Rework the German guns, add a few new ones.
Jakusz1337
May 09 2012
DerJager, on May 09 2012 - 06:12, said:
Sope, I simply subbed in the 88mm L'71 Rhinemetall design, which could penetrate ~250mm of armor, as opposed to the 223mm of the 88mm L'100. It will be rather a rather interesting combination, VERY high penetration, by terrible alpha damage for a tier 9 medium.
And buffing the 75mm L'70 to historical numbers of ~172mm of penetration will make the 75mm L'100 unessecary. 172mm of penetration is enough for a tier 7 medium. The Russian and US tier 8's deal with 170-175mm of penetration. Granted manuverablity will need to be increased since its still losing 28mm of penetration. But the L'100 is still an unessecary weapon, and it would only serve to increase the length of the grind.
Now I'm all for a bit of a challenge, but if you honestly think that the grrind will be so short, that we need to tie up space in the screens and menus with the L'100, then you are sorely mistaken.
Yes, it will be a change in dynamics for the Panther. No, that isn't nessicarily a bad thing. Panther drivers will already have expirience in the nessecary driving style from both the Panzer III/IV and the VK3001(H) if they went up through the 3001, or the VK3002 if they went through the 3601 route.
The way it stands now, the panther makes an immediate change from fast and manuverable flanker/brawler to a sniper tank. Its something the Germans have never had in their tree before the Panther, and that change can be rather harsh. But if we give it 172mm of penetration, and buff its manuverablity, we have a transition tank.
The Panther would still posses in large measure the manuverablity possesed by the Panzer III/IV, VK 3001, and the VK 3002, bui it would also teach drivers how to play a sniper tank with the 75mm L'70. This would thereby ease the transition from flanker/brawler over to sniper.
And buffing the 75mm L'70 to historical numbers of ~172mm of penetration will make the 75mm L'100 unessecary. 172mm of penetration is enough for a tier 7 medium. The Russian and US tier 8's deal with 170-175mm of penetration. Granted manuverablity will need to be increased since its still losing 28mm of penetration. But the L'100 is still an unessecary weapon, and it would only serve to increase the length of the grind.
Now I'm all for a bit of a challenge, but if you honestly think that the grrind will be so short, that we need to tie up space in the screens and menus with the L'100, then you are sorely mistaken.
Yes, it will be a change in dynamics for the Panther. No, that isn't nessicarily a bad thing. Panther drivers will already have expirience in the nessecary driving style from both the Panzer III/IV and the VK3001(H) if they went up through the 3001, or the VK3002 if they went through the 3601 route.
The way it stands now, the panther makes an immediate change from fast and manuverable flanker/brawler to a sniper tank. Its something the Germans have never had in their tree before the Panther, and that change can be rather harsh. But if we give it 172mm of penetration, and buff its manuverablity, we have a transition tank.
The Panther would still posses in large measure the manuverablity possesed by the Panzer III/IV, VK 3001, and the VK 3002, bui it would also teach drivers how to play a sniper tank with the 75mm L'70. This would thereby ease the transition from flanker/brawler over to sniper.
Not gonna lie, I loved instantly becoming a sniper tank in my panther. It's what I wanted the Panther for!
IMHO, I think the L/100 needs to stay
balmung60
May 09 2012
I have to agree that the Marder needs to keep the 76 mm Russian gun. Without that, what's the point? Other than theat, I more or less agree, save for the VK3001(H) and (P) seeming a bit undergunned for tier 6 like that, tough if they got E2/E8-like RoF, it could probably work.
DerJager
May 09 2012
Jakusz1337, on May 09 2012 - 06:45, said:
Not gonna lie, I loved instantly becoming a sniper tank in my panther. It's what I wanted the Panther for!
IMHO, I think the L/100 needs to stay
IMHO, I think the L/100 needs to stay
Here's where I object to this. You're saying that the 75mm L'100 needs to stay, based on your personal want. Do you see the discrepency? It would be accurate to say that the Panther could still USE the L'100, but not to say that it NEEDS it.
In addition to this, you still COULD be a sniper tank, but you could also be a bit of a brawler, or a dog fighter. Just increased options here without making the tank OP. You don't lose a whole lot, but so much more is gained, that the small loss is well worth it.
Overall, the number one biggest issue we face with getting historically correct German weapons is not one of balance, gaps in line up, lack of evidence, or even lack of a solid argument. The number one issue we face is people that don't like the change for personal "I like my tank being slightly OP" reasons, or even simply because its change.
Tell me honestly, do you really think that your own personal preference for tank combat should be why we don't readjust the Panther? Do you honestly think that your personal preferences should weigh more in the outcome than making the transition for new players easier?
DerJager
May 09 2012
balmung60, on May 09 2012 - 08:11, said:
I have to agree that the Marder needs to keep the 76 mm Russian gun. Without that, what's the point? Other than theat, I more or less agree, save for the VK3001(H) and (P) seeming a bit undergunned for tier 6 like that, tough if they got E2/E8-like RoF, it could probably work.
Well my idea was that we would buff the manuverablity and HP a bit. TBH, 50mm of armor isn't enough for a tier 6 armed with just a 75mm, and you're right about that. However the 88mm or the L'70 would be significantly OP on either of the VK3001's.
Picture the T-34/85 with German HP reserves, the manuverablity of the VK3001's, and a more accurate 100mm. Thats essentially what we're dealing with, and the T-34/85 is already OP in many situations.
ROF buffs could help eliminate the need for either the HP or manuverablity buffs, but we'll still need one of them.
Jakusz1337
May 10 2012
DerJager, on May 09 2012 - 22:16, said:
Here's where I object to this. You're saying that the 75mm L'100 needs to stay, based on your personal want. Do you see the discrepency? It would be accurate to say that the Panther could still USE the L'100, but not to say that it NEEDS it.
In addition to this, you still COULD be a sniper tank, but you could also be a bit of a brawler, or a dog fighter. Just increased options here without making the tank OP. You don't lose a whole lot, but so much more is gained, that the small loss is well worth it.
Overall, the number one biggest issue we face with getting historically correct German weapons is not one of balance, gaps in line up, lack of evidence, or even lack of a solid argument. The number one issue we face is people that don't like the change for personal "I like my tank being slightly OP" reasons, or even simply because its change.
Tell me honestly, do you really think that your own personal preference for tank combat should be why we don't readjust the Panther? Do you honestly think that your personal preferences should weigh more in the outcome than making the transition for new players easier?
In addition to this, you still COULD be a sniper tank, but you could also be a bit of a brawler, or a dog fighter. Just increased options here without making the tank OP. You don't lose a whole lot, but so much more is gained, that the small loss is well worth it.
Overall, the number one biggest issue we face with getting historically correct German weapons is not one of balance, gaps in line up, lack of evidence, or even lack of a solid argument. The number one issue we face is people that don't like the change for personal "I like my tank being slightly OP" reasons, or even simply because its change.
Tell me honestly, do you really think that your own personal preference for tank combat should be why we don't readjust the Panther? Do you honestly think that your personal preferences should weigh more in the outcome than making the transition for new players easier?
See, here's my thing about driving the panther. I really don't think that the panther is in any condition to be a brawler right now. Even if it received a maneuverability boost, it would still be unfit to brawl, as it does not have the greatest armor, and the tracks and engine are both really vulnerable to damage. I can't count the number of times I've had my engine damaged in a single shot. In my opinion the Panther would become a very tedious tank to play if you took away the L/100, as it would not be very good as a brawler/mid-range tank because it lacks durability, and it would not be able to engage as well at long ranges.
Also, this is just my opinion. The way you responded to my post sounded like you were flat out calling me wrong. I don't know if that is what you meant but like i said, just my .02
DerJager
May 10 2012
I meant to say you are flat out wrong in the sense that the Panther doesn't absolutely require the L'100, yes. But past that, I didn't intend to come off as saying your opinion is wrong (which, being an opinion, is impossible).
Like I said, it would require some change, and all that would be covered in super testing, and open testing. The thing to remember is that this is a suggestion for the German guns first and foremost, with suggested placement of weapons based on their new penetration.
I can't say for sure if, for example, the 50mm L'80 would work on anything above the Panzer III. Yeah, it has the needed penetration, but what it primarily lacks is damage. I can't say for certian that the 105mm L'52 wouldn't be OP on the Tiger I and Tiger P. It will certinally let the Tiger I function as more of a brawler, and it will give the Tiger P an advantage in mid-range engagments as well as long-range engagments.
The ENTIRE point of testing is to find out what needs changing, and I feel like I'm catching FlaK for not having it all the minute deatils figured out well enough that we don't need to bother to test these changes. So sorry if I seemed to kind of snap at you.
As to the Panther's vulnerablity, its actually more durable than any other tier 7 medium as far as armor and HP goes. All of the 'weakness' is component-based, and 90% of that is historically unfounded. The T20's armor is complete crap TBH. If it weren't for the speed and manuverablity, it would be useless. Its armor is a full 10mm thicker than the T-43's, and sloped about as well. It can't take as much damage as the Panther can, and if it weren't for the 100mm, the stupid thing would need to be bumped back down to tier 6.
So for the Panther to be a good general purpose medium, we will need to buff:
1) Engine. More specificly, we need to get rid of the frontal-hull weak spot being able to damage the engine. The tansmission was not located right in the lower hull, and would be no more vulnerable to a penetration of the frontal armor than any other tank with a forward placed transmission.
2) Tracks. This has no historical base, and was simply added for gameplay balance. The Panther's suspension was never over-taxed, neither was the engine, tracks, transmission, etc. The biggest problems were the final drive, and the drive shaft, both of which were largely corrected for in the Ausf A, and Ausf G.
3) Engine (again), since we clearly have an Ausf G panther (ball-mount MG, thicker side armor, etc), we can assume that such a tank wouldn't have any issues with the fuel pump or engine overheating, as those were corrected for in the second production bloc of the Ausf A.
4) Manuverablity. In particular, we need to buff its acceleration by an estimated (and this is a VERY rough estimate) ~10%, we need to decrease its moving turn-radius (make it take corners better) by ~15%, and we need to let it maintain its speed just a touch better, only to the point where every little pebble doesn't drop it back to 46km/hr.
If we do all that, we'll have a panther that can both snipe from range (the L'70 will still be more than capable of penetrating the weak spots of most tanks, and the only tanks that will be even noticably harder to engage are the tier 9 and up tanks, and the tier 8 TD's.) and mix it up in a brawl at need if it finds itself backed into a proverbial corner.
Edited by DerJager, May 10 2012 - 02:48.
Like I said, it would require some change, and all that would be covered in super testing, and open testing. The thing to remember is that this is a suggestion for the German guns first and foremost, with suggested placement of weapons based on their new penetration.
I can't say for sure if, for example, the 50mm L'80 would work on anything above the Panzer III. Yeah, it has the needed penetration, but what it primarily lacks is damage. I can't say for certian that the 105mm L'52 wouldn't be OP on the Tiger I and Tiger P. It will certinally let the Tiger I function as more of a brawler, and it will give the Tiger P an advantage in mid-range engagments as well as long-range engagments.
The ENTIRE point of testing is to find out what needs changing, and I feel like I'm catching FlaK for not having it all the minute deatils figured out well enough that we don't need to bother to test these changes. So sorry if I seemed to kind of snap at you.
As to the Panther's vulnerablity, its actually more durable than any other tier 7 medium as far as armor and HP goes. All of the 'weakness' is component-based, and 90% of that is historically unfounded. The T20's armor is complete crap TBH. If it weren't for the speed and manuverablity, it would be useless. Its armor is a full 10mm thicker than the T-43's, and sloped about as well. It can't take as much damage as the Panther can, and if it weren't for the 100mm, the stupid thing would need to be bumped back down to tier 6.
So for the Panther to be a good general purpose medium, we will need to buff:
1) Engine. More specificly, we need to get rid of the frontal-hull weak spot being able to damage the engine. The tansmission was not located right in the lower hull, and would be no more vulnerable to a penetration of the frontal armor than any other tank with a forward placed transmission.
2) Tracks. This has no historical base, and was simply added for gameplay balance. The Panther's suspension was never over-taxed, neither was the engine, tracks, transmission, etc. The biggest problems were the final drive, and the drive shaft, both of which were largely corrected for in the Ausf A, and Ausf G.
3) Engine (again), since we clearly have an Ausf G panther (ball-mount MG, thicker side armor, etc), we can assume that such a tank wouldn't have any issues with the fuel pump or engine overheating, as those were corrected for in the second production bloc of the Ausf A.
4) Manuverablity. In particular, we need to buff its acceleration by an estimated (and this is a VERY rough estimate) ~10%, we need to decrease its moving turn-radius (make it take corners better) by ~15%, and we need to let it maintain its speed just a touch better, only to the point where every little pebble doesn't drop it back to 46km/hr.
If we do all that, we'll have a panther that can both snipe from range (the L'70 will still be more than capable of penetrating the weak spots of most tanks, and the only tanks that will be even noticably harder to engage are the tier 9 and up tanks, and the tier 8 TD's.) and mix it up in a brawl at need if it finds itself backed into a proverbial corner.
Edited by DerJager, May 10 2012 - 02:48.
Jakusz1337
May 10 2012
DerJager, on May 10 2012 - 02:47, said:
I meant to say you are flat out wrong in the sense that the Panther doesn't absolutely require the L'100, yes. But past that, I didn't intend to come off as saying your opinion is wrong (which, being an opinion, is impossible).
Like I said, it would require some change, and all that would be covered in super testing, and open testing. The thing to remember is that this is a suggestion for the German guns first and foremost, with suggested placement of weapons based on their new penetration.
I can't say for sure if, for example, the 50mm L'80 would work on anything above the Panzer III. Yeah, it has the needed penetration, but what it primarily lacks is damage. I can't say for certian that the 105mm L'52 wouldn't be OP on the Tiger I and Tiger P. It will certinally let the Tiger I function as more of a brawler, and it will give the Tiger P an advantage in mid-range engagments as well as long-range engagments.
The ENTIRE point of testing is to find out what needs changing, and I feel like I'm catching FlaK for not having it all the minute deatils figured out well enough that we don't need to bother to test these changes. So sorry if I seemed to kind of snap at you.
As to the Panther's vulnerablity, its actually more durable than any other tier 7 medium as far as armor and HP goes. All of the 'weakness' is component-based, and 90% of that is historically unfounded. The T20's armor is complete crap TBH. If it weren't for the speed and manuverablity, it would be useless. Its armor is a full 10mm thicker than the T-43's, and sloped about as well. It can't take as much damage as the Panther can, and if it weren't for the 100mm, the stupid thing would need to be bumped back down to tier 6.
So for the Panther to be a good general purpose medium, we will need to buff:
1) Engine. More specificly, we need to get rid of the frontal-hull weak spot being able to damage the engine. The tansmission was not located right in the lower hull, and would be no more vulnerable to a penetration of the frontal armor than any other tank with a forward placed transmission.
2) Tracks. This has no historical base, and was simply added for gameplay balance. The Panther's suspension was never over-taxed, neither was the engine, tracks, transmission, etc. The biggest problems were the final drive, and the drive shaft, both of which were largely corrected for in the Ausf A, and Ausf G.
3) Engine (again), since we clearly have an Ausf G panther (ball-mount MG, thicker side armor, etc), we can assume that such a tank wouldn't have any issues with the fuel pump or engine overheating, as those were corrected for in the second production bloc of the Ausf A.
4) Manuverablity. In particular, we need to buff its acceleration by an estimated (and this is a VERY rough estimate) ~10%, we need to decrease its moving turn-radius (make it take corners better) by ~15%, and we need to let it maintain its speed just a touch better, only to the point where every little pebble doesn't drop it back to 46km/hr.
If we do all that, we'll have a panther that can both snipe from range (the L'70 will still be more than capable of penetrating the weak spots of most tanks, and the only tanks that will be even noticably harder to engage are the tier 9 and up tanks, and the tier 8 TD's.) and mix it up in a brawl at need if it finds itself backed into a proverbial corner.
Like I said, it would require some change, and all that would be covered in super testing, and open testing. The thing to remember is that this is a suggestion for the German guns first and foremost, with suggested placement of weapons based on their new penetration.
I can't say for sure if, for example, the 50mm L'80 would work on anything above the Panzer III. Yeah, it has the needed penetration, but what it primarily lacks is damage. I can't say for certian that the 105mm L'52 wouldn't be OP on the Tiger I and Tiger P. It will certinally let the Tiger I function as more of a brawler, and it will give the Tiger P an advantage in mid-range engagments as well as long-range engagments.
The ENTIRE point of testing is to find out what needs changing, and I feel like I'm catching FlaK for not having it all the minute deatils figured out well enough that we don't need to bother to test these changes. So sorry if I seemed to kind of snap at you.
As to the Panther's vulnerablity, its actually more durable than any other tier 7 medium as far as armor and HP goes. All of the 'weakness' is component-based, and 90% of that is historically unfounded. The T20's armor is complete crap TBH. If it weren't for the speed and manuverablity, it would be useless. Its armor is a full 10mm thicker than the T-43's, and sloped about as well. It can't take as much damage as the Panther can, and if it weren't for the 100mm, the stupid thing would need to be bumped back down to tier 6.
So for the Panther to be a good general purpose medium, we will need to buff:
1) Engine. More specificly, we need to get rid of the frontal-hull weak spot being able to damage the engine. The tansmission was not located right in the lower hull, and would be no more vulnerable to a penetration of the frontal armor than any other tank with a forward placed transmission.
2) Tracks. This has no historical base, and was simply added for gameplay balance. The Panther's suspension was never over-taxed, neither was the engine, tracks, transmission, etc. The biggest problems were the final drive, and the drive shaft, both of which were largely corrected for in the Ausf A, and Ausf G.
3) Engine (again), since we clearly have an Ausf G panther (ball-mount MG, thicker side armor, etc), we can assume that such a tank wouldn't have any issues with the fuel pump or engine overheating, as those were corrected for in the second production bloc of the Ausf A.
4) Manuverablity. In particular, we need to buff its acceleration by an estimated (and this is a VERY rough estimate) ~10%, we need to decrease its moving turn-radius (make it take corners better) by ~15%, and we need to let it maintain its speed just a touch better, only to the point where every little pebble doesn't drop it back to 46km/hr.
If we do all that, we'll have a panther that can both snipe from range (the L'70 will still be more than capable of penetrating the weak spots of most tanks, and the only tanks that will be even noticably harder to engage are the tier 9 and up tanks, and the tier 8 TD's.) and mix it up in a brawl at need if it finds itself backed into a proverbial corner.
Ok, this post cleans things up. I'm sorry I called you out, just kinda felt a little put down, but that's internet communication for you
.As for your suggested changes to the Panther, they sound acceptable. You are definitely correct that this would require testing.
And I never meant to say that the panther had the worst armor or hp; it just is really susceptible to module damage, like you and I both said. And I feel that this susceptibility would really hinder it's brawling capability.
I think that all of your other suggested changes (the ones to other tanks) are needed. I first started playing this game and was like "O, cool, German tanks," without taking a look at the high tier stats. Now, as I have the most playtime into my German tanks, and i'm actually concerned with the stats of the next tanks I will be driving, the outlook is grim. A reworking of the German guns would IMO definitely bring balance to the German tanks (especially at higher tiers).
DerJager
May 10 2012
Yeah, the internet doesn't let you get tone and other subtleties across very well. But I guess thats the price we pay for the ease of communication it grants.
And I'm in the same boat as you are. I'm of German ancestry, had a Grandfather serve in the Wermacht, and have always been in love with tanks in general (once I graduate college, I'm intending to become an officer in military, want to get into the armored service). When I saw the German tanks, I freaked out, and started grinding up that line without any prior research.
Now I'm starting to regret that a little bit.
And I'm in the same boat as you are. I'm of German ancestry, had a Grandfather serve in the Wermacht, and have always been in love with tanks in general (once I graduate college, I'm intending to become an officer in military, want to get into the armored service). When I saw the German tanks, I freaked out, and started grinding up that line without any prior research.
Now I'm starting to regret that a little bit.
