mean non-doctrinal.

You're spending too much time getting caught up in semantics rather than the issue at hand.

[Mister Schmidt]

Well that isn't correct then in all honesty.

And no, the 75mm is a tank in its own right, Smokaz specified this in the opening post. The point is, it's not that viable, but is the most viable compared to a P4/Cromwell.

[Mysthalin]

Hi guys.

I am writing up a post complete with calculations on the issue which will be released soon(tm).

The general gist of it is that as it stands, heavy tanks are far more manpower and munitions efficient than medium tanks by a significant margin. With the fuel costs as they are the amounts of tanks that can come from each individual company seems more or less so OK. In terms of popcap the tanks seem to also be, more or less OK - perhaps slightly in the favour of the heavies. I do not feel like any of the medium tanks are particularly bad for their cost either - and do not see the rationale behind buffing them. They already seem to do OK.

What seems to be not OK, however, is the amount of support that can be fielded together with a heavy tank when we compare this to medium tank companies. For instance a King tiger can be up to almost 4 times more munitions efficient than a double repair panzer 4 without skirts (the most extreme example). You will literally sink in 2 medikit paks worth of extra munitions into getting the 3 MG, double repair Panzer 4s compared to that single King Tiger.

I will post the full numbers (available via google docs) once I complete them, but from what I've been playing around with I am tending towards increasing the manpower cost and repair kit cost of the heavies and super heavies available on both sides. I expect this to have a two-pronged effect - heavies becoming less prevalent so less heavy AT comes on the field, and less munitions/manpower being available to field heavy AT In the first place (with heavy tanks). Without touching the medium tanks themselves we might end up with an overall environment that is a lot more friendly to medium tanks.

And that should be good.

[Hicks58]

The difference between the 75mm and the 76mm is the ability to penetrate the PzIV consistently (0.5864 > 1.093) and the StuG/Hetzer competently (0.346/0.2963 > 0.646/0.6667).

That's pretty much it. There's increases in penetration vs the heavier armour but it's negligable, especially after range calculations and the fact that the target in question will maul your face, relegating the increased penetration to giving the tank the ability to potentially steal a kill shot. The AI effectiveness stays effectively the same as only the long range splash is affected, the short and medium range splash (Where the bulk of the damage is dealt) remains exactly the same (To note, it goes from 0.25/1/3 to 0.25/1/1.5).

You're paying 40 FU to be good vs PzIV's and StuG's/Hetzers, meaning that in the current meta it'd actually be more sensible to roll with 75mm's considering the distinct lack of PzIV's and Hetzers.

What I'm getting at is that when compared to the 76mm at this moment in time, the 75mm is perfectly viable. People thinking that the gun is trash is probably for the most part psychological rather than factual.

Oh and Schmidt, if you'd have read my first post in it's entirety, you'd have got the context from it:

The 76mm Sherman is on top of the vanilla food chain, not the 75mm Sherman.

I start off saying that ^.

That order of effectiveness would be in mediums vs mediums. When it's mediums vs infantry, the ranking would change, when it's vs LV's, it would change again, and when it's vs heavy armour, it'd change yet again. Doctrines would then throw it up in the air again.

In the same post, I follow up with this ^. Emphasis on the words I made nice and big for you to see.

I stand by my point that for whatever the reason, you're needlessly nit picking.

[XIIcorps]

Lower medium costs by 10-20%
Raise heavy/supheavy costs by 20% and pop by 1-2

You'll see substantially more mediums like the good ol days.

[aeroblade56]

why are we buffing tanks. i like infantry battles.

[Mysthalin]

Lower medium costs by 10-20%
Raise heavy/supheavy costs by 20% and pop by 1-2

You'll see substantially more mediums like the good ol days.

1. Why should mediums cost less? They make up their cost most games, it's just that heavy tanks are more efficient for the price. Where would reducing their price leave other non-heavy specialist tanks such as the ostwind, stug and M10, who would then become inefficient in their own right?

2. Why should heavy/super popcap increase? They don't seem to allow a disproportionate amount of support to be brought on once on the field.

[CrazyWR]

nvm

[XIIcorps]

1. Why should mediums cost less? They make up their cost most games, it's just that heavy tanks are more efficient for the price. Where would reducing their price leave other non-heavy specialist tanks such as the ostwind, stug and M10, who would then become inefficient in their own right?

2. Why should heavy/super popcap increase? They don't seem to allow a disproportionate amount of support to be brought on once on the field.

well isnt this the argument. Heavies being far morr cost effective then mediums.
Lowering medium cost to allow more quantity over the quality of heavies.

The stug and m10 are more specialist role vechs, and even so the stug has better armor then the p4 for less. The m10 can duel armor while crushing inf.

While most heavy options do not allow for large numbers of support, things like the maus Did

[Mysthalin]

1. Heavies being more cost effective =/= mediums being cost ineffective. Your point on the M10 and the StuG does absolutely nothing to counter mine.

2. If your suggestion to increase heavy/super popcap is based entirely on the existence of the Maus then I consider the suggestion to be fully and truly countered.

[XIIcorps]

Yeh rightio,  I did previously state I was spitballing with numbers and ideas.

No need for the inquisition myst, its not like I have the ability to implement my suggestions.

But when you can run 2x tiger/pershing and deal 4-5 sherman/p4's worth of dmg to the opposing team.

I dont think its heavies that are too strong, just meds being too expensive/weak on aquntity vs quality basis.

[NightRain]

Heavies necessarily don't outperform Mediums but it is completely player related thing. Even though costwise Heavies are cheaper to run than mediums in terms of Support which can be poured on heavies but what Mediums are lacking.