Useless StugIV and T-34/85 with thick rear armor.

While Stugs can counter any armor that Western Allies have (2 Stugs will kill a lonelly Firefly or a Churchill) their only usefull vs T-34/76, T-70 and T-90. I dont mind SU being efective vs Stugs becouse SU armor (Hetzer) if very weak to rear hits and it thas low HP.

T-34/85 right now has Churchills armor - the most resistent armor type to rear shots. StugIV will loose to a T-34/85 even if faced backwards to it.
This is a BIG problem becouse Ostheer StugIII and PzIII wont stand a chance vs T-34/85. Im not saing that StugIII, StugIV and PzIII should be equal to T-34. Im saing that if a PzIII (pumas 50mm gun) is fireing at T-34 rear and Stug is fireing at T-34 front T-34/85 should loose.

Solution - T-34/85 should have Shermans armor with some anti-penetration bonuses (x0.8 or something).
I also wouldnt mind changing T-34/76 armor to Cromwell as both tanks looked similar. T-34/76 would then have same anti-penetration bonuses as a 85mm version.

Last edited September 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM by Paciat

Yeah, I always wondered why T-34/85 is soooo tough, while Germans were destroying them by dozens.
On the other side T-34/85 is rather balanced against existing factions, so if devs will change it's stats it will take 1-2 next patches to balance it well.

cephalos wrote:
Yeah, I always wondered why T-34/85 is soooo tough, while Germans were destroying them by dozens.
On the other side T-34/85 is rather balanced against existing factions, so if devs will change it's stats it will take 1-2 next patches to balance it well.

Shermans and Churchills armor are allmost the same to front hits. Changing T-34/85 armor will only make it much weaker to Stugs and rear hits. It will change the efectivness of 50mm Pumas/Hothkiss and Stugs, but nothing else.

Don't worry Paciat. Dev's did something about it ;).

Paciat wrote:

cephalos wrote:
Yeah, I always wondered why T-34/85 is soooo tough, while Germans were destroying them by dozens.
On the other side T-34/85 is rather balanced against existing factions, so if devs will change it's stats it will take 1-2 next patches to balance it well.

Shermans and Churchills armor are allmost the same to front hits. Changing T-34/85 armor will only make it much weaker to Stugs and rear hits. It will change the efectivness of 50mm Pumas/Hothkiss and Stugs, but nothing else.

Not quite....
The reason we gave them churchill armour was because its a late game tank that needed to be able to resist the shrek blobs. Unfortunately , yes it made it a bit better vs a stug (which gets 1.5 damage vs sherman armour)than it should be.  Admittedly that also made it a bit too resilient vs shreks too.

A change along the lines of what you said has already been implemented though, so will seen in the next patch.
In theory the T34/85 will remain superior to the stug/PzIV(as it should be) but the gap between them will close a little.
T34/76 is fine...in fact its more fragile than it should be really.
To be honest if it was just up to me, I would have given the same 1.5 or 1.4 damage modifier to the stug vs Cromwell armour too

Not that historical fact play a big part in balance but....T34/76 armour protection was a slightly better that a sherman at the front and a lot better than a sherman/panther on the sides/rear-reason was the the heavy angling of the armour + much smaller profile made it less of a target.
T34s were notorious in the first 2 yrs of the war for having shots deflecting off them.

On the other hand the cromwell had vertical armour making it alot easier for guns to penetrate.  Neither the sherman nor the cromwell(or to be fair any other allied tank in ww2) ever aquired the reputation of the T34/KV/IS as being resistant to german AT.

Its this 'general feeling/reputation' we mostly go for when it comes to balancing the vehicles and how to make them feel on the field.

Last edited September 14, 2010 at 4:07 PM by Zerstörer

Zerstörer wrote:
Its this 'general feeling/reputation' we mostly go for when it comes to balancing the vehicles and how to make them feel on the field.

Thats why I want T-34 to have Sherman armor - but with some anti penetration bonuses.
Making T-34/85 frontal armor stronger than Sherman is a good idea but T-34 should have weak rear armor like all medium tanks.
T-34/76 "smaller profile made it less of a target" and thats why I want a buffed Cromwell armor for T-34/76. Allmost all weapons have 0.8 accuracy multiplier vs Cromwells armor.

Quote
To be honest if it was just up to me, I would have given the same 1.5 or 1.4 damage modifier to the stug vs Cromwell armour too

Cromwells armor is much weaker than Shermans. Its closer to M-10 and thats why IMO x1.25 dmg modifier would be better.

Good to know something will be done about it.  :)

Its this 'general feeling/reputation' we mostly go for when it comes to balancing the vehicles and how to make them feel on the field.
[/quote]

- I love this guy :) +1
Finally someone who appreciates historical flavor/feel.

Quote
- I love this guy :) +1
Finally someone who appreciates historical flavor/feel.

Historical flavor/feel was appreciated many times: when T-34/85 got heavy tank armor, when Sniper Ace throwed sticky bombs, when PTRD sniped infantry, when Il-2 cost nothing.

My historical feel was that PzIII/StugIII/StugIV could win with a very bad microed T-34.

Last edited September 15, 2010 at 9:24 AM by Paciat

I miss Sniper Aces throwing sticky bombs :(

Paciat wrote:

Quote
- I love this guy :) +1
Finally someone who appreciates historical flavor/feel.

Historical flavor/feel was appreciated many times: when T-34/85 got heavy tank armor, when Sniper Ace throwed sticky bombs, when PTRD sniped infantry, when Il-2 cost nothing.

My historical feel was that PzIII/StugIII/StugIV could win with a very bad microed T-34.

I fully agree with Paciat. To put it in words:
"If we want it historical accurate, how not allowing a match-win for WH and PE?"
Balancing and gameplay is ten times more important than "realism".

Well, I agree here. I want a chess game. But one that
gives a good historical feel. I want PE/WH/OH to be able
to win, but to be able to do so eh as realistically as possible.

I'd be for giving T34's 'Sherman' type armor.
I like the StuGIV's 1.5 dmg versus Sherman ;)

- I meant it more in a flavor sense, than a 'Allies should win'
sense.
- I think allies should be the spammable sides, and the
Germans be the quality side.

@Seeme : I miss Sniper Ace throwing sticky bomb too :p

I never understood why Relic made the Axis spamable, The allies had way more soldiers :P

- Well, it depends what. The Tiger is capped, etc.
- Making the Axis spammable. Hmm, I might have
done it differently. Axis 2x health/Firepower, but
50% speed when going into enemy territory ?
Allies cheaper, but... eh. I don't know. Axis is still
tweaked as less_but_better compared to allies.

Movement speed debuffs are a terrible mechanic in this game.

I don't mind that, put your units in halftrucks :D