No way to balance tanks

[Sufyan]

I've never seen German tankers doing anything so deviously clever and cruel on Commissars before, no. It takes a concerted effort for Soviets to kill even lone well commanded tanks. All my past experience with CommissarsHouse is that tankers on both sides drive on to the square to duel one another, staying completely outside the infantry combat.

As a Soviet tanker on CommissarsHouse my first order of business is turning left and advancing alongside the infantry on to building 81, ignoring the open square where the German tanks are most of the time. It works really well, and if the Germans are not cooperating I am invincible, racking up ridiculously high kill and team scores. Sometimes I worry that what I'm doing is the same as picking on a mentally impaired kid, but this is often weighed up by the fact that pub-play team mates are rarely taking advantage of the support I am providing, instead opting to sit in a window and snipe across the map to boost their kill stats.

Edit: Raquel seems to be doing what I am describing. Good job, mate!

 

[rpxy24]

Funny how most the "balance this & that" threads seem all to stem from the same, widely shared, problem:

Lack of skill

 

[Alexei]

Omg, another tank balance thread ? seriously ?

Your trolling is my point.

 

[Raquel]

trolling ? lol..

whine some more

 

[Justd1e]

i disagree with what you have written. The mark iii was still the primary tank in service by the germans in this point in the war. Heck, the mark iii was the most common german tank around the time of kursk (though it would shortly be eclipsed by the mark iv).

The mark iv in game and t-34 should be balanced, that is why the devs added it in the first place. The mark iii was inferior to the t-34 but the early mark ivs had a good gun while not being too armored to withstand 76mm rounds. That was the rationale given by twi, but for a host of reasons the mark iv has been spanking the t-34. The current setup is not how twi wanted it to be, this talk of tactics is absurd because there should not be an imbalance between the tanks.

The only realistic imbalance given the stalingrad focus would be one where the germans are at a disadvantage. The mark iii was still the primary workhorse of the german armoured divisions at this time. It was by far the most common tank in the 6th army's panzer divisions. It really should be the germans struggling to fight off the t-34, not the russians struggling to fight off the mark iv.

People need to stop talking about "tactics" to explain away the balance issue. The mark iv was added to balance out the t-34 which would have eaten alive the mark iii series. The fact there is a balance issue is an indication things have not worked out as twi had planned. It has nothing to do with history, indeed the current "russian tanks at a technological disadvantage" setup is in direct contradiction to how it was at this point in the war. The t-34 was the benchmark in 1942 for gun/armor/speed which the germans had not yet caught up to.

+9999999

 

[Overholt]

I agree with wokelly, but currently with the tanks in game people keep saying add artificial balance or t34 is underpowered.

 

[The Beast (nl)]

Just had an amazing match at gumrak. We defeated the germans 3 times because we used ambush and close encounters. Thankfuly only one fool kept dying near spawn trying to snipe PIVs

Indeed, with good teamwork you drive the germans from the map.

But you must have tanks at the spawnpoint so other tanks can flank them.

Couple of days ago i had a good action. Drove to a flankspot and destroyed 3 panzers and myself could only use the gun. It was nearly a wittman action.

 

[The Beast (nl)]

I agree with wokelly, but currently with the tanks in game people keep saying add artificial balance or t34 is underpowered.

I prefer the T34 above the panzer.

 

[G_Sajer]

I don't see them as wildly unbalanced. I only see two issues which should be tweaked:

1. the T-34 sloped armor should offer a bit better resistance than it does; particularly at ranges near or beyond 1000m.

2. The Pzkw armor, which was essentially verticle, seems to offer too much resistance at ranges under 1000m.

 

[Teufel Hund]

I don't see them as wildly unbalanced. I only see two issues which should be tweaked:

1. the T-34 sloped armor should offer a bit better resistance than it does; particularly at ranges near or beyond 1000m.

2. The Pzkw armor, which was essentially verticle, seems to offer too much resistance at ranges under 1000m.

What you're failing to consider though is the materials used to make the armor. It's not just about how thick the armor is, or the angle that it's at. The quality of materials used for armor was no where near equal. The Germans used a face hardened rolled alloy plate armor (at least at this point in the war, this changed after '44 when they had shortages in materials). The Russians simply did not have the technology or the equipment to produce armor plates of this quality. The Russians (like the other allies) used homogenous steel plates, which according to studies done by the US during the war, are as much as 20% less effective than rolled plate armor. This is not even considering the high carbon and nickel content of the German steel used in tank armor, which makes it even more effective. One of the things that made the Tiger such a beast was not just how thick the armor was, but that the Germans used the best steel they had for it. In addition, they also used interlocking and overlapping plates welded together to make it even more effective.

When talking about tank armor, you really need to take everything into account, not just armor thickness and slope.

 

[CaptHawkeye]

If the diameter of the shell impacting is greater than the thickness of the armor, then it really doesn't matter what slope the armor is at.

 

[Graphic]

I disagree with what you have written. The Mark III was still the primary tank in service by the Germans in this point in the war. Heck, the Mark III was the most common German tank around the time of Kursk (though it would shortly be eclipsed by the Mark IV).

The Mark IV in game and T-34 should be balanced, that is why the Devs added it in the first place. The Mark III was inferior to the T-34 but the early mark IVs had a good gun while not being too armored to withstand 76mm rounds. That was the rationale given by TWI, but for a host of reasons the Mark IV has been spanking the T-34. The current setup is NOT how TWI wanted it to be, this talk of tactics is absurd because there should not be an imbalance between the tanks.

The only realistic imbalance given the stalingrad focus would be one where the Germans are at a disadvantage. The Mark III was still the primary workhorse of the German armoured divisions at this time. It was by far the most common tank in the 6th Army's panzer divisions. It really should be the Germans struggling to fight off the T-34, not the Russians struggling to fight off the Mark IV.

People need to stop talking about "tactics" to explain away the balance issue. The Mark IV was added to balance out the T-34 which would have eaten alive the Mark III series. The fact there is a balance issue is an indication things have not worked out as TWI had planned. It has nothing to do with history, indeed the current "russian tanks at a technological disadvantage" setup is in direct contradiction to how it was at this point in the war. The T-34 was the benchmark in 1942 for gun/armor/speed which the Germans had not yet caught up to.

Anchorman - "it's science" - YouTube

I love you.

 

[Jammybee]

If the diameter of the shell impacting is greater than the thickness of the armor, then it really doesn't matter what slope the armor is at.

What if the shell is made of sponge cake, how much diameter more is needed?

 

[Teufel Hund]

What if the shell is made of sponge cake, how much diameter more is needed?

It depends on what the armor is made of...

 

[Sufyan]

Teufel explained armour very well, no need for me to go into any more detail on the subject. It should be noted that Soviet 76mm AP rounds were not all that great, which is why they experimented with 57mm guns as a stopgap measure before being able to deploy the 85mm gun with the new T34. The game accurately reflects the role and nature of the 76mm gun, as the tanks are stocked with HE rounds and only a few AP rounds just in case they need to engage German armour. Their intended role is very similar to US Shermans in that they were not tank hunters but rather infantry support vehicles. Both the US and the Soviets relied on towed guns for anti-tank work, and later self-propelled tank destroyers.

The PZ IV F2 seen in the game was armed with a long 75mm gun precisely so that it could destroy T34's (and KV tanks in a pinch). Prior to this the PZ IV was armed with short guns intended for infantry support while the PZ III was considered the main armoured warfare tank. The upgunning of the PZ IV sealed the fate of the PZ III which was slowly being phased out and replaced with more PZ IV over the course of the remainder of the war. I believe the reason they turned the PZ IV into the main vehicle for use against Soviet tanks was because the PZ III did not have any more room for further improvements, it's turret not being able to mount the longer 75mm gun.

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

You guys DO know that the Panzer III Aus J is promised in the first DLC pack, don't you?

The only tanks that should see light in RO2 stalingrad are the PZIII ausf J short barrel and the PZIV ausf F1.

Does anyone have an official dev statement of what Panzer IIIJ will be in the content patch? The Fact Thread states the "first version" but that does not correspond with this:

Not only does the L/60 outnumber the L/42, PIII L/42 production was terminated in July 1942, furthering the outnumbering by the time of stalingrad. As for the PIVF1, its canister shot would be awesome.

 

[grothesj2]

The only tanks that should see light in RO2 stalingrad are the PZIII ausf J short barrel and the PZIV ausf F1. With a rare F2..

Long barreled PZIIIs were in use there quite a bit.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

The only tanks that should see light in RO2 stalingrad are the PZIII ausf J short barrel and the PZIV ausf F1. With a rare F2..

And why is that? The battle for Stalingrad spans into 1943, and the Pz.IV F2 was in service way before that, infact 175 F2's had entered service by July 1942, which roughly equalled the number of F1's in service at that time (~200).

Another 50 F2's would enter service in 1942 before the designation was changed to Ausf.G, by which time production speed had quadrupled. So by the end 1942 a total of ~1,000 upgunned Pz.IV's had reached service, easily outnumbering the short barreled Pz.IV's by a ratio of 5 to 1.

 

[Rrralphster]

And why is that? The battle for Stalingrad spans into 1943, and the Pz.IV F2 was in service way before that, infact 175 F2's had entered service by July 1942, which roughly equalled the number of F1's in service at that time (~200).

Another 50 F2's would enter service in 1942 before the designation was changed to Ausf.G, by which time production speed had quadrupled. So by the end 1942 a total of ~1,000 upgunned Pz.IV's had reached service, easily outnumbering the short barreled Pz.IV's by a ratio of 5 to 1.

Yes, and those 175 F2's were partially sent to the Africa Corps and spread over a 2500km front (Baltic to the Black Sea). Plus the most elite units got the best goodies first (no SS panzer div in Stalingrad)

Also keep in mind that German Command only considered 8 out of 162 divisions up to strength. Let's say 50 reached Stalingrad...
Out of 1600 (Army Group A and B) armoured vehicles including self propelled guns (StuGIII). Pz II was phased out in '42. Not much else left but Pz III's and tanks from conquered countries...

 

[The Beast (nl)]

We are really forgetting the tiger tank,

http://achtungtshirt.com/Achtung-Tiger-Tank-Panzer-Ww2-German-SS-Stalingrad--P84210.aspx

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=5786

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers-02.htm