Let APCR rounds effect he Panzer4 (PE)

[hashinshin]

Currently APCR rounds do not help the Panzer 4. I personally think a tank that currently has no chance at ALL of killing a tank 1v1 should atleast get this small buff for going tank hunters. Its the doctrines name after all. It wont make it able to kill tanks up front, it wont make it able to suddenly wtfpwnzer people, it would allow it to maybe once in awhile penetrate a tank where it wouldnt have.

[Melissia]

P4s are anti-infantry tanks, they aren't supposed to take on other armor-- the rounds are not fired at high enough velocity to penetrate regardless.. Support them with AT halftracks, panzershrecks, and the like.

[hashinshin]

Yeah but thats not what I'm talking about. I'm not USING panzer4s as anti tank. The only time i do is when I have 2 and can get one behind an enemy tank. I'd like to atleast see though my ACPR rounds ability effect my most used and favorite tank. I mean, is there any real logical reason not to ? It doesnt say 'only tanks that can kill tanks'

[killerraddish]

it might be the fact that APCR rounds are ANTI-TANK rounds, a tank not used against other tanks would not utilize them. The P4-IS is for use against infantry, it is not meant for heavy anti-tank duties.

[hashinshin]

I'm not using it for anti tank, but I payed command points for that ammo type, they better give it to my panzer4s. It wont effect its ability to be completely dominated by other tanks, it still will. But its for some RANDOM reason not given the rounds ive commissioned to my tanks.

[tuffy!]

yea i have to say apcr rounds would not go with the p4is design.

[hashinshin]

But you guys are missing the point. It doesnt matter if it goes against the P4's design. My whole doctrine is to make people better against tanks. Should it matter if it sucks or if its already good ?

[BatAttack]

Well, APCR is armour piercing ammunition.

The Panzer IV uses low velocity HE shells to gib infantry - it's a different type of shell.

If the Panzer IV wanted to benefit from the AP ammo, it would lose its anti-infantry AOE damage.

That is your 'realism' reason.

Of course, you could let tanks fire different kinds of ammunition, but that seems to be a design decision that relic avoided, probably for simplicity reasons.



Also, hashinshin, Wehrmacht's zeal ability from the Terror Doctrine affects Volks and Grenadiers .. it does not affect KHC.

There is no rule that every doctrine ability has to affect every unit.

[Splitmonkey]

it should affect pvIV.the shermans 75 and 76mm gun both clip squads and penetrate tanks.

so what rounds are they using then?

flawed logic here.

[ALoserIsYou]

You guys are still missing his point, sad.

[Melissia]

Somewhere in Splitmonkey's post is a point, as soon as I can read his jumbled sentences, I'll figure out what it is.


But you guys are missing the point. It doesnt matter if it goes against the P4's design. My whole doctrine is to make people better against tanks.Even if it used the shell, the PIV fires at too low a velocity to penetrate. Thus using the shell would be a complete waste
.

You guys are still missing his point, sad.I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with the point, because it is poorly argued, unrealistic, lacking in balance, and because I feel like being antagonistic the moment I saw you say "you're missing the point".

[Rottweiler|Soul]

I'm not, for the record, missing the point. He is.

Panzer IV ISs are firing low-velocity HE shells. AT rounds are, to a T, high-velocity shaped charges. There is no middle ground, as the two are mutually exclusive.

To put it another way, a dozen rifle squads with BARs should be just as effective against heavy armor as a single rifle squad with BARs: Nil. You're using the wrong unit, and repeated (and heavy) use of the wrong unit should not be rewarded.

[Vintage]

I don't think it needs to benefit from APCR rounds. Another tank should send an ungaurded PIV IS running in fear. Even two of them. I can't see any harm from allowing them to benefit from it, but I don't see any need for them to benefit from it either.

[hashinshin]

2 PV4s can pretty much kill any tank, even a churchill. Put a PV4 behind a tank and watch how it can kill it. THATS what I want more out of in my APCR rounds. It doesnt matter if it sucks, or if it doesnt, it should get a benefit cause it says all tanks... I mean common.

As for the 'different ammo types' arguement, the sherman fires two different types of rounds seemlessly.

[Shukusei]

The tooltip says "USELESS AGAINST TANKS" for a reason.

You have the grossly imba Marder III, as well as schrek PG squads. Use them.

[Zallis]

You have the grossly imba Marder III, as well as schrek PG squads. Use them.

Which seriously makes me question the use of the APCR ammo as a doctrine ability in the first place. Marder and shreks seem to penetrate most of the time as it is. What's left? AT halftrack? Pah. It was never meant to be used as main-line AT, and performs adequately versus vehicles to begin with. Hetzer? Doesn't need it, so far as I can tell. Jagdpanther? Doesn't seem to need it either.

[hashinshin]

It doesnt matter if i do or dont have god on my side, it should be effecting my PV4 and its nots NOT. It doesnt say 'if your tank sucks in the first place it doesnt get the rounds' does it?

Ive already said it can kill tanks, so I'm using something that somehow my entire doctrine doesnt effect. Its an oversight, other tanks use multiple ammo tanks, so that shouldnt be effecting me.

[Melissia]

it should be effecting my PV4

It shouldn't, and it isn't. Screaming childishly "It should do this cause I want it to!" doesn't cut it. It's not an oversight, it's "working as intended".

[Philman]

look at the muzzle length on the gun. It ONLY fires low velocity shells. It is not capable of firing any other round.

The Sherman was. That is why it was so popular when the brits first got it in north africa. It was the first tank they had that could fire AP and HE shells. AP for killing tanks, HE for killing infantry and Anti-tank guns.

[Thunderraiden]

OP is soooo blind... i mean, has he even once looked at the P IV's cannon? its stubbed nose, therefor it cannot physically shoot a APCR round. Like the op doesn't understand he is talking about fitting a square into a peg shaped hole.

[hashinshin]

Yes, im blind. Obviously the PV4 has no 'main tank gun' at all. Its just a really big minor gun.

I mean youre playing a game where bazookas can penetrate a king tiger, telling me my panzer 4 wont get any benefit out of a doctrine ability that says I'll get benefit from it.

[NTerritory]

"Oh might Moderators, in who we trust, please bring your judgement down and end this bickering, Amen"

The PE Panzer IV IS is a dedicated Anti-Infantry tank, utilising a Low-Velocity 'stubby' cannon to lob HE shells onto infantry targets. Because of this it is incapable of actually firing APCR ammunition types. Complaining that a vehicle is either incapable or underpowered for a role it was not intended to fill is rather pointless.
This game is supposed to be about combined arms, so use it.
Having gone Tank Destroyer Doctrine you already have access to Hetzer and double Panzerschrek goodness, also the Jagdpanther lurking in the near future.
Not to mention PE Marder as a non-doctrinal unit.

Why are you complaining that one vehicle fails to gain a boost from an ability that is not even remotely aimed at it? :banghead:

[bonemachine]

Yeah it seems like the only vehicle that would really benefit from that ability. Strange.

[Gerle]

So do you want the extra schrecks you get for spending points also give you more carbines and assault rifles? That's pretty much the same thing.

[Rust_Lord]

The PIV short barrel still engaged other tanks during the early stages of the war and was actually rather effective. But the equipment used in COH is more later war stuff which the PIV wouldnt real be able to do much too....granted the whole realism<gameplay issue but with what the OP is saying, the PIV getting the benefit of APCR is not such a bad thing given it is tankbusters and a 4CP doctrine ability, and you have to forego Hetzers to get them...if you have a look at its performance the PIV short barrel is still going to be able to penetrate inf vehicles but still have appalling pen against real tanks. Principle of consistency.

[Melonplant]

Alright.

The panzer 4 SHOULD be armed with the armor piercing rounds. It makes sense guys.

Now, as we know the panzer4 has less than .02% chance of penetrating the sherman at medium range. Now all we have to do i multiply it by 1.35 for the new penetration against shermans.

It's penetration versus the sherman is now .027

I just emailed relic and they agreed to implement it. Don't listen to coh stats. When you play the game, the stats are secretly changed to .027. Go test it in game, I promise you'll be happy.

HAPPY?!

[bonemachine]

From the look of it the only units it would significantly improve performance against would be the Stuart and the Priest.

Seems acceptable to me.

Rear penetration vs Jeep is .6?

[Melonplant]

Jeeps don't have rear armor anyways, I thought.

[bonemachine]

I used to think the same thing because I never recalled seeing a "rear shot" display for a light vehicle, but they do have rear armor modifiers.

Small arms that can hurt light vehicles can also get rear armor penetration bonuses.(flank those PE vehicles)

[Melonplant]

Small arms that can hurt light vehicles can also get rear armor penetration bonuses.(flank those PE vehicles)

Thanks for the tip. I was not aware of that!

Well this thread was useful. I'm as surprised as anyone. I now know about rear armor penetration with small arms.

[Umpa Lumpa]

The PIV is great against infantry. If it became competent against tanks too people wouldnt build anything else. Think croc with a cannon or easily buildable Churchill croc. It'd be totally OP'd.
Maybe the upgrade could give an option for the tank to switch between HE and AT rounds and with them be slightly better against armour but poor against infantry but frankly i think its fine the way it is. One of the more balanced PE units.

[bonemachine]

Do you guys know what APCR rounds do?

~35% penetration increase

What is the PIV is standard penetration vs a... M10?
.1641?

do the math

APCR rounds don't make it a good counter.

Not to mention every tank in the game can kite it.

[Falaris]

The difference would be, as melonplant (he beat me to it) said, virtually undetectable.

What MAKES a difference is the 600-80000% or so improvement in penetration from rear shots, not the 35% one from APCR. (Actually, according to CoH-stats, it has to be the only gun to be WORSE against the rear of jeeps, M3's and Bren's, than against their front... or the tables is messed up. The increase against the sherman seems a little excessive. (That's the 80000% one).

It is a little funny that many of the posters here cite as their main argument realism, when they usually scoff at such arguments.

However, despite the hypocricy, it is occassionally a valid argument, and I agree with it here. When it is unrealistic AND makes no real difference, don't include it.

About the jagdpanther, it will *always* have the APCR active when it shows up, which means there is no tank in existence it will not automatically penetrate even at max range. The only exception is the pershing at long range, which it has a 97% chance to penetrate the front armor of. (!).

[Hirmetrium]

You have the grossly imba Marder III, Which was nerfed during the patch, so its no longer imba.

To make it blunt, no. This is the most stupid balance idea for a while. The Panzer 4 would become nigh unstoppable if it could destroy infantry AND tanks so easy.

[Luwinkle]

The AP rounds make the Hetzer quite a bit more useful..as it is now..it's just 57mm fodder. Thick, sloping armor...of used tissues.

Not that I even had a chance to use it much, since the damn thing STILLCARSEHKASJESKJRSRallthefuckingtime.


Anywho.
The Panzer VI is anti-infantry. It fires High Explosive munitions. By their very definition(and name), High Explosive munitions are NOT Armor Piercing. So it makes total sense that Armor Piercing munitions would not work on a unit firing High Explosive munitions.

[bonemachine]

It is like people don't even read the thread and/or understand what they are talking about...

Luwinkle should the Sherman upgun make it ineffective vs infantry then?

[Unicous]

APCR a.k.a. HVAP """HIGH VELOCITY""" ARMOUR PIERCING

can not be equipped on a short barreled gun BECAUSE it needs HIGH VELOCITY in order to perform as intended. why would i shoot a projectile out of a gun that is not even capable to operate with that kind of projectile.

in order to get some velocity on that projectile you need to have three things:

propellant: check
high projectile mass: yeah, check
a long barrel: che.... hey wait we have no long barrel, it's a short one, ah fuck those physicists get on my nerves. i want my lasersword i don't care if light is infinite i want it now!!!
and i don't care if a apcr projectile needs high velocity and therefore a long barrel I WANT MY APCR ROUND ON THAT AI PZIV. NOW!

[Luwinkle]

Bonemachine, the upgunned Sherman is significantly less effective vs infantry. But a direct hit from a tank shell (and the shrapnel thrown around from the impact) WILL fuck some shit up.

And bonemachine, I have read the thread, and the only people who don't understand what they are talking about are the ones saying a purely anti-infantry tank with NO armor penetration capabilities(and no such way to fire said armor penetrating munitions) should get armor piercing shells.

[Adonis]

Moved to Balance Issues.

[Melissia]

I don't scoff at realism when it is supported by other arguments. Actually, realism is somewhat important to me (just as "fluff" is important in DoW balance)... so yeah...

Regardless, realism + balance + logic = No, high velocity armor piercing shells should not be fired out of a low velocity tank cannon, it would be overpowered if it gained any more meaningful penetration versus tanks, and there's simply no NEED for it to gain such penetration given its current role.

Q.E.D. Done with this thread.

[Mirage Knight]

*Sigh*

To start off with, the Panzer IV Ausf. F never used APCR rounds as the short barreled 75mm gun was a low velocity weapon designed largely for infantry support, firing an HE round which was very effective against infantry, light vehicles and buildings. Hollow charge rounds were developed for the gun to give it some AT capability but the effectiveness of the shell was rather limited in terms of accuracy (due to the effective range of the shell itself).

I guess if anything, it could get a Hollow Charge Rounds ability but honestly it's not really needed in OF given the abundance of PE AT capabilities.

[Dymo]

According to this INFO the OP has a valid argument.


"As the Panzer IV was intended to fill an anti-infantry combat role, early models were fitted with a low-velocity 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun, firing high-explosive shells.

After the Germans encountered heavy tank designs such as the Soviet KV-1, the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 and G were armed with the high-velocity 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 tank gun.

Guess what GUN the Panzer IV in CoH currently sports.... :trix:

[Unicous]

Dymo, may i introduce you to the

http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/192%20-%20panzer4-f2.jpg

75 mm KwK 40 L/43

in germany i would say to you " du bist gerade ausm mustopf gekommen" the english expression would be being slow on the
uptake.

we are talking about the PZIV equipped with the 75 mm KwK L/24

http://forgottenhope.bf1942files.com/images/news/192%20-%20panzer4-f1.jpg

[scotticus]

The sherman 75 vs. 76mm cannon has like double the splash, which is why i pretty much never upgrade. The splash is way to important for killing schreks fast enough and rarely do you need a tank to actually hunt tanks. For hunting tanks i generally use a tank destroyer.

BTW give him the APCR rounds for his PIV but then it needs to take away all the AOE on the projectile to it becomes useless against inf.

[Dymo]

And according to our pre-immenent stats site the Panzer PIV of CoH sports the

Kwk40 75mm Panzer IV Gun or is there 2 K40 75mm models available?

And the ICON used shows a long barreled gun, not a snub nose like the Stuh.

If that info I posted is wrong then please go to Wikipedia.com and correct their rather blatant error. :banghead:

[Unicous]

Dymo may i suggest that you read the OP again, carefully. we are talking about the "PE" Pz. IV that has the short barreled 75 mm KwK 37 L/24, so to say it is an old Pz. IV. After March 1942 Pz. IV were all equipped with the long barreled 7,5-cm-KwK 40 L/43 in reaction to the new russian tanks. Wehrmacht has the new "Ausführung" F2 or rather higher because we are situated 1944 timeline wise. so it could be the Ausführung G,H or J (with a new gun, called 7,5-cm-KwK 40 L/48).

anyways, pls inform yourself before posting your kind of facts, namely you "own".


for clarification: http://www.coh-stats.com/factions/panzerelite/weapons/75mmpzivsb.html
pe: 75 mm KwK 37 L/24

http://www.coh-stats.com/factions/wehrmacht/weapons/75mmpziv.html
wm: 7,5-cm-KwK 40 L/43 or L/48.

[Dymo]

Damn it all. Clicked the wrong faction. :cry:

So then, what the hell is the OP on about. ;)

Thank god it is only a game eh!

[Scooter]

I vote no for any further buffs to the P4.
In particuar, with a fast P4, you should have to go left side first for Hetzer.

It would be terribe if you could go right side first for AP rounds on the P4, so you could just spam P4s that pwn everything AND be only 4 CPs away from the jagdpanther.

However, it would be nice if APCR rounds was worthwhile. I've never noticed it making any difference to my Marder or Hetzers.

[Sturmtruppen]

this is kinda like asking puma to kill tanks with its 20mm, the short barrel gun has super low penetration on purpose, cuz its named the anti-infantry tank, it doesnt even get 100% penetration vs rear on some tanks

and fixed the jeeps, should be x3 penetration @ rear and 0.6 moving accuracy

[Caesar]

None of the Axis tanks in game really need APCR rounds. APCR was more or less designed to cope with the tough sloped armor of the T34/76 and later models. It's rather pointless against a Sherman that can be penetrated by throwing rocks at it.

Even though our lovely, obsolete Panzer IV F1 has the short-barrel, it'd still be armed with HEAT rounds for use on tanks. Same thing with the Hummel. I think Hummels had 4 HEAT rounds. Maybe a HEAT round ability for the F1 would be nice for a munitions cost.

[Melissia]

It could be armed with said rounds, but it would be rather pointless-- as we have said, it is a low velocity gun, and thus the AT rounds would not help penetration much.

Throwing a bullet is not likely to do any more penetration to a brick wall than throwing a rock.

[Mirage Knight]

Yes, there was a HEAT round developed for the 15 cm sFH 18 (and also the 10.5 cm leFH 18, so the StuH42 was often stocked with a small number of HEAT rounds), but a Hollow Charge Round abilty should be restricted to the PE Panzer IV / Panzer Ausf. F1.

[Caesar]

That's the thing, HEAT rounds don't work the same way as regular AP rounds do. They are a shaped charge. It can be fired by a low-velocity gun and still achieve decent armor penetration. That's why the F1 was armed with them as well as self-propelled guns like the Hummel.

Mirage: You know you want to see the Hummel knock out tanks!

[Scooter]

Once again, further proof that there is no balance discussion that cannot be bored into oblivion by discussing real-world historica characteristics of tanks and their shells....

;-)

[hashinshin]

Yeah... I'm just trying to get a simple point across. The Panzer4 is a tank for PE that is pretty much useless as anti tank. It can only kill tanks if it hits the side or back armor. With APCR rounds it will remain that way. However, the rounds tell me specifically ALL MAIN TANK GUNS will recieve this amunition. If it does nothing other than help our Panzer4 get less non penetrating shots on the back, and have a small chance at a penetrating on the front, why shouldnt we help it do that? Panzer4s are very expensive and you can put out a sherman or M10 or the better part of a churchill or a cromwell.

It can be outranged, its full fire mode you can just kite, its not a health monster, its VERY expensive...

I'm just asking for these rounds which are supposed to make me all about tank killing effect my favorite and most used tank. It wont be AMAGAWD THE Pv4 CAN NOW PWNZER PEOPLE IN THE FRONT, it will be getting less non penetrating shots in the back. Can you honestly tell me this 3 CP investment shouldn't be effecting my tank just because?

[CroatNotBorat]

Panzer4s are very expensive and you can put out a sherman or M10 or the better part of a churchill or a cromwell.
Uhm, no. PIVs can come out before an American player can even have a motorpool up, much less an AT gun.

They are not "very expensive", they are extremely cheap, as everything else PE has, so they have a counter to the American counter before the American counter even hits the field.

The PIV first needs to be nerfed through massively slowing down PE teching (and removing their starting 50 munitions), and then we can talk about it getting APCR.

[bottenbreker]

why do you want the Panzer IV support tank to own a sherman? it's not programmed to do so. it's programmed to SUPPORT, there are plenty of other tanks that are programmed to destroy tanks *cough* Tankhuntesr *cough*. the Panzer IV with APCR would decimate the infantry AND be able to take on a tank. i definately vote no.

[hashinshin]

It wouldnt be able to kill a sherman... have you guys not listened to anything ive said ?

[unrealcraft]

Uhm, no. PIVs can come out before an American player can even have a motorpool up, much less an AT gun.

They are not "very expensive", they are extremely cheap, as everything else PE has, so they have a counter to the American counter before the American counter even hits the field.

The PIV first needs to be nerfed through massively slowing down PE teching (and removing their starting 50 munitions), and then we can talk about it getting APCR.

Ehehehe.... no.

500-520mp 110 fuel for Motar Pool, Supply Yard, and Barracks or WSC. And I forget how much an AT gun costs.

vs

440mp 50fuel (Buildings)
420mp 60fuel (Actual Unit)
Can't Remember (Upgrade to Produce Unit)

Getting an AT gun is cheaper (and faster) than getting a P4IS.

Removing the starting mun would screw them over vs Brits, and to a degree the US (basic rifles > basic Pgrens).

The only thing thats needs to be added to PE teching is adding an upgrade that allows MP44's. Requiring PJ, PS, as well as Vet Sergeant and a price increase to 125 mun, seems like a decent fix to me.

[hashinshin]

200 MP 60 fuel, for the Pv4 upgrade.

The unit itself is 420 manpower, 150 munitions, and 60 fuel. (Unless you dont want armor skirts or a machine gunner and enjoy infantry owning you)

[CroatNotBorat]

Yes. Go LK, spam scout cars, deploy two on fuel points with your free munitions (for a bigger insult, if playing on Semois, deploy one next to the American base), laugh. You can even go AC spam, blob several together, and it's GG. Seriously, AC spam is completely unbeatable on some maps, like Semois.

But note that I didn't say that the PIV _will_ come out before an AT gun, just that it _can_ (more often than not, it's actually manpower that is the problem for the Americans). Plus, with the extremely stupid gun targetting system and the general firing slowness of the 57mm, the PIV can charge it head-on and win.

Some maps make the fast PIV possible. Some don't. The maps were perfectly balanced in CoH, and now everything can go wrong, depending on where you play.

The PIV doesn't need APCR in its current imba state. After the nerfs are applied, it's going to be a different story, but even then, it would be downright stupid to give it APCR.

[BoDyBaG2224]

It wouldn't make sense that the Inf PIV gets a bonus from the APCR ability. It isn't meant to fight tanks and it probably fires a type of High Explosive Round better suited against infantry, and I doubt that it carried AP rounds with it, or that they could be fired out of its short barrel.

And yes PE get the vehicle insanely fast. True that it appears that AT gun is cheaper/faster but look at it from the American Perspective. You are gonna have no infantry left unless you build a triage (1xx and 25 fuel I think) and then you're probably gonna need either BAR's/Stickies, BAR's/Grenades or all three. Plus their (PE) buildings are dirt cheap and I can get their t3/t4 buildings completed 5 mins into the game and have the upgrade researching. If I don't go get any upgrades, not only am I struggling for MP (reinforcing and low income) I'll be making my building to access t3/t4 while they are BUILDING their t3/t4. By the time they get their building done chances are they have enough fuel to start researching the upgrade, chances are that I don't have the fuel to make the MP yet. So figure I need to wait maybe 1-2 mins. By then you are still fighing the MP war with the PE player (who ofcourse is winning) and when you get the fuel for the MP you probably won't have Manpower to make it. Then you have your infantry either sitting at your HQ wounded, or have a bunch of half-healthed and half reinforced guys running around. I would say that the PIV and the AT gun come out about the same time, with perhaps the PIV comming sooner since PE have insane ways of getting a lot of map control very, very fast. Now sure you have the AT gun to counter it, but you have no tank to face it, they get a very mobile tank that slaughters infantry, and can flank an AT gun. Sure an M8 may take it down, but shreks will wtfpwn the M8. You can't just look at the straight teching costs, you have to look at the current Meta Game and factor in the upgrades aswell.

[Scooter]

A typical fast P4 strat;
PGx4, Kampgruppe, Inf-track, PG, Support command, P4 ugprade, P4.
= 2575 MP (plus reinforcing), 185 fuel.

A typical US strat;
Engineer, Barracks, Rifle, Jeep, Rifle*4, StickieORNadeORBar, Supply depot, Motor pool, M8, AT gun.
Call it just nades.
= 2650 MP (plus reinforcing), 180 fuel.

They're pretty similar in costs really. And thats for a fairly fast teching US build; many people get 5 rifles, and a Ranger before AT guns, and more than one of the barracks upgrades.

[bonemachine]

There are worse realism faults with the game than what type of shell a tank cannon can fire already in the game.

Luwinkle the Sherman upgun does not cause it to suck vs infantry. It gains more splash area for faster damage fall off. Sounds pretty decent to me.

If we wanted realism maybe the M10 should be as vulnerable to small arms as the Marder eh?

If I was the OP I would be pretty upset with peoples complete exaggeration of the proposal.

All that being said I am not arguing for the change but merely that it is reasonable and against asswipes ignoring/exaggerating the OP's proposal.

[hashinshin]

Pz4 gaining extremely limited abilities to maybe penetrate a tank is the stupidest suggestion ever. And i have no idea what im talking about.

/satire

[Melissia]

Luwinkle the Sherman upgun does not cause it to suck vs infantry.
Upgunned sherman loses most of its splash damage, if not all.

This suggestion is pointless, and thee's no reason to give any increased penetration to the Panzer IV given its role. Q.E.D.

I'm not ignoring the proposal. I am saying the proposal has, as I have said in the past, a foundation of quicksand, only it doesn't smell as good. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.

Merely, it means that I firmly believe that your suggestion SUCKS.

[Znuff]

Realism wise the PzIV should be somewhat comparable to the 75mm Sherman, this is true against CW but for some reason it can not penetrate US armor. Making the command upgrade work as HEAT rounds wouldnt be illogical, but it wouldnt realy change anything as what is needed is a change to the base penetration. There is no logic in giving it such absurd low penetraton as its still a cannon and not a rifle..

[Melissia]

The 75mm the sherman uses is a high velocity round, while the round used byt he PIV is low velocity. Thus, the differences in penetration.

[bonemachine]

Upgunned sherman loses most of its splash damage, if not all.

This suggestion is pointless, and thee's no reason to give any increased penetration to the Panzer IV given its role. Q.E.D.

I'm not ignoring the proposal. I am saying the proposal has, as I have said in the past, a foundation of quicksand, only it doesn't smell as good. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.

Merely, it means that I firmly believe that your suggestion SUCKS.

Upgunned sherman does ~83.8% the damageaXarea of the regular gun by my calculations, care to disagree?

There is a reason to give it the increased penetration, shooting light vehicles.

People saying that the OP is proposing that the PIV is should go toe to toe with shermans IS ignoring his proposal.

The last part I assume is aimed at the OP since it is his proposal and not mine, and is quite rude. Good job perpetuating the "internet".

[Monkeypoop]

asking to boost penetration of panzer4 support tank is like asking for ostwind to penetrate shermans.

you can't be good at killing infantry AND tanks, at least not for something that takes so little fuel to tech to. Realism doens't matter. This is a RTS game. all that matters is BALANCE. And a p4 shortbarrel that can penetrate tanks would be extremely OP considering how good it already is at killing infantry.

PE already has the best nondoctrine and doctrine AT ability in the game.

You already have so many choices to take out light vehicles its not even funny... shrek, marder, hetzer, JP, AT ht etc.

[bonemachine]

The PIV will not be able to kill tanks reliably in any way what so ever.

Ostwinds do penetrate ...Cromwells

Stuart is good at killing infantry and light vehicles, so is the M8, this is what the OP is proposing.

As for your counters... shreks cant chase light vehicles, light vehicles are commonly stated as counters to the marder(they can counter each other, which is very nice), hetzer/JP doctrine specific but do fulfill the role although both fall victim to not having turrets, AT HT is not good for killing any armor on its own.

/satire
Should we remove the PIV is ability to hurt light vehicles at all? It alr4eady penetrates tanks from the rear surely it shouldn't do so, maybe that should be removed?
/

No shit all that matters is balance, therefor the fact that it doesnt fire APCR rounds in real life doesn't matter.

[Deionarra]

If you are going to post saying someone's opinions are wrong then please always explain your reasons no matter how obvious you personally may think it is.

I've deleted a couple of posts.

[Melissia]

Yep, it's rude. Nope, I don't care at this point.

No, I'm saying that its purpose is to be an anti-infantry vehicle, thus does not need to benefit from it from a role perspective. And given realism arguments, there's no reason for it to have APCR rounds anyway. To add one more level to it, from a balance perspective, if it benefits from it in any noticable way, then other light vehicles-- which oftentimes come at the same time as the PIV, or later-- are rendered useless by it because it now can penetrate their armor and fire at a rapid rate, and yet most light vehicles cannot also penetrate its armor back, making it essentially an early tank.

Upgunned shermans have ~60-65% of the AoE of normal shermans, a sizeable loss.

[AnyKey]

It seem all is out for the reason to overpower one another than to make adjustments to the game, which are depressingly necessary. Just like no one understood my damn point about the Tiger I, and people like the few names i could name but won't for sake for peace, about a Tank that was known as Tank Killer be played out as another tank in COH. That's what he's opposing is done wrong with the Panzer IV.

[bonemachine]

Well don't expect to make any friends with that attitude.

Imagine it HEAT rounds if you must.

Yep a doctrine specific ability that comes at 3-4? CPs with a particular unit causes it to be "somewhat" more effective vs. light vehicles. Hardly useless. It could already penetrate their armor, just now with a somewhat better chance. It IS an early tank.

It seems you are only looking at the damage multiplier and not the increased area of effect. You must calculate the area and multiply it by the damage multiplier at different ranges. If done you will find the number I presented.

[Melissia]

I don't expect to make friends.

The ability is not HEAT rounds, ergo, I will not immagine it as HEAT rounds.

It is not intended to be an early AV vehicle. That is the HT halftrack.

I am looking at the area of effect, not the damage modifier. I merely said its area of effect is reduced to approximately 60-65 percent. I said nothing else.

[bonemachine]

How do you imagine AWM? It doesn't say anything about necromancy. Please this game is not literal.

The AT HT is not good for anti vehicle, it is good for special abilities.

So what is your point with the Sherman stats, because nothing you have said disproves my point that the upgrade does NOT signifigantly depreciate its anti infantry ability. The area of effect increases with the upgrade. Especially the short range which has a X1 damage multiplier, gets an increase to 300%.

[Deionarra]

While I don't care if you want to be somewhat rude, blunt or to the point in order to express your feelings on the matter (within reason) but:


PLEASE DO NOT USE OVERSIZED WRITING LIKE THIS*

*Unless you are a moderator or are writing the title of the new 100 page novel you just posted in the studio forum (even then it's a little excessive)

[Sturmtruppen]

splash is really about the same, on the 76mm the damage is lower, but the range is extended, and actually has a bigger insta-kill (full 87 dmg) radius. the accuracy didnt change, so it can still gib infantry, its pretty rare to gib 2-3 men on the 75mm anyway, the 76mm is not a massive disadvantage

the bigger radius can be seen as a big advantage, the critical on infantry doesnt change, im 99% postive that critical check occurs after damage is deducted based on what i have seen, and both gun has a at least 15% chance to insta-kill infantry by critical at <60% health, bigger radius = more chance for it to happen

[Melissia]

AWM is simple-- another one had already been produced and crewed, and is sent to replace the destroyed one. You'd know this if you actually read the manual... that's the basis of it. The American War Machine is a phrase describing the superior industrial capability of the United States.

[bonemachine]

If you had played the game you would know that half the time the manual and tooltips are wrong and should therefor be ignored.

I am still waiting for an argument rather than repeated sidesteps.

Why shouldn't the PIV receive this ability, in terms of balance, not in terms of historical or personal preference?

The only good one I have heard is because it would give Relic another chance to screw up.

[Blake_Stone]

the p4 is completely fine as it is.

dont forget the nice rapid fire mode it has. it kills buildings and inf so fast, its not even funny.

[Melissia]

Why shouldn't the PIV receive this ability, in terms of balance
Because it doen't go with its purpose.

I'm not repeating myself again.

[hashinshin]

Doesnt seem like the tiger should get blitzkrieg either. Its supposed to be slow, i mean common.

[bonemachine]

See thats the thing with this game, it has multi-purpose units.

The PIV is already multipurpose, already kills infantry, buildings, light vehicles, tanks from the rear.

[Melissia]

Hashinshin: Its purpose isn't to be slow, the slowness is a balancing offset for its power and armor.
bonemachine: And the PIV isn't really one of them.

[bonemachine]

It is really one of them because I just listed the "multitude" of things it can combat.

The Croc would be an example of something that is more role specific.

[SmellyTerror]

The P4 is pure butchery against infantry. Its only weakness is against tanks. If you made it even slightly good against tanks it would be a tiny god and would win every single game. Every PE would fast-tech to P4s every time, and would always win.

How's that for a balance issue?

...not that giving the P4 APCR would make any difference, coming off such a tiny base, but if the general thrust of the argument here is that a doctrine ability should let PE P4's fight tanks on anything like an even footing, then it is a poor POOR idea.

Reality is a completely invalid argument here. How many armies turned up to a battlefield with nothing but an HQ and a couple of magical engineers with an entire military industrial complex in their backpacks ready to do mortal combat over some infinite-resorce generating flagpoles? Although the whole WWII theme probably brought more players to the game, sometimes I really wish they'd gone with a sci-fi thing to keep these arguments meaningful, and keep the (IMO slightly creepy) WWII fetishists away. you guys do know the war was a BAD thing, right?

And on the other side of the coin, if you think that ACPR should effect P4s just because the tooltip suggests it does, then how about WE FIX THE TOOLTIP instead of completely messing with the belance of an already-powerful faction's already-powerful tank?

[Melissia]

There are four general things in the game.

Infantry
Vehicles
Tanks
Buildings.

Considering this, the croc can battle multiple things as well-- buildings and infantry. And that is its role. The PIV is an infantry destroyer. It can be used against vehicles/tanks/buildings as well, but that is not its specialty. Its power in fighting infantry is so great, though, that it is well-worth buying even if it is only intended to fight that one specific kind of unit.

Quite similar to an HMG team, an AT gun, an M10, a Flakpanzer, etc.

This, combined with the realism aguments is more than enough reason not to give it the benefit. Reality is not an invalid argument, it is a supporting argument-- it adds to the main points, but doesn't work well by itself.

Much like "fluff" when arguing about Dawn of War.

[Neckbreaker]

Riggghhtttt....

You shouldn't state unsupported opinion (which doesn't even answer the balance question except in a "Because I said so way!") on something so subjective as if it were fact, quite frankly, unless you want to "realism police" coming out of the woodwork.

The Panzer IV Ausf. G (I think thats the model used) was an IS tank...Well so was the Sherman with the low-velocity 75mm gun. Now I'm not going to get into the "real-life" comparisons of various ammunition and abilities of these tanks because its not RELEVANT. The Sherman does better at AT than the PIV IS due to design, or you could say "purpose". So "purpose" is decided by the game developers. It's not illogical that they may at some point do things that seem odd, indeed the 76mm upgrade arguably makes the Sherman BETTER at AI, despite the error on the tool-tip. Because, in your opinion, it doesn't fit its "purpose" is not a legitimate argument in and of itself. It needs support.

Now I do not personally believe the PIV IS needs to be effected by APCR, although I understand that such an expensive CP ability that has limited effect for some strats is frustrating. I have a few reasons why I think giving the PIV better penetration through APCR would cause problems. First, the PIV IS is only 60 fuel. That is very cheap for any tank, much less one as effectve at AI as the PIV IS can be. Compare it to the Croc at 110 Fuel (More expensive in fuel than a FF? WTF! Not that I want cheap Crocs but why is the damn FF so affordable?). Basically, according to some of the suggestions I have seen here, there is a desire to turn the PIV IS into a 60 fuel Sherman 75mm. That would cause major problems as you would have a brutal infantry support tank capable of defending itself and that has a turrent (compare to 50 fuel Stug that is dismal vs {US at least} infantry until Vet 2). I know there are range considerations, but vs US especially, I can see massive PIV spam + APCR being a huge, HUGE problem. That being said, I see no reason why performance vs light vehicles of the PIV IS should not be somewhat improved, APCR or not.

I am tired of the weak arguments on the balance forums. Its mostly whining, "because I say so!", and the like. Alot of misinterpreted or just plain wrong data is floated about and pawned off as fact as well.

Opinion alone is not an argument.

Anecdotes are not facts.

[Melissia]

You shouldn't state unsupported opinion
I didn't. And yes, I stopped reading your post right here.

[bonemachine]

@smelly terror

No worries then because it would not make the PIV good vs tanks

@Melissa

Like I said the Croc is "more" role specific, it cannot battle tanks at all.

The PIV can

US HMG also is good vs light vehicles

AT gun is also good vs buildings

Nearly all units are multi role, the outcome to a battle is decided by who has better tactics not by who builds the scissor to the paper.

The use of a doctrine with focus on destroying armor giving a unit a slight boost in fighting armor is not unreasonable.


@Neckbreaker

Nicely put

But would you mind showing me the posts that suggest that the PIV should have AT combat potential of a 75mm sherman? I did not see any.

[Melissia]

In a vacuum, it isn't-- but as I said, the already prodigous power of the PIV (it can fight essentially anything given the right situation), there's no reason to let it be improved. The ability doesn't enhance its initial purpose, and quite possibly creates more imbalance in the game (which already favors PE in the first place), as well.

The doctrine assists with destroying armor, yes, but the PIV isn't an armor destroyer in the first place, even if it is possible for it to take on tanks... if it gets lucky enough (just like a riflemen squad).

[Neckbreaker]

Well you can choose to be as juvenile as you wish to be Melissia, just weakens your position.

Had you read my post you would have seen I supported your postion on its merit, though your ineptness at debate certainly doesn't help prove anything.

I suggest you develop a better understanding of units and statistics as I have seen you misrepresent the information in several posts now.

Once again, if you want to behave like a child then do so. I suggest, however, that if you wish to be taken seriously that you demonstrate a certain degree of tact.

[bonemachine]

My initial glance at the numbers leads me to believe that the only significant change will be in the PIVs performance against light armor. Seeing as how light armor is faster and longer ranged than the PIV this shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

Part of its initial purpose is to combat light vehicles.

Do I think this is an important change that should be in the next change log? No. But, I was very upset by peoples inaccurate portrayal of the OPs proposal which is reasonable. It is worthy of discussion and does not deserve the OMG GTFO NOOB response it received.

Yes the game is wildly unbalanced and lame to play currently.

[BoDyBaG2224]

You know that you have the AT-HT and Shreks to counter tanks right?

PE players let me introduce you to combined arms this silly little tactic involves using more then 2 different types of units. When used this makes the game more enjoyable, and adds a level of depth to your brain stems. When using combined arms you can build an effective force that stops the enemy assault, and suffer minimal casualties. My point?

PLAN THE DAMN GAME AND DON'T TRY TO BUFF EVERY THING SO THAT IT CAN UBER PWN ALL OTHER TYPES OF UNITS.

*ahem* That is all, carry on soldiers.

[hashinshin]

Last time I checked, if PE cant remove britain early, they will completely and utterly dominate PE unless we are scorched earth.

[BoDyBaG2224]

^^ Uh what? You get out the 5-8min AC's and Marders, along with your MP44's and Shrek Terminator squads, combined with Falls, JP or even a Hummel and you will dominate. Need more tanks, bam call in the Panthers. That statement is not very accurate.

[AnyKey]

not the even speak or mention Artillery spam the British have.......

That is the greatest thing to hit PE/Wehrmacht combination is the ability to have artillery.

[bonemachine]

And the conversation turns to crap again, thanks Bodybag.

[BoDyBaG2224]

O it's my fault? I wasn't the one who started talking about PE vs Brit early game. Learn how to read bro.

I simply stated that if you need to deal with tanks and you've got the 4th building up that you can make some AT-HT's to counter the armor till you get either shreks or a Marder.

hashinshin then made the post about early game so stfu.

[Monkeypoop]

well u guys can argue all you want, but its unlikely that this will be implemented not only due to the fact that this would most likely break game balance but that relic in general doesnt give a crap about an issue unless it is majorly game breaking like FG42 or tank Trapping command trucks

[BoDyBaG2224]

There is also no reason for it to be implemented. APCR rounds are meant to give tanks whose main purpose is to destroy other tanks better penetration and thus dammage.

The role of a PIV inf tank is nothing like that. It fires a slow moving high explosion porjectile that is better against soft targets.

[hashinshin]

Yeah, the little tooltip says "APCR rounds are meant to give tanks whose main purpose is to destroy other tanks better penetration and thus dammage."

What, its right there.

[Melonplant]

Where are the moderators to destroy this thread? We've already established that it would make about .000000002% difference in nearly all encounters the panzer 4 has against tanks, or give it a slight increase in penetration against light vehicles that ALREADY have trouble escaping its rapid fire shells that kill them, and its been further established that it isn't realistic

If you want your stupid unrealistic pointless armor piercing rounds, might I suggest a career in modding? You can make your own game called "hashinshin's P4s of death!!!!" and have the panzer 4s fire V1's and have tiger ace armor and HP.

You've provided nothing for the past 20 posts in this thread other than "it should be because it should be" and everybody else has provided ample evidence of why it's a bad idea and a waste of people's time. Get over it or mod it yourself.

[hashinshin]

Rawrglegargle. Im a blue meanie and I just lost a game and come to this forum to vent my anger !

Also, tanks have HE and AP rounds, its not hard (the sherman does it) to flip between them. Well it might be hard, but you get my point.

[bottenbreker]

It wouldnt be able to kill a sherman... have you guys not listened to anything ive said ?

srry, was kinda bussy to read the ENTIRE thread. but what's the point giving it APCR if it's not going to be used against armor? :s

[hashinshin]

It helps penetrate light armor, and stuff like that. People think with ACPR suddenly this thing will be killing king tigers 1v1 without breaking a sweat.

[bonemachine]

I can't believe this thread spawned so much anger.

[iaguz]

Well, people have offered perfectly reasonable balance and realism points as to why the Panzer 4 should not get APCR rounds.

Would it cheer you up if Relic fixed the tooltip to read "main tanks (other then Panzer IV)"? It seems your main qualm is a mere clerical issue. I assure, there are dozens of such minor stuff ups evident in CoH.

[bonemachine]

I have not seen balance argument that made the proposal seem unreasonable.

As far as realism goes, there are perfectly good substitutions(HEAT rounds)

Relic fix tooltips??? Oh now I get it, a joke, haha very funny.

[Znuff]

The 75mm the sherman uses is a high velocity round, while the round used byt he PIV is low velocity. Thus, the differences in penetration.
This is a somewhat amusing post considering this thread. Both the 75mm Sherman and PzIVIS use short barrel guns wich was mainly good against infantry, but somehow by being issued AP rounds the Sherman can fight against tanks, if only there was some kind of way to alow PzIVIS to get AP rounds.

Anyway, I dont realy care about the upgrade, I just wish the PzIVIS not be totaly helpless against armor. It doesnt need to be Sherman godly against everything, but maybe Greyhound or Stuart quality. It doesnt make sense that it cant harm US tanks at all but do ok against CW. With the reduction of the Marder bonus specificly against US tanks it makes sense to reduce the PzIVIS penalty specificly against US tanks as well.

[Gethsemani]

The PIVIS fills the role of an Anti-Infantry Tank! How hard is it to understand? I mean, going by the same idea, I want my Ostwinds, Wirbelwinds and Crocodile Sherman to get an upgun towards tanks since they aren't as good against them as infantry.

If you want something for anti-tank duty, get a marder, a hetzer, a AT-HT or, if you really want a tank, start researching for the Panther Combat Group.

I mean, this would be like giving the americans a "Bazookas for everyone!" ability in the infantry tree that gives 2 bazookas free to all their riflemen, "since they have no good Infantry based AT". That is, it would completely change the role of the unit. The PIVIS is meant to kill infantry and use support to handle the armored threats. It was how it worked in the war and it is how it works in the game (compare to Operation Barbarossa were the PIII's where the main AT-tanks and the PIV's were used to clear out infantry).

[Unicous]

Znuff this is somewhat amusing considering the length of the 75 mm KwK 37 L/24 gun (1800mm) compared to the 75 mm gun (3000mm)/ 76mm gun ( 3040mm). though the 75 mm gun was low velocity gun, the 76 mm gun had much higher velocity and was capable to shot APCR or rather HVAP rounds. the KwK 37 howsoever is not capable because of it's rather SHORT barrel.

It does make perfect sense to me that a panzer that uses most likely HE shells won't do much damage against a tank. this at gun mounted on Pz. IV was replaced in 1942 because it couldn't compete with the new tanks that were fielded on both fronts.

concluding

THIS THREAD IS UTTER RIDICULOUS.

[Luwinkle]

"AK47'S FOR EVVERRYBODY!"</C&CGenerals>


I want my Ostwinds to fire depleted uranium shells of pseudo-nuclear destruction that cause small mushroom clouds each time they hit something. IT SHOULD BECAUSE IT SHOULD.


The PE P4 is anti-infantry..it shouldn't even really do any damage to light vehicles but it does anyway. AP rounds are for vehicles that are used for AP duties, which the P4 is not.

[GermanSteal]

The PE panzer iv is the verson of the tank that was ment to fire ONLY HE shells, you coulden't use ap or apcr rounds in it.

[Rottweiler|Soul]

The PE P4 is anti-infantry..it shouldn't even really do any damage to light vehicles but it does anyway. AP rounds are for vehicles that are used for AP duties, which the P4 is not.

To be fair, light vehicles tend to have little more armor than sheet metal. I can see HE rounds ripping holes in halftracks, jeeps and open-topped vehicles, no problem.

[Melonplant]

We should change this thread in to what we want our soldiers/tanks to do because we want them to.

It's a shame this thread is getting so much attention when there are legitamate concerns out there about balance. Whining about what you want shouldn't work this well.

Snipers should be able to kill tank drivers. It should because the tooltip says the sniper is a precision killer. It takes precision to kill a driver.

Make it so.

[Tenshi]

So let me get this straight...almost every unit, every soldier, every engineer and their dog get AT rockets. PE have a host of antitank and anti-armour solutions. You have tread breaker shells, focussed fire, AT tanks, invisible tanks, AT nades...even mortars hurt some tanks.

And you are complaining that one of the only units PE have that is weak against armour needs more penetration?

[bottenbreker]

Tenshi is quite right. there are sooooooooooo many ways to counter any type of armor with PE. and giving the PIV APCR to penentrate "light" vehicles is insane. it would make them totally useless AND the PIV would do more damage that way to heavy armor and the PIV with armor skirts is already a tough one to blow.

[BoDyBaG2224]

Also, tanks have HE and AP rounds, its not hard (the sherman does it) to flip between them. Well it might be hard, but you get my point.

That is not true. A Sherman really shines against armor when it gets the 76mm gun upgrade. Before that it is very similar to the PIV, except that the PIV is better vs infantry and the Sherman is slightly better vs tanks. The sherman 75mm doesn't carry 2 different rounds, the short 75mm barrel can't fire a type of projectile like that. Thus when it gets the larger gun it "can fire a larger round" and thus it has higher velocity and better penetration. The PIV doesn't get a gun upgrade it just has its short barreled 75mm slow firing high explosive round that is better against infantry and soft targets.

And like Tenshi said you have a multitude of other ways to take out armor, do you really need the PIV to become an AT threat?

[Znuff]

Znuff this is somewhat amusing considering the length of the 75 mm KwK 37 L/24 gun (1800mm) compared to the 75 mm gun (3000mm)/ 76mm gun ( 3040mm). though the 75 mm gun was low velocity gun, the 76 mm gun had much higher velocity and was capable to shot APCR or rather HVAP rounds. the KwK 37 howsoever is not capable because of it's rather SHORT barrel.

It does make perfect sense to me that a panzer that uses most likely HE shells won't do much damage against a tank. this at gun mounted on Pz. IV was replaced in 1942 because it couldn't compete with the new tanks that were fielded on both fronts.

concluding

THIS THREAD IS UTTER RIDICULOUS.
There are more factors then gun caliber or length, else do you think the only improvment with the upgun was 1mm larger caliber and 40mm(!) longer barrel? The 75mm was simply a poor gun and not very diffrent in performance then the PzIV gun.


That is not true. A Sherman really shines against armor when it gets the 76mm gun upgrade. Before that it is very similar to the PIV, except that the PIV is better vs infantry and the Sherman is slightly better vs tanks. The sherman 75mm doesn't carry 2 different rounds, the short 75mm barrel can't fire a type of projectile like that. Thus when it gets the larger gun it "can fire a larger round" and thus it has higher velocity and better penetration. The PIV doesn't get a gun upgrade it just has its short barreled 75mm slow firing high explosive round that is better against infantry and soft targets.

And like Tenshi said you have a multitude of other ways to take out armor, do you really need the PIV to become an AT threat?

Not true, both the PzIVIS and the 75mm shermans was equiped with AP rounds, they just didnt have very good performance. Remember that in the real war medium tanks wasnt everywhere, there was alot of ligher vehicles and tanks that you could blow up.

There are alot of tanks with guns not good against the better armored tanks, Stuart, Churchill, Shermans etc. That doesnt mean they are totaly useless against those tanks in the game, so there is no reason that it should be so for the PzIV against the US.

This lack of penetration is also only against the US, it can penetrate CW tanks fine, even the Churchill wich had more armor then the Tiger. Its a similar penalty as the Marder III bonus against US armor. This bonus just got reduced, so why keep the PzIV penalty?

[bonemachine]

Disagreeing with a proposal and then restating it in overly exaggerated terms in order to win a debate is the way wars are started.

Discussing it civilly and looking at it and presenting multiple points of view is a way to come to a decision.




The light AT HT is not good vs tanks, yet it gains from APCR. By some logic presented in this thread, perhaps it shouldn't?


@Luwinkle

The Ostwind is good vs light vehicles which is the proposal that is being presented for the PIV. Do you suggesting removing the Ostwinds ability vs light vehicles?

@Gethsemani

And the PIV would maintain the same exact role, only it would be slightly better at the vs srmor support part, SLIGHTLY.

@Unicous

The proposal does not make the PIV signifigantly better vs armor.

@Melonplant

Nearly all of the important balance problems have been discussed to death. There is nothing new say about them.

Quote the whining and show where it is "working"

@Tenshii

Perhaps the mortar shouldn't hurt armor anymore?

[Unicous]

There are more factors then gun caliber or length, else do you think the only improvment with the upgun was 1mm larger caliber and 40mm(!) longer barrel? The 75mm was simply a poor gun and not very diffrent in performance then the PzIV gun.

yeah, right: as i said earlier there are three main factors

propellant (quantity and quality)
projectile mass
barrel length

simple physics. though i must admit i was not a shining light in physics i must assume that you have nearly no knowledge at all.

1 mm more is 1 mm more. you can stuff more mass inside that projectile and while 40 mm wont help that much to raise the projectile velocity, 3040 compared to 1800 will do. besides the the projectile used was similar to the one the m10 used.


Not true, both the PzIVIS and the 75mm shermans was equiped with AP rounds, they just didnt have very good performance. Remember that in the real war medium tanks wasnt everywhere, there was alot of ligher vehicles and tanks that you could blow up.

There are alot of tanks with guns not good against the better armored tanks, Stuart, Churchill, Shermans etc. That doesnt mean they are totaly useless against those tanks in the game, so there is no reason that it should be so for the PzIV against the US.

This lack of penetration is also only against the US, it can penetrate CW tanks fine, even the Churchill wich had more armor then the Tiger. Its a similar penalty as the Marder III bonus against US armor. This bonus just got reduced, so why keep the PzIV penalty?

shall i tell you a secret? every anti tank weapon is eqipped with ap rounds, want to know why? otherwise it would not PENETRATE.

projectiles won't work the same in different guns. there are thousands of factors, beginning with the material the gun was made of. but i can tell you one thing, apcr rounds did not work with a short barreled gun in ww2. it needed the effect of a high muzzle velocity in order to be of use. also apcr rounds were highly unstable, meaning inaccurate and losing velocity fast, so they needed a stabilizing long barrel that would transport the projectile far enough.


there is no penalty. it is an ai unit no alround unit. its gun is capable of facing early ww2 armor not more, not less. like almost every other at gun it is capable of penetrating rear and side armor. there will be no killing of pershing face to face with a Pz. IV IS (PE) because it has another purpose. simple as that.
and pls get you facts right. stating that it is not true won't help much your argumentation.

[SmellyTerror]

1. If it's only a slight improvement, then what's the point?

2. If it's significant in any way, what is the balance need? You don't just buff something for the hell of it. PE are already absolutely amazing at anti-armour. Why on earth do you want to make them better?

3. Realism arguments are stupid. Please stop.

[BoDyBaG2224]

How are realism arguments stupid? If I said that I want my tank to fly what will people say? "Tanks can't fly, are you high?" And then I can respond with "that is a realism issue, stop." The fact of the matter is that the PIV Infantry Support tank is meant to be good vs infantry and bad vs tanks. That is the gameplay role of it. Why does PE need more AT? If you have a PIV out and you need AT you have 3 options 1) AT nades 2) Shreks or 3) an AT-HT. Then you can go back and make a Marder.

[bonemachine]

@smelly terror

1.It is a decent improvement vs light armor

Not to the level of making light armor useless

As light armor has more speed and range than the PIV and it will not 1 shot light armor.

@Bodybag

If you must refer to it as AV(anti-vehicle) as it still won't be good vs. tanks

Do you want the PIV to stop being able to hurt armor at all? Do you have a problem with a PIV being able to beat light armor in a slugout match, as it already does?

[Luwinkle]

Bonemachine...the Ostwind was designed to attack aircraft..and thusly it needed some armor penetration..the 20mm rounds it fire are AP 20mm rounds. It just so happens it can fire fast enough, and accurate enough, to take out infantry. So your argument is moot (as is this whole damn thread).

Seriously though, how the hell is this thing still open? I've seen more useful threads locked after the 1st post..let alone 9 pages of total nonsense.

[SmellyTerror]

Body: as long as it fits the WWII theme it's fine. Arguing over the physics of barrel design is pointless. We have (again) entire military industrial complexes built in minuts with the contents of two or three guys' backpacks. We are fighting battles over infinite-resource-generating magic flagpoles.

There will never be a time that Relic will change balance based on the length of barrel of a unit's model. It's a pointless argument.

bone: What is the NEED? Why should Relic make this change? It PE too weak against light armour? NO! So why on earth do we want to make them better? What's wrong with Pe that needs to be fixed?

[bonemachine]

@Luwinkle

You suggest that the PIV is primarily for infantry combat so it should not even hurt light vehicles.

In the game the Ostwinds primary use is to shoot infantry, so why is it good vs light vehicles?

Just pointing out that your argument points towards that conlcusion and wondered if that was your feeling on the matter.


@Smellyterror
I could have sworn I wrote it before, but it seems to be gone now.

Anyway, I do not think this is a pressing matter that needs to be addressed any time soon. However, I thought it was an interesting proposal that was not unreasonable and was very upset at the horrible responses it got. Mostly I wanted to make it clear to people what the proposal actually meant since alot of them assumed that it meant that the PIV == Marder.

[Tenshi]

The ostwind (and the bofors) have a high rate of fire to increase likelyhood of hitting airborn targets which at the time were probably very delicate...so they lend themselves to AP i guess.

Giving an AP tank armour piercing rounds would reduce its effectiveness against personnel. You would essentially have a tank with a gun for firing at things that would destroy it in few shots...sounds like a AT halftrack?


I have noticed that the PIV can hurt US quad-cannon halftracks...that ALONE is enough to make it very useful.

[Luwinkle]

By "light vehicles" I mean Greyhound, Stuart, etc. I don't even really consider the Jeep/Bren Carrier a 'light vehicle'.

I consider those 'cannon fodder'. So anything that goes 'boom' should rip through those anyway.