Tank balance annoyance etc. -1 reply

Please wait...

tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

There seem to be a great many weird things going on with the balance between various tanks and such. Many of them have been discussed quite a bit, some maybe not as much. I just had a very braindamaging round of Battle of the Bulge. When I wasn't destroyed by Shermans shooting from far beyond visual range with 100% accuracy, I was teamkilled. So, first of all the Shermans. Someone care to explain for example why its gun is so damn much more effective than the T-34 gun? At least according to wwiivehicles.com the T-34's F-34 gun should be more powerful than the Sherman's M3 gun - well except if using APHE ammo, which I think FH uses. Even then they're equal. Currently the Sherman punches through Brummbar's and StuG's front armor with ease, and doesn't even take many shots to kill a Tiger - from the front! Not only is the Sherman's gun too strong, it also seems that its front armor at times can take more punishing than it should. A face-to-face encounter between a StuG and a Sherman is quite likely to end up in the Sherman winning, although it should be the other way around. The StuG has approximately equal armor, but better gun. I can't remember scoring any one shot kill to the Sherman's front with a StuG, yet Shermans have blown my StuG with one hit to the front many times. The overarmoring of the Pz IV H's front has been discussed elsewhere, so I won't go into that again. Same can be said about the Tiger's/King Tiger's side armor. How about tank rounds going THROUGH enemies like ghosts, without any effect. Happened today on Bulge on quite close range with a StuG against a Sherman. Guess who won? Not much chance of winning when your round is like thin air, even though it hits the IMMOBILE enemy dead on. Similar thing has happened more often than I care to remember. Not exactly about tank vs tank fighting, but the armoring on some of the static defenses and artillery seem too powerful. Often PaK 40s take two shots to destroy, even though they only have a thin armor plate. And today my StuG was killed by a Nebelwerfer in Breakthrough from close range when it didn't explode from a direct hit. What the..? Also, isn't there any way to simulate shrapnel in the explosions of tank round when firing at infantry? I'm beginning to tire of those infantry guys surviving my firing and then blowing me up with an expack, panzerfaust or whatever just because my gun can't seem to do crap about them. These are but a few issues I've noticed. With all the internal versions and such, how can such weird unrealistic balance issues still be in the game? More than once the game has ended up being no fun at all due to issues like this, when the other side is overpowering for no reason other than wrong vehicle performance. I hate how the T-34 family feels so gimped compared to German and US tanks. I hope at least some of this will be fixed in 0.62. Bah. I wan't a T-34/57, preferably with applique armor. Then I'll own you all :mad:




n00by

I post to get attention

50 XP

10th April 2004

0 Uploads

72 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

tvih

So, first of all the Shermans. Someone care to explain for example why its gun is so damn much more effective than the T-34 gun? At least according to wwiivehicles.com the T-34's F-34 gun should be more powerful than the Sherman's M3 gun - well except if using APHE ammo, which I think FH uses. Even then they're equal. Currently the Sherman punches through Brummbar's and StuG's front armor with ease, and doesn't even take many shots to kill a Tiger - from the front! That's just the armor code of FH, nothing else. Can happen anytime, anywhere, anyplace. Sometimes you can hit another tank head on and it won't take any damage or have ridiculous damage values for front plating...but devs said it'll be fixed in 0.62:)




DreadgnoutH

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

11th March 2004

0 Uploads

36 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

for me there's nothing wrong between sherman and stug...i have been killed many times with 1 Stug shot...and you need many shots from a sherman to destroy a stug or a brummbar hitting the front armor i think its something wrong with the MatildaII and Churchill... a 88 is not killing the matildaII with 1 shot...and i got two SIDE shots with a Stugg in a churchill and could not destroy it.. is that right??




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

Yeah well, I suppose, but the Sherman does systematically a big amount of damage, while the T-34 is too often a pea shooter compared. Don't let my favorite tank stay in its current gimped state :uhm:

Also, please, PLEASE give us a T-34 m43, after all it was built in bigger numbers than the m40-m42 versions all together. I know it's just cosmetics, but hey, you have a Pz IV F2 and a H, which except for AAMG are just about the same.

And hey, any word on the bow machine gun implementation?




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

Oops, actually there were more m42 models than m43 models, and almost as many m41 models. My bad. Then again some of the m42 models were of the late type with the hexagonal turret. Still, in Prokhorovka, for example, the 181st Guard Tank Brigade had lots of m43s. Would be nice to have them.




McGibs

FHdev

50 XP

3rd October 2003

0 Uploads

4,064 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

I *think* its been fixed.

playing some of .62's new maps with shermans is quite a pain. They really are peices of crap. Youd be lucky to survive a front hit.

Again, im not certain, but i think it's been fixed.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

That's good to hear. I hope it's so. Not that I'm for making them suckier than they were, but unrealistically making them much better than T-34s is not fair either.




judge reinhold

BOY I SURE POST ALOT

50 XP

28th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,112 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago
tvih These are but a few issues I've noticed. With all the internal versions and such, how can such weird unrealistic balance issues still be in the game?

because it sometimes seems like the team is more interested in adding things rather than improving whats in already




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

I agree with tvih, The 76.2mm F-34 in the T-34/76 should be slightly better than the Shermans M3 75mm.

IIRC the Sherman M71 APCBC could penetrate about 72mm of armor and the Soviet BR-350A APCBC could penetrate about 78mm of armor, both vertical at 500m.

And the T-34/76 and the M4 Sherman should have similar front armor protection with T-34 having a little better protection due to more laid back angle.




Dancing Jesus

Eats IS-2s for breakfast

50 XP

23rd November 2003

0 Uploads

85 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

Has anyone ever shot a bt7 with a king tiger and that little tank doesnt blow sky high? I'm pretty sure at any viewable distance in FH that the KT could knock out the bt7 in one hit, yet I ALWAYS need 2. Anyone else had this problem?