Shermans and Stugs,

[Thoragoros]

The stugs were amazingly effective at what they did, and they were excellently armore . What is wuith COH stugs?

Shermans are just too expensive for theyre abilitys.

[Noir]

What's wrong with CoH's Stugs? They're only mid-tech level, fairly cheap, and they excel at supporting infantry.

[DoltIncognito]

The gun upgrade for the Sherman is really quite good. It brings its AP abilities to near Tiger level.

[PuGGy]

1v1 a stug will kill a sherman, even though the stug is a lot cheaper. Since on its own it will get killed by infantry easily, this seems about right.

[theBlind]

If you didn't drive by the stug, forcing it to (slowly) turn, then you deseve to loose.

And if you're talking about a battleline situation where you can't just drive by, then where are your AT guns?

[FatalTheRabbit]

the shermans main cannon seems dual purpose. It's meant to be able to disrupt infantry as well as deal moderate damage to other tanks. The sherman is a meatshield really, while the M10s are supposed to act as your fire power, but they don't do a very good job it seems. The main cannon upgrade does not make the sherman as good as tigers...

[PuGGy]

People dont seem to realise that giving the sherman the 50cal upgrade also improves its amrour quite a lot. The armour goes away when the gunner is killed however, which makes the upgrade costly and inaficient.

I could be wrong, but shells seem to bounce off more with the upgrade, and sandbags do appear on the front of the tank. It also costs too much for just a machine gun, so it stands to reason it does something else too

[Starfisher]

The main cannon upgrade makes the shermans more in line with an AT gun with AP rounds. They aren't as good as tigers, but they get more hits through them.

They still bounce off all the freaking time, though.

[shadowcreaper]

i find sherman armour stupidly stong, or tiger has extreamly weak dmg, sinse i find tigers need 5 + shells to kil a sherman.

also liek other guy said theres a bug with 0.50 cal upgrade sinse it increases the armour of sherman it seems

[Thoragoros]

Puggy, and many of you, the stug SHOULD kill a sherman in a 1vs1 battle since the Stug historically had bett armor and a MUCH better main gun. THe stug was made to kill tanks, and hunt them. So my point is the stug should be much better at killing tanks and the sherman should be cheaper, since it was a cheap tank, and since for game purposes alone it is worth almost nothing.

[shadowcreaper]

sherman= cheap and avg
tiger= pawns shermans easy.

ATM

sherman= exspencive and too powerful armour
tiger=doesnt pawn shermans sinse it gun dmg to low :(
even rear hits dotn blow up shermans(witch in real battles the "tommycooker" shermans allwas blow up due to airplane fuel in its engine. thus sadly many americans got burnt to death.

[DatonKallandor]

Puggy, and many of you, the stug SHOULD kill a sherman in a 1vs1 battle since the Stug historically had bett armor and a MUCH better main gun.

Not it should not kill a sherman just because "historically etc. ad. inf.". Tanks are obviously not balanced on history, but on gameplay. Shermans are the Allies main battle tanks, and Stugs are early infantry support tanks. That's how it is, and changing it would mean rebalancing the entire armor roles.


Daton

[CorsairX]

you should be happy that german tanks not WTFPWN allies becouse if the game would be correct with history... then you would have something like this: (quotas form history pages)

about the tiger main cannon:

"It could destroy all Allied tanks at long range. Even the very heavy Soviet Stalin tank could be penetrated at 1,500 meters, and most Allied tanks could be knocked out at 3000 meters."

about its armor:

"The Tiger's vertical 100mm (4") frontal armor made it nearly impervious to fire from the 75mm guns of Allied Sherman tanks and early Soviet T34/76 tanks."

about sherman

"Unfortunately, the American 75mm gun was usually unable to knock out the heavily armored German Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger tanks unless it got within very short range (inside 100 yards or less)."

"The Sherman was protected by 2" (50mm) side armor. This was sufficient to save the crew from small arms fire and light artillery, but left the Sherman terribly vulnerable to the high velocity 75mm and 88mm guns carried by the German Mark IV, Panther and Tiger tanks.

The high velocity German guns that could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor, coupled with vulnerable ammunition storage, gave the Sherman the nickname "Ronson," taken from the Ronson cigarette lighter. This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time."
"
be thankfull that german tanks do not pwn allied tanks from 3000m in the game

oh and while tiger was a tank the stug was a TANK DESTROYER, it had a little worse cannon, but still a lot better than sherman anti-inf dart shooter

the sher should cost much less and heave much less armor

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Actually the stug was always an infantry support vehicle. The later variants with the long 75mm were better at AV, but they still weren't tank destroyers. A properly used Sherman could and would take them apart.

[Mirage Knight]

Interesting statement, considering the fact that StuG III's and IV's accounted for some 20,000 destroyed armoured vehicles by the end of the war, at least half of that figure being tanks.

Late model StuG III's and the StuG Iv were equipped with the 75mm StuK40 (a 75mm KwK40 modified for use in an SP gun chassis) specifically so that said vehicles could provide anti-tank support for infantry formations. What made the StuG's particularly dangerous was their low profile which made them harder to hit and also allowed for easier concealment.

[CorsairX]

oh and futhermore those are the numbers in which stugs were built
the ones with good AV capability are variants F, F/8, G

Ausf A January - May 1940
30

Ausf B June 1940 - May 1941
320

Ausf C May - September 1941
50

Ausf D May - September 1941
150

Ausf E September 1941 - March 1942
272

Ausf F March - September 1942
359 + 1 prototype

Ausf F/8 September - December 1942
334

Ausf G December 1942 - March 1945
7720 + 173 converted

so you see there where a lot more AV variants in the war
furthermore AV variants mass production started long before the allied invasion in normandy
it is a tank destroyer, becouse its designed to be hard to hit (low profile good armor) and kill the opponent, allied tanks were easy with this, they had paper armor
max armor of an allied tank was around ~100-110mm
max armor of a german tank ~170-180mm
oh and not to mention that allied tank destroyers had like what 10-20mm armor? :D allied tactics were -> zerg ftw ;D
figiure it out yourself

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Interesting statement, considering the fact that StuG III's and IV's accounted for some 20,000 destroyed armoured vehicles by the end of the war, at least half of that figure being tanks.Which looks far less impressive when you take it in context of StuG's produced compared to other german AFVs. I'd bet proper tank destroyers like the Hetzer or Nashorn performed better proportionally.

[CorsairX]

not quite becouse
"Hetzer" production started in April, 1944
and the Nashorn known as Hornisse (hornet), well... around 500 of those high headed panzer 3/4 with a tiger cannon attached were built
The same numbers as king-tigers (485-490)

both of those tank killers had better guns so what, alled tanks had paper thin armor so the stugs killed them anyways and i`d rather have more stugs then less other tank killers becouse the allies were just swarming with shermans

the tank kille thats really impresive is the JagdPanther :D

[n0z3k1ll3r]

You know that "Allied tanks" doesn't just mean the Americans right? Go look at the monster that was the British Churchill. If that's paper thin armour I shudder to think what sort of paper you write on. Even if you do just count US weapons the Pershing had a good 110 mm of armour on the front.

I don't see why production figures come into this. The StuG was built in huge numbers because it was an effective vehicle at most purposes and was relatively cheap to produce. The addition of the long 75mm gun was just an upgrade on the existing shorter version, it wasn't done to make it a specialised tank destroyer.

[Mirage Knight]

The Nashorn, for a stop-gap measure, actually did do very well - even with thin armour. Then again, it was armed with the 88mm PaK43, a long range weapon with a hell of a punch ;)

Ah the Hetzer...dangerous little bugger. Let's not forget the Then there's the Marder series based on the 38t...

On the late model StuG's - what I implied was that the addition of the 75mm StuK40 served to enhance it's abilities to allow it to function as a tank destroyer. I should have made that a bit clearer. However, the late model StuG's were occassionally used in the place of tanks due to the shortage of tanks in some units.

[naradaman]

I don't really want balance changes to be made according to historical facts. I want it to be fun. I don't want to see a Tiger taking out my Sherman from 3km across the map, that's not fun. This discussion reminds me alot of the table top threads in the DoW section.

BTW, I think it's too late to restructure the tech tree.

[shadowcreaper]

don't really want balance changes to be made according to historical facts. I want it to be fun. I don't want to see a Tiger taking out my Sherman from 3km across the map, that's not fun.

i do :D
i want it not to be extreame range advantace but a large bit further than shermans+ mch better dmg, sinse shermans or nicknamed "tommy cookers", so makign sherman a super tank is if anythign a bit stupid. sinse 1 shot from tiger close range on sherman would allways mean exploding up due to engine fuel.

so makign historicaly correct, and making it "fun" is very important sinse otherwise you wil just have allies being the best or both armies equal witch i must add it was not during ww2. so maybe during the begining of game the germans start off as beign best, and as allies upgrade they slowly get better. atm in game shermans are stupidly good and tigers just soak up gun dmg yet do not any real proper dmg from their 88mm. unles of course the shermans are "jumbo shermans" yet i dout this sinse they was few and not many reached the front lines before 1945.

all i hope is they fix the tiger dmg and turret bug or allies wil have much better tanks, witch is nor fun or historicaly correct :(

[DatonKallandor]

I don't really want balance changes to be made according to historical facts. I want it to be fun. I don't want to see a Tiger taking out my Sherman from 3km across the map, that's not fun. This discussion reminds me alot of the table top threads in the DoW section.

BTW, I think it's too late to restructure the tech tree.

Quoted for Truth.


Daton

[CorsairX]

Pershings in fact are good tanks but:

"Pershings were sent to europe in February 1945. Patton favored the Sherman tank, contending it would require less gasoline and had better mobility. At that time Patton expressed his opinion, the inferiority of the Sherman's main gun and armor protection had yet to be demonstrated."
so what the pershings were 3 months in action? there was not much left of the german panzer forces

except for like 20 pershings that were sent on the mission "zebra" in january 1945

the churchills up to 1943 sucked donkey balls, later they had a cannon sherman but it had a littlo more power (same caliber)
the armor was the same as tigers (few mm more)
king tiger had 180mm ^^ and there were 500 of them
as for german mass produced tank panzer IV (around 7000 built) around 1500 of them had 50mm armor all other had 80mm and they had a high-v anti tank 75mm gun so still better then allied mass tanks
we must look at the numbers, main allied tanks were shermans, lots and lots of them
it is known that allies and soviets in terms of armor force were like orks/zergs (the soviests in terms of manpower were zergs too ;) )
there were like what 1000-2000 tigers? and 58.000 t-34 @_@
german tanks owned (tigers especially) which is proven by history

qutota from wikipedia:

"On July 7th of 1943, single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharfuehrer Franz Staudegger from 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Panzer Grenadier Division "LSSAH" engaged Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (southern sector of the Kursk salient). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying some 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross.

On August 8th of 1944, single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharfuehrer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition. sSSPzAbt 102 lost all of its Tigers during fighting in Normandy but reported 227 Allied tanks destroyed during the period of 6 weeks.

The Tiger is particularly associated with the name of SS-Haupsturmführer Michael Wittmann of schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101, who was one of the most successful tank commanders of World War II. He worked his way up, commanding various vehicles, finally a Tiger I. In one day he destroyed over two dozen allied vehicles including several tanks, and single-handedly held up an entire advance until his tank was knocked out and abandoned at the Battle of Villers-Bocage.

Over 10 Tiger tank commanders had over 100 kills on their account, including: Johannes Bölter with 139+ Kills, Otto Carius with 150+ Kills, Kurt Knispel with 168 Kills, and Michael Wittmann with 138 Kills.

n oft-quoted statistic for weapons systems is the kill ratio. Against the Soviet and western Allied production numbers, even a 10:1 kill ratio would not have been sufficient for the Tigers. Some Tiger units exceeded the 10:1 kill ratio, including 13. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland (16.67:1), schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (12.82:1) and schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 (13.08:1)"

again i say figure yourself
germna tanks ownage
german infrantry ownage but after a while (and allied invasion in normandy) the army started to look like elder people and kids
same goes for tank crews

the game needs to be fun so i think german tanks should not pwn so hard unless big bucks would be spent on them
tiger should pwn, sherman should be cheap as hell
and german tanks should be really stron but slow and inaccurate (crappy crews)
the player should build a veteran squad to place it in this tank further upping its price

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Shadowcreaper: Hmm, where do I begin?

I've done amateur balance work for Dawn of War for quite a while (pretty much since it was released) and I can tell you that a lot of what you've got there just won't work as an actual game. Remember the real war wasn't balanced OR fun, so basing things off it is unlikely to be either.

You can't make the Tiger just beat anything the Allies can field. It may be realistic but it's damn silly. In CoH the Allies can't field the roughly 50 shermans to each Tiger that they had in reality, so if you make it realistic they'll just get creamed.

You can't have the Axis be better early and the Allies better late. If the Axis are better in the early game then they'll just win in the early game or at least secure such an advantage that the Allies can't leverage their late game advantage.

I think overall you're playing the wrong game. If you want an uber realistic WW2 game dig out Close Combat or Hearts of Iron. CoH is an RTS not a Wargame.

[DatonKallandor]

I'd quote Noz for truth again, but that would get boring. So I'll just say: Noz is 100% absolutely right.


Daton

[Reshig]

I think the number of kills caused by StuGs and other German tanks is more attributed to the well trained and experienced German crews. StuGs weren't as good as you say they are, the type Fs and type Gs (The most common as you've listed) only had 50mm of front armor, and 30mm on the sides (Practically the same as a Sherman). A Sherman could and consistently did destroy StuGs in head on engagements. It's only saving grace is that it had superior gun optics with an experienced crew. I'm sure that if the rolls were reversed and you had German crews in Shermans vs American crews in StuGs, the Americans would still be the ones with the high casualty rate.

[Dalamari]

Do they count as tanks or vehicles? (Stugs) because I go to upgrade them at the little....upgrade place...and I'm not sure if they count as a vehicle or a tank

[halem111]

ok if your not gonna quote noz for truth i will

You can't make the Tiger just beat anything the Allies can field. It may be realistic but it's damn silly
CoH is an RTS not a Wargame.
QFT

but in all seriousness, the axis armour was very very very good however, im sick to death of axis tanks in late game rolling all over my forces
For example end game i had few forces left, and we was talking and i was like u get a tiger ace, and ill get a pershings and go mano a mano with them

So my pershing and his tiger squared up he destroyed my pershing, there was no way i could get round the back of him to get the vunelable back, so i thought lets go head on.
He had half life left i had none by the end and that was without support on either side. Now i did this because the tiger ace costs 1000 and the pershing 900 yes pershing is a little cheaper but you cant get ANYTHING for 100 that will counter balance that fight.

My shermans also get annilihated too easily as well. This is because even though i do try to get to shoot vunerable areas alot of the time its just not possible because they have AT support, or if i do go close they just spin round on the spot. Therefore im shooting at there front and hes shooting at my side destroying my tank even quicker.

Shermans should be something like 200 manpower.....if its in relation to just how strong the axis armour is.
Because if tanks go mano el mano against each other and both sides have spent exactly the same amount of money, then it should be pretty even, and down to skill not an advantage that wins the battle. Its a game not life.....things should be fair

[Mirage Knight]

I have to say that as someone that studies military history, I'm all in favor of accuracy and consistency. However, as a modder I also know that there are times where you have to make compromises when adapting history (or Warhammer40K fluff :D) into a game.

Let me put it this way. Where's the fun in going up against an enemy that can knock out your tanks in one shot? There isn't any - it's an excercise in frustration. Despite the fact there's a little inconsistency with regard to the damage done by the same weapon types and that basic infantry squads should be larger (9 in size), Relic has actually done an amazingly good job in representing the Americans and Germans in World War 2 - all things considered of course.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Regardless of numbers fielded, I'm pretty sure thousands of Pershings were produced. If the war were actually held up for some reason, they would have been deployed in great numbers.

If we are to be talking realism, then every allied doctrine would get massive artillery and air support, and every tank an Axis player ordered would have a large % chance of being destroyed rather than arriving. :p

Plus, the Allies don't have the M36, which is the only other tank really capable of taking on panthers or tigers.

If you want to fight at 3 kilometers, well, thats what combat mission is for.

[Mirage Knight]

Only 310 Pershings actually saw service in Europe by the time Germany surrendered - although a good number were used in the Pacific as well. The Pershing also saw service in the Korean War.

[Thoragoros]

LISTEN! If the shermans were made CHEAPER and therefore more of them could be fielded, WE WOULD NOT NEED TO NERF THE GERMAN TANKS!!!!

Thin for a moment! Shermans are not meant to go head on with a panzer 4 or a panther. MANY shermans are meant to fight them at once.

The allies did not win beacuase their tanks were so excellent, but rather because THEY HAD ALOT OF TANKS!!!!

[n0z3k1ll3r]

The Sherman is fine. I took out a panther and a tiger consecutively with one today, admittedly with some support but as the Allies have far better support for it that's all fine. There is nothing wrong with Allied armour, except for the useless M10.

[ceejayoz]

Yeah, I'd agree with n0z... it should be much easier to encircle a Tiger with a mass of Shermans. Right now, you can get 2-3 which just isn't enough.

[CorsairX]

people people i was talking about history in response to noz post
the only balance i was talking about is to make shermans weaker (armor) and cheaper not 1hit kill
furthermore i was talking about making tigers have less accuracy at start and good after upgread/added vet tank commander
i never said i want germans to pwn from 3km
most of you just skim through my post and go "no no we do not want you changes" i never suggested more than whats stated above

i nvere said i want stugs to pwn i just said that in history eaven stugs were better then shermans
and they were they did not have 50mm armor they had 80mm (G -type almost 8000 produced)
i was just saying that if the geme were to be correct with history german tanks would pwn

[naradaman]

I was just using your fact to explain that it's best not for real life to dictate the balance of this game.

Personally, I think the m10 needs some buff love, cost-wise of stats-wise I don't know. Reducing the cost of the sherman would have adverse in period when allies have tanks and axis are still teching.

Edit: by m10 i mean the antitank tanks. I think that's the name.

[CorsairX]

"Reducing the cost of the sherman would have adverse in period when allies have tanks and axis are still teching."
hehe at some point this is accurate to history ;D hitler did not send his armor divisions to battle allies landing in normandy for some time, people say this is the reason for the succes of the landing

it is possible to balance things out that with an optimised build both factions will be able to build tanks at the same time, just allies would have more :)
but as we know balance does not mean that everything must be equal

if the game would be to reasemble real life = the game would suck ;D

[hasbean]

i'm with the "make shermans cheaper" camp. not much, shall we say..
390MP (magic points heehee), perhaps drop down to 80 fuel

[TheDeadlyShoe]

making shermans cheaper would break allied internal balance. why do anything but spam shermans.

[ceejayoz]

why do anything but spam shermans Wasn't that the strat in WWII? :p

[CorsairX]

Wasn't that the strat in WWII?
and it worked? :D

[FatalTheRabbit]

i'm with the "make shermans cheaper" camp. not much, shall we say..
390MP (magic points heehee), perhaps drop down to 80 fuel
I was thinking more along the lines of 370-390 manpower and 100-110 fuel. Combine that with an attack power boost to the M10, and things will be fine. Let the sherman take hits and provide a little fire support while the M10 deals the damage.

making shermans cheaper would break allied internal balance. why do anything but spam shermans.

Terrible counter point. Not only do you make the mistake of assuming the Allies are balanced, but you seem to forget that when allies actually bother to build tanks they already just mass shermans because the M10 and Crocodile lack utility.

[shadowcreaper]

Yeah, I'd agree with n0z... it should be much easier to encircle a Tiger with a mass of Shermans. Right now, you can get 2-3 which just isn't enough.


i think the following needs to be sorted out:

1:shermans need to be made MUCH cheaper

2: tiger dmg needs to be made much more OR sherman/flamer armour needs to be MUCH less(say this due to rear shooting doesnt kil shermans quick enough compared to historical counterpart.

3:make tigers (if1+2 completed) a little slower

4: make all tanks have a "counter tank/s"


Beginning in 1944, some Shermans mounted the higher-velocity 76 mm M1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=76_mm_M1_tank_gun&action=edit) gun giving them anti-tank firepower comparable to the Soviet T-34/85 and many of the AFVs it encountered, particularly the Pz III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III), Pz IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV), and StuG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_III)
thus those german tanks would die more easyer to sherman cos sherman the "counter tank" to these german ones, while the tiger well pawns shermans.
(basicaly counter tanks witch face their prefered tank do more dmg to it)


just for those saying make tiger weaker, remember the FACTS


Sherman lacked effectiveness against the medium Panther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank) and heavy Tiger I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_tank) tanks, against which the Sherman's 75 mm gun could not achieve a frontal penetration at any range.


While Shermans were able to take on the Panzer III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III) medium tanks in the North African campaigns, they were unable to withstand the weapons mounted on late-model Panzer IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV), and Panther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank) and Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I) tanks encountered in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) and Normandy. Armor was more evenly distributed and thicker at the side than the PzIV; the top armor was equal to that of the Tiger.


One concern was that if the main turret gun came to rest at the wrong angle it blocked one or the other of the two front hatches from being opened, thus potentially trapping the crew member inside. Eye witness accounts have recorded the horror of hearing the screaming of the man trapped inside while he burnt to death, and being helpless to rescue him.

and the one whitch i REALY want implemented into game like FOW is


Early Sherman models were prone to burning at the first hit. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like 'Tommycooker' after a World War I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) portable stove, or "Ronsons" after the cigarette lighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_lighter) with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!" This vulnerability increased crew casualties and meant that damaged vehicles were less likely to be able to be repaired for reuse. US Army research proved that the major reason for this was the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks
:D:D:D

ow yer nearly forgot, sherman are supposed to be crap, BUT massed
unlike game sherman can just sit and shoot for to long against tigers, in real life this is wht happends.


According to Belton Y. Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belton_Y._Cooper&action=edit)'s memoir of his 3rd Armored Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._3rd_Armored_Division) service, the Shermans were "death traps"; the overall combat losses of the division were extremely high. The division was nominally assigned by table of organization 232 medium tanks (including 10 M26 Pershing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing) tanks that made it into combat). It lost 648 tanks totally destroyed in combat, and a further 1,100 needed repair, of which nearly 700 were as a result of combat. According to Cooper, the 3rd Armored therefore lost close to 1,350 medium tanks in combat, a loss rate of 580%. Cooper was the junior officer placed in charge of retrieving damaged and destroyed tanks


**edit**

maybe intraducing more allie tank would stop the problems, ie:



Because there were relatively few Tigers and Panthers, they could be defeated by weight of numbers or superior tactics, using up-gunned Shermans working with tank destroyers such as the M36 Jackson (http://www.answers.com/topic/m36-jackson) (with a 90 mm anti-tank gun) and the M18 Hellcat (http://www.answers.com/topic/m18-hellcat) (a mobile, fast tracked vehicle with the same 76 mm gun). US crews and commanders such as LTC Creighton Abrams or Sergeant (http://www.answers.com/topic/sergeant) Lafayette Poole were able to knock out dozens of German tanks each.



maybe if these were intraduced then they could make tanks more "balanced"



lol found this: i wonder if relic knew this? if they did why did they give sherman sandbags lol -100% combact effectiveness



General George S. Patton (http://www.answers.com/topic/george-s-patton-jr), informed by his technical experts that the standoff produced by sandbags actually increased vulnerability to shaped-charge (http://www.answers.com/topic/high-explosive-anti-tank) weapons (a controversial opinion) and that the machines' chassis suffered from the extra weight, forbade the use of sandbags and instead ordered tanks under his command to have the front hull welded with extra armour plates, salvaged from knocked-out American and German tanks. Approximately 36 of these up-armored Shermans were supplied to each of the armored divisions of the Third Army in the spring of 1945.

[Dalamari]

The allies did not win beacuase their tanks were so excellent, but rather because THEY HAD ALOT OF TANKS!!!!

qft

[Marwynn]

The real difficulties arise in the inability to withstand a direct Axis armor assault. AT guns, M10s (hah), and Shermans can't be massed in high enough numbers to offset that in a forward position.

A battle of maneuver also is difficult to achieve, and sometimes several rear shots still do very little.

The only thing I could even hope to use against Tigers are the Calliope's Barrage.

But the difference between a Stug and a Sherman is pretty large is it not? The latter is the Allied MBT, the former supported infantry and packs a decent AT weapon too. It's a battle of maneuver, and a slight tweakage in costs or stats wouldn't be amiss.

[TNT]

sherman= cheap and avg
tiger= pawns shermans easy.

ATM

sherman= exspencive and too powerful armour
tiger=doesnt pawn shermans sinse it gun dmg to low :(
even rear hits dotn blow up shermans(witch in real battles the "tommycooker" shermans allwas blow up due to airplane fuel in its engine. thus sadly many americans got burnt to death.
"Tommycooker" and Americans getting burned? Must be a confusion of slang because "tommy" means brit.

[Firesparks]

"Tommycooker" and Americans getting burned? Must be a confusion of slang because "tommy" means brit.
The sherman first met the german as part of the lend-lease program in africa crewed by british crew, hence "tommy" cooker.

[hasbean]

"I was thinking more along the lines of 370-390 manpower and 100-110 fuel. Combine that with an attack power boost to the M10, and things will be fine. Let the sherman take hits and provide a little fire support while the M10 deals the damage."

this seems reasonable to me. ideally i'd prefer to see the m10 in a more support role like the stug; but it's just occurred to me that relic can't just mess around with this one. i mean, in DoW relic could completely alter the feel of the game at a whim (sintinel's uber AT anyone? how far from TT was that?!), but with CoH they've set themselves the challenge of balancing a complex game within the tight constraints of realism.

i can see balance discussions only getting more and more interesting from here ;)

[Nameless]

The M36 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_Jackson)really is the answer its 90mm gun could with good shells actually really mess up a German heavy. Why the hell we got the M10 in 1944 when it was being phased out because any Sherman with a 76mm had just as much power is beyond me. An upgrade to turn m10s into M36 (it used the same chassis and a very similar turret) that comes online around when the Germans can role out Tigers actually could have solved some of this, but it’s too late for that now maybe in the inevitable exp pack.:hmm:

What we can do now is a tough call though, but a major damage boost to the M10 seems to best answer to me anyway.

[CorsairX]

while the m36 had the power to kill a tiger up front from mid rage it still had less armor then a stug and only 75% armor of a tiger, tiger is still beter if you ask me

so it seems that the shermans should be a meat shield for m10/m36

p.s. hellcat was no good, 25mm armor max...

[Nameless]

I'm having some trobule figuring out what exactly your saying, but anyway just incase anyone is wondering what the hell a Hellcat is after reading that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat

Basiclly it was VERY weakly armored, but ast as hell tank hunter the fastest armored vehicle of the war actually. It had the same gun as an M10, but was much faster and smaller so it was harder to hit and see.

As for the M36 it wasn't as armored as a Tiger no, but that was probably because it was like 30 tons lighter... It had armor roughly comparable to slightly heavier then a Sherman all around so it wasn’t going to be dueling tigers head on, but then again nothing really could. It was fairly quick and had a good gun though so if it hit it at least the Tiger was going down and it had the speed to gain a good firing postion.

Also of note is that Stug's were not that well armored at all, there armor was not well sloped nor all that thick being only 80mm in the front. This actually isn't all that much better then a Sherman (and by extension the M36s) when you factor in it's front hulls slope and the mantletthat cover most of it's front turret.

[Ax3]

1v1 a stug will kill a sherman, even though the stug is a lot cheaper. Since on its own it will get killed by infantry easily, this seems about right.
Hmm I just lost 2 to a Sherman


Stug
400 Hit points
87.5 Damage 1vs Heavy Armour

Sherman
636 Hit Points
87.5 Damage 4vs Heavy Armour (5 with 76 mm)

[macktheknifeau]

Just played a 3v3. I had:

4 Shermans.
1 Callilpe.
4 Greyhounds

To start with, I moved near the axis base, they had a tiger and 2\3 anti-tank guns. Let's just say I was glad to have allied war machine. I got back all but the calliope (which IMO is near useless, none of the barrages did any real damage at all to anything, at a cost of 150 munitions).

The tank AI is shocking, their pathfinding is crap, and a tiger going backwards is as fast as a sherman going forwards...

Took me about 4 assaults, replacing tanks with allied war machine, AND 2 pershings before I managed to break the axis.

Personally, I think they should drop pretty much all of the higher level armour, and stick with a more infantry based matchup.

[DatonKallandor]

You obviously misused your calliope. A well placed barrrage murders Axis tanks.


Daton

[Clonesa]

If you watch that 3v3 replay posted on these forums you will see a single Tiger take a calliope barrage and continue to destroy 3 shermans.
The M36 upgrade would make a lot of sense. Excellent help to balance out the allied armor. It direct combat it would still lose to tigers, but it would hell of a lot more useful than an M10. It wouldn't even have to wait until the xpack because the graphical difference is so slight it wouldn't be much work.
If new content is an absolute no go then the prices should be lowered on shermans and M10s.

[shadowcreaper]

the m36 should be ued but only once the sherman armour or tiger dmg incresed, sinse atm it just tiger shoots.. sherman shoots tiger shoots sherman shoots, this then continues for about 1 min, then tiger gets raped by the rest of his army while he tryies to kil sherman.

its too c&c style, i want tiger shoots BANG there goes a sherman or 3 shot kils from tiger, for the amount of shots needed to kil a sherman by a tiger is just plain stupid.

also makign sherman MUCH cheaper would make up for this sinse it would involve more tactics than just i shoot he shoots back ect ect.

some may say "well if you want that then if sherman hits rear of tiger it goes bang" that fine lol. as long as its real and not some tanks using pop guns shootign it out for stupid amounts of time. look at somse "real" world war 2 footage of tigers in action. you wil see why they were "feared". when i see tiger i dont realy care, for i know that if i rush a sherman into it then run round and round it theres nothin it can do. this is why i feel tanks are total wrong atm. also makes tank combact dam too long.

[Starfisher]

Shadowcreaper, you cannot seriously be suggesting balancing the game around the ability of a Tiger to kill a Sherman. You just can't. It's too incredibly out there asinine for anyone to actually be serious about.

Reality is not balanced. The entire drive of one side in a war is to create imbalance, so that they are more likely to win. And so basing a game totally on reality does not make for a balanced, fun game. You want realistic damages, but without realistic sight and weapon ranges and realistic room to manuever, those are completely unbalanced. But of course adding in realistic sight and weapon ranges would completely ruin the game.

In short, if you cannot suggest practical ways to balance the game, please, I'm begging you, stop. It doesn't add anything to the discussion and it just drives things off topic.

[DatonKallandor]

And cheapening the Shermans is no way to balance. There have to be follow up changes, because then Axis gets swamped with Shermans.


Daton

[theBlind]

Axis players already have to tough time answering the Sherman question (or the first allied tank for that matter - even a M10!) in 1on1.

Sure, once they have a sizeable force on the ground, german tanks start to kill. But if allied tanks were considerably cheaper the infantry defence the axis player must put up to defeat that first tank would be much hard to impossible.

[FatalTheRabbit]

...ehh what? Storm troopers and stugs, or even just an at gun with some vet infantry/weapon teams will make short work of shermans. Shermans can get out pretty early but I don't think the sacrfice is worth it mostly. The axis player can respond pretty quickly if you go to armor too quickly, and you'll find yourself really short on manpower, and unable to counter his infantry.

[CorsairX]

Nameless
ROTFL
hellcat si like 20cm shorter then a pershing
and stug iv is 30cm shorter and stug III is 34cm then the hellcat @_@ do you know what are you talking about?
furthermore germans were the ones defending so speed is not so important here
it could be shot away from like what? 4-5km?
and you say that stug armor was crap with 80mm, badly sloped etc
it was shorter so there wes less armor to slope and again it was still shorter

p.s. around 2500 hellcats were produced, and around 10500 STUGS...

[raydude]

Reality is not balanced. The entire drive of one side in a war is to create imbalance, so that they are more likely to win. And so basing a game totally on reality does not make for a balanced, fun game. You want realistic damages, but without realistic sight and weapon ranges and realistic room to manuever, those are completely unbalanced. But of course adding in realistic sight and weapon ranges would completely ruin the game.

Exactly. There have been and are various euphemisms (or sayings) for the ideal conditions that real warfighters like to have when going into battle. These never involve balance. In fact, the ideal situation is so terribly imbalanced that the people on the losing side just die.

Case in point is this phrase: "Its like killing baby seals".

So, lets say its based almost wholly on reality. I'll take the baby seal killing side. The guy arguing for realistic Tigers can take the seal side. Lets play :).

[CorsairX]

ray
no-one is saying that the game should be like history
it should be BASED on history
so tigers/pantheras should pwn shermans, STUG`s/PIV`s should be a good match maybe a little better but for every tiger there should be like 3 shermans + infrantry support and for every panther 2 shermans + inf, and for every stug a sherman with inf or 2 shermans

its a quick quess dont make it my holy target for the game to be like this
i`m just saying that it is possible to make the game to be fun without raping the facts in history

[n0z3k1ll3r]

It is based on history. Hence the complete lack of Ninjas, or Wizards, or Giant Alien Attack Gerbils.

[CorsairX]

if you would play a game like medal of honor or call of duty and in this game the germans/soviets would conquer the whole world you would still say its based on history?

if a sherman would own 10 king tigers would you still say its based on history?

p.s. ninjas and wizards were in history just not in that time for your information

[DatonKallandor]

if a sherman would own 10 king tigers would you still say its based on history?

Doesn't happen. What's your point?


and in this game the germans/soviets would conquer the whole world you would still say its based on history?

Doesn't happen either. Seriously, what's your point again?


Daton
PS.:I love how you think Wizards are historical

[Starfisher]

Corsair: I doubt that. They could call the weapons whatever they want to make it sound more like history, but the basic fact is that without a significant change to the game engine, they could not make the changes you are looking for. I'll let you figure that out.

Here's a hint: what was the effective range of a tank cannon in WWII? Of the standard rifles of each side? And what are the ranges of both in game?

[Valkeller]

I would like for the STUG to have longer sight range do to its optics or make the optics an available upgrade, since the AXIS had far better optics during most of WW2 in compeer to the Americans tanks, a specially the STUG and the PANTHER (correct me if I am wrong).

Sadly some players use the PANTHER for close combat and drive to near other tanks (at least what I have noticed during my game play), other than that this game are quite realistic when it comes to strategy in war.

And I'm not requesting the game to be exactly based on the laws of the real world or history or facts I just think it would be fun having the optics in the game to.

[Mirage Knight]

Extending the site range of the StuG IV (and the StuH42) would make sense, as they were fitted with binocular rangefinders whereas the Panther only used normal monocular gunsights.

[WildeCard]

I'm not so sure extending their sight range would be such a good idea. Well, I guess it would depend on how far that change would be.. afterall, if a Stug/stuh could see as far as a sniper but not get killed by MGs and the like, it'd be one hell of a spotter, no? =D

[Valkeller]

Yes that is true but overall the sight of the tanks are almost as the infantry and I think that is a little bit short (I know they can shot farther with infantry scouting but that’s not the sight range), not from a ordinary gun sights perhaps but with optics or maybe not on a 1vs1 map but in a 3vs3 or 4vs4 map.
Tank battle often accrues on 1500m (2000m) to minimum 500m or so, but it isn't that range I'm asking for only a little bit longer.

Just me having some thoughts but hey mabe it will make the game very unbalanced.

[WildeCard]

It would be horrible in urban maps. I don't think CoH has true line of sight, so a tank that can see further in a urban setting would be such a hassle for foot troops, maybe?

I totally agree that in real life, tanks have a much great range, but the way it currently is is probably the best for gameplay.

[CorsairX]

DatonKallandor
hehe and whats yours?

It is based on history. Hence the complete lack of Ninjas, or Wizards, or Giant Alien Attack Gerbils.
what does this bring to the discussion? nothing
the game is still beta, there are to be balance changes

oh and wizards are historical, magic is not, if you thought about wizards as guys throwing fireballs :D then its only your problem with perception of history
in a game someone like a wizard could encourege the troops so they would fear the enemy less or bring fear to the enemy :D but enough ot

Starfisher
for the love of God again i`m not proposing any changes i`m just talking about history
i`m talking that it is possible to have the game represent the history without twisting it too much
we are talking about tanks and some fanatics are shouting (example) that the super pershing would pwn a tiger, so what there were only 2 super persh so i cannot resist to answer there arguments, that they are plain wrong in this debate

[Valkeller]

It would be horrible in urban maps. I don't think CoH has true line of sight, so a tank that can see further in a urban setting would be such a hassle for foot troops, maybe?

I totally agree that in real life, tanks have a much great range, but the way it currently is is probably the best for gameplay.
Yes it might be of less use in an urban environment but it mostly depends on how you use it.

And who says that all maps need to be urban? I would like to play on a 3vs3 (4vs4) map with open fields for more of a tank battle... but hey maybe in an expansion pack?

[Firesparks]

Yes it might be of less use in an urban environment but it mostly depends on how you use it.

And who says that all maps need to be urban? I would like to play on a 3vs3 (4vs4) map with open fields for more of a tank battle... but hey maybe in an expansion pack?
wildecard meant that a farther line of sight would make armor too powerfull in urban environment since it will be able to see an ambush a mile aways because houses doesn't block your unit's view.

[CorsairX]

gRAnis
i can bet you there will be "panzer mods" with open fields and lots of tanks :) probably someone will eaven make realistic firing ranges :D COH enginge will be easy to mod like DOW so many interesting mods can show up :) and maps :) Kursk anyone? :)