The Panzer IV is the new T-34

[Mormegil]

It would be interesting to move away from having the ammo / tank blow up be the main way to kill a tank.

A lot of that is due to artifacts of the game, and server settings. I believe a number of servers have things like turret ring damage tuned down (they don't jam). If you really damaged the turret ring, or took out the optics, like in DH, that would render the tank mostly useless. (while we're at it, notice the elevation stops working when the turret ring is out - why?)

A gaming artifact is the usual lack of fear of death. IRL, if you see your crewman get shredded, you'd likely bail (you know they've got you zeroed in). Perhaps implementing a severe suppression effect would be in order. I'd be worried it would just be annoying though. And who knows how you would implement it - it's not like you can increase tank cannon sway. Maybe it could force the gunner from the telescopic sight (like slow death won't let you IS), and keep them staring at their dead comrade.

I like the idea of scuttling / bailing reducing the respawn time / ticket deduction.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

It would be interesting to move away from having the ammo / tank blow up be the main way to kill a tank.

yep

A lot of that is due to artifacts of the game, and server settings. I believe a number of servers have things like turret ring damage tuned down (they don't jam). If you really damaged the turret ring, or took out the optics, like in DH, that would render the tank mostly useless. (while we're at it, notice the elevation stops working when the turret ring is out - why?)

Not possible to change without losing Ranked Status.

A gaming artifact is the usual lack of fear of death. IRL, if you see your crewman get shredded, you'd likely bail (you know they've got you zeroed in). Perhaps implementing a severe suppression effect would be in order. I'd be worried it would just be annoying though. And who knows how you would implement it - it's not like you can increase tank cannon sway. Maybe it could force the gunner from the telescopic sight (like slow death won't let you IS), and keep them staring at their dead comrade.

I like the idea of scuttling / bailing reducing the respawn time / ticket deduction.

Sure, punish the heck outta the tankers.....

All that needs be done is the tanks fixed.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

This discussion has gotten A LOT better and more objective... replicable experiments, statistical analysis and significance, etc...

Keep it going! This is what the discussion should have been like all along.

One point I'd like to make, though, is that if the critical hit zones of the Panzer IV are easier to hit... that's something one would have to take up with the original designers. It's an inherent trait of the design where the ammo stores and fuel tanks are on each tank, and that's life, fate, and war.

If we want to present a list of constructive suggestions with regards to armor system changes, though, we can't simply say that a tank is stronger than it should be. We have to point out a list of armor plates and show that they aren't functioning as they should at a given distance. Driver's hatch might be a good place to start.

If that's the case, then Tanks are finished for RO2. Unless of course ppl begin to realize this is a game - not a history lesson. Players using the PZ IV will not stand for the repetitive spawn/die-spawn/die nonsense for long. They will leave.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

There is also the bonuses that the T-34 received to counter the ATR

Where in the world do you keep pulling this out of? It had nothing to do with balance or ATRs. The T-34 has superior armor in-game because it had superior armor in real life.

I'd also like to note that when I was doing my test-shots, as well as my further experiments at other angles, I saw a <10% bounce rate, and almost all of those were early experiments at shooting the lower hull while level with the T-34. Bounces are easy to avoid with the Panzer's more powerful gun.

I still have to present my results for the T-34, since I am probably shooting from closer than Phoenix as well, and that helps.

Maybe a third of my kills were 100-200 yards, about a third at 600-800, and the rest somewhere between that. Yeah, shooting closer would likely help. The 100-200 yard shots I made were almost always 1- or 2-hit kills, with a few exceptions (Curiously, that was also the range of many of my 4-hit kills).

I see what you mean. It would be good to see a test of number of penetrating shots versus bouncing shots on each tank, when aiming at the "weak spots." Or simply replicate the tests mentioned before, but counting bounced shots.

My initial numbers for shooting the T-34 included hits that failed to penetrate. Knock 5 or so off if you want just penetrating shots.

Now, Phoenix mentioned that the tanks have a hitpoint system. Perhaps that hitpoit system could be tuned to offer greater damage, and probability of taking out a tank by shooting it in vital areas, but not necessarily ammo caches.

From where I got in the armor code (Before giving up and fleeing that mess), it looked like two penetrations that hit any non-crew internal zone (Including engine, etc) will kill the target (400 ImpactDamage vs 800 Health), while shots that miss all internal zones do reduced damage (0.375 times). I'm not sure if that's what's actually happening, though, and I don't feel much like wading through the tank code further to find out (It's possible that rounds lose ImpactDamage after damaging a zone). I suspect it's why I had such luck aiming at the hull MG ammo, as at least the first hit will surely do full damage (Not sure if you can still damage a zone that's destroyed).

You have to hit 3 to 4 times to take out. But with the effect of the bursting charge, it would be easy to kill/wound 4 in one go, and RO2 doesn't portray that.

It can, but you have to get lucky. Any crew in the line of the projectile gets killed, and spalling appears to make a cone of fragments that can also kill crew. Of the times I had T-34s kill me during my testing (Which, amusingly, often took the bots a good 5+ hits), about a third of the time I lost crew, I lost multiple (Three in one shot at least once). The chances are rather too low, however.

Players using the PZ IV will not stand for the repetitive spawn/die-spawn/die nonsense for long. They will leave.

Where were these apocalyptic prophecies when the T-34 was vastly outclassed, well beyond anything we see now? You were strangely silent on the subject, then (When you weren't saying it was fine, that is). And yet, we didn't lose all the T-34 players. Hmm.

 

[Nikita]

Where were these apocalyptic prophecies when the T-34 was vastly outclassed, well beyond anything we see now? You were strangely silent on the subject, then (When you weren't saying it was fine, that is). And yet, we didn't lose all the T-34 players. Hmm.

Well said, well said.

 

[Sarkis.]

Where in the world do you keep pulling this out of? It had nothing to do with balance or ATRs. The T-34 has superior armor in-game because it had superior armor in real life.

I am referring to the fact that before GOTY, the Pzb 784(r) could easily pierce through the T-34's frontal turret and mantlet, since it has a 50% bonus. What TWI did, was buff the T-34's armor so that it would not be penetrated by the Pzb 784(r) anymore, at least in the turret area, and it worked. However, I believe, but can't really tell, because I don't really really know, that this made it stronger than it should be in real life. Because the Pzb 784(r) bonus is still around.

And about the rest of the armor tweaks and stuff, unrelated to the turret, I really fail to see how did the T-34 need those. As in, wasn't it modeled of the real thing when the game launched, or did it have a bug or a problem?

The way both buffs to the T-34 were worded, they sound to me as pure in game balancing fixes, instead of realism:

• General Tank Changes
  • Made damage and armor tweaks with the T34 to get it more in balance with the Panzer IV. A battle between the two tanks should now be a much more even fight, while still retaining their realistic strengths and weaknesses.
  • T34 - gun mantlet changed to account for the heavily curved shape, also improving its resistance

So, before GOTY, the mantlet did not account for the curved shape? Hard to believe, but perhaps it's resistance was off really. OR... they simply gave it a cheap boost to counter the Pzb 784(r), believing it was actually a problem with the T-34. But I don't know. Since they did not do anything about the Pzb, I am inclined to believe the latter.

And finally:

My Test, Round 2 complete results:

T-34 shooting Panzer IV/G

TOTAL HITS: 78

Average: 1,56 hits per kill

1 hit kills: 28 (56%)
2 hit kills: 18 (36%)
3 hit kills: 02 (04%)
4 hit kills: 02 (04%)
5 hit kills: 00 (00%)

Panzer IV/G shooting T-34

TOTAL HITS: 91

Average: 1,82 hits per kill

1 hit kills: 21 (42%)
2 hit kills: 20 (40%)
3 hit kills: 06 (12%)
4 hit kills: 03 (06%)
5 hit kills: 00 (00%)

Spoiler!

Since it appears taking out a tank by means of weakspots, depend on more than the weakspot alone, but other vital areas as well adding up damage, it appears to me, that the Panzer IV ammo cache behind the driver seat is about as good a place to shoot the Panzer frontally as hitting the T-34 from the side between roadwheels 2 and 3.

So RO2 tank balance is: ''Your Panzer IV frontally is as good as a T-34 sideways''

And in all honesty, that's pretty much how it feels, no exaggerations or anectodes. If you hit the T-34 between roadwheels 2 and 3 it most likely goes boom, if you hit the Panzer behind the driver it also most likely goes boom. At the same time, shooting the T-34 frontally presents a smaller target for the probable 1 hit kill, and your shot can bounce, and at distance you can end up having even more bounced shots because it is harder to aim, and because of the hatch, and the rest of the T-34 design.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

I am referring to the fact that before GOTY, the Pzb 784(r) could easily pierce through the T-34's frontal turret and mantlet, since it has a 50% bonus. What TWI did, was buff the T-34's armor so that it would not be penetrated by the Pzb 784(r) anymore

No. It had nothing to do with the ATRs. The "buff" was fixing the armor so that it had the protection it should. The T-34 was well below its real-world level of protection. It was one of the many bugs in the tank system, the same way the Panzer 4 had several armor zones that were literally invulnerable. At launch, the T-34 had much weaker armor than the Panzer 4 (Even the T-34's weaker gun was destroying T-34s easier than it was Panzers). The fact is, and your own cites claim this as well, the T-34 should have superior armor protection. Your own cites even say that it should have superior protection versus the Panzer's gun, than the Panzer should have against the T-34's gun!

The German ATR has more penetration because it's modeled as always using tungsten ammo, which they modeled as +50% to penetration. The T-34's (supposedly) superior armor might have been a reason for giving the Germans tungsten ammo, but fixing the T-34's armor most likely did not.

Also, in your diagrams you left out the T-34's hull MG ammo store (Which the Panzer 4 doesn't have, likely subsumed into one of the other ammo zones), and there are no ammo stores in the turret like you're showing.

The quick glance at the code to confirm that the Panzer has no hull MG ammo zone, also showed the odd tidbit that the Panzer ammo is 10% more likely to give a DamageMultiplier than the T-34's ammo is. Not sure why that is.

And in all honesty, that's pretty much how it feels, no exaggerations or anectodes.

"Feels" and "no ... anectodes" (sic) is possibly the saddest oxymoron I've seen today.

 

[Sarkis.]

No. It had nothing to do with the ATRs. The "buff" was fixing the armor so that it had the protection it should. The T-34 was well below its real-world level of protection. It was one of the many bugs in the tank system, the same way the Panzer 4 had several armor zones that were literally invulnerable. At launch, the T-34 had much weaker armor than the Panzer 4 (Even the T-34's weaker gun was destroying T-34s easier than it was Panzers). The fact is, and your own cites claim this as well, the T-34 should have superior armor protection. Your own cites even say that it should have superior protection versus the Panzer's gun, than the Panzer should have against the T-34's gun!

The German ATR has more penetration because it's modeled as always using tungsten ammo, which they modeled as +50% to penetration. The T-34's (supposedly) superior armor might have been a reason for giving the Germans tungsten ammo, but fixing the T-34's armor most likely did not.

OK, so that explains it.

Also, in your diagrams you left out the T-34's hull MG ammo store (Which the Panzer 4 doesn't have, likely subsumed into one of the other ammo zones), and there are no ammo stores in the turret like you're showing.

I did, does it do anything? And those red circles are the loaders, since they are a major target currently, since the replacement loader is not likely to do his job, currently.

The quick glance at the code to confirm that the Panzer has no hull MG ammo zone, also showed the odd tidbit that the Panzer ammo is 10% more likely to give a DamageMultiplier than the T-34's ammo is. Not sure why that is.

OK, that is another little issue.

"Feels" and "no ... anectodes" (sic) is possibly the saddest oxymoron I've seen today.

Too bad when you shoot the tanks that's precisely what happens most of the time.

Bottomline: The T-34 is more superior than it should, I was right, time to fix the tanks, and pzb, and AT grenades and satchels, and the spawn, and the bug, and the hatch, etc.

Also time for TWI to shed some light into the issue.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

I did, does it do anything? And those red circles are the loaders, since they are a major target currently, since the replacement loader is not likely to do his job, currently.

It's a full-damage zone, if nothing else, so yes, it just lacks a KillPercentage to get its DamageMultiplier of 100.

And if that's supposed to be a loader instead of ammo, you should really label your diagram correctly. I've not personally seen any issue with the loader (It's possible that the driver seat has priority, so that if you're down to two crew you wouldn't do any loading, not sure. Never looked into it. If nothing else, the gunner should be able to load, himself).

 

[Sarkis.]

I've not personally seen any issue with the loader (It's possible that the driver seat has priority, so that if you're down to two crew you wouldn't do any loading, not sure. Never looked into it. If nothing else, the gunner should be able to load, himself).

When the loader is killed, the extra crewmember, takes his place in a while, but just sits there and does nothing. Even bot tanks seem to be taken out with that one hit. Not that they blow up, but they don't ever shoot again, just like human players.

Is it accurate now?

 

[Mormegil]

In regards to the damage model having components damageable, but unable to be destroyed:

Not possible to change without losing Ranked Status.

Looking at the DefaultGame.ini - it looks like the turret ring damage "TankTurretDamageModel=1" is set to non-destructible. Vehicle mobility and crew damage are fully destructible by default.

According to the RO2 wiki:

Sets tank turret damage limits. 0 = Can not be damaged or destroyed, 1 = Can not be destroyed, 2 = Can be destroyed

I doubt changing it would unrank a server, as I known I played Pavlov recently on a ranked server, and had the turret ring destroyed.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

When the loader is killed, the extra crewmember, takes his place in a while, but just sits there and does nothing. Even bot tanks seem to be taken out with that one hit. Not that they blow up, but they don't ever shoot again, just like human players.

I've not lost my loader many times, but of the times I did, the replacement still reloaded. What were the complete circumstances that occurred when this happened (Other crew loss, damage, etc)?

Is it accurate now?

More or less, not sure if they're 100%, but fairly close. It'd be nice if the official images showed the vulnerable areas from the front instead of the back...

 

[Ducky]

--SNIP--
Where were these apocalyptic prophecies when the T-34 was vastly outclassed, well beyond anything we see now? You were strangely silent on the subject, then (When you weren't saying it was fine, that is). And yet, we didn't lose all the T-34 players. Hmm.

Maybe because at that times about every server in the world had disabled the tanks. The tanks mostly game back after the GOTY edition. If I remember correctly, that was also the edition that made people complain about the P4 being weaker now than the T34. If there is a bug or if something is wrong with one of the tanks regarding balancing, then people are allowed to bring it up. If you like it or not. Repeatedly pointing our that a person prefers to play the P4 and didn't complain before when the T-34 was the weaker one doesn't really help and is actually childish. Especially when you keep in mind that most servers were running without tanks at that time.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

Repeatedly pointing our that a person prefers to play the P4 and didn't complain before when the T-34 was the weaker one doesn't really help and is actually childish.

I would think that, when he's using his anecdotal impressions of the balance between the two tanks to declare them unbalanced and condemn RO2 tanking in general, it's both fair and useful to point out that his pre-GOTY anecdotal impressions of the balance between the two tanks was completely off the mark. If he were to present solid numbers or figures, or some other method of testing, as others have attempted to do, that would be different. Anecdotes, however, even in a general sense, are noted for unreliability.

Plus, I'm not sure that what most servers did is particularly relevant to his experience, since he runs and plays on his own server, and it sounds like he kept the tanks running.

 

[Sarkis.]

Well, one is allowed to be wrong in the past, and possibly right another day, or even wrong again...

The tanks are unbalanced now, I think. Not only them, but the other weapons that can hurt tanks.

Back before GOTY, I found that the Panzer in a hull down position was hard to tame, however with the hull showing was an easy kill. The T-34 turret was made of paper, and all german AT rifle gunners could kill all the crew with a few shots. The T-34 hull, however, was to me a mystery, until very recently really.

I played with the tanks since the game launched, and the number one problem remains being their short spawn time, that is tied to the infantry.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

----- snip -----
Where were these apocalyptic prophecies when the T-34 was vastly outclassed, well beyond anything we see now? You were strangely silent on the subject, then (When you weren't saying it was fine, that is). And yet, we didn't lose all the T-34 players. Hmm.

Lose the "persona angles" and stick to the facts of what's actually happening. The game itself is suffering. Since the GOTY patch, players are rage quitting or shying away from using the German Tank for one reason... it sux.

I would think that, when he's using his anecdotal impressions of the balance between the two tanks to declare them unbalanced and condemn RO2 tanking in general, it's both fair and useful to point out that his pre-GOTY anecdotal impressions of the balance between the two tanks was completely off the mark. If he were to present solid numbers or figures, or some other method of testing, as others have attempted to do, that would be different. Anecdotes, however, even in a general sense, are noted for unreliability.

Plus, I'm not sure that what most servers did is particularly relevant to his experience, since he runs and plays on his own server, and it sounds like he kept the tanks running.

One again you seem to be obsessed with aiming your personal inroads at me both directly and now, indirectly. Let me make one thing perfectly clear.... If I didn't care, I'd've walked away already. But I do care and that's why I am adamant about the ugliness of the performance of the tanks in RO2 at this time. I'm asking you once again to lose the personal attacks and finally realize this is a game we play and not a history lesson as someone conveniently sees it.

We need not chase players away because of an insane use of bias in tanking balances. The tanks need fixing and that's all there is to it. Get used to that FACT.

Tanks are OFF in our servers now just as they soon were shortly after the release of the game for the very same reasons. Only at that time the T-34/76 was a marshmallow and Tank aiming was off-the-wall not to mention the crippling AI. Now, the PZ IV is a total mess, a pushover - a 1-2 shot kill most every time and the crew shuffle is a JOKE!

You will not bully or beat me down over this issue because I am seeking only what's right for the game.

The TANKS NEED FIXING!

 

[Sarkis.]

I've not lost my loader many times, but of the times I did, the replacement still reloaded. What were the complete circumstances that occurred when this happened (Other crew loss, damage, etc)?

Any common circumstance during combat. First enemy shot, or ATR soldier, well in between having received damage, etc. The loader will die, be replaced, but most of time, not do anything. To be frank, I don't think, or recall seeing he doing his job on any instance, ever, since GOTY. Even bot tankers can only spare the first loader before they loose the ability to fire. I might be spoiling it for a lot of people, but successfully killing the loader is like the best possible and easiest shot to kill a tank, currently.

Haha, I realize, that's pretty much what I wanted, and is sort of realistic.. in a very weird and wrong way.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

Any common circumstance during combat. First enemy shot, or ATR soldier, well in between having received damage, etc. The loader will die, be replaced, but most of time, not do anything. To be frank, I don't think, or recall seeing he doing his job on any instance, ever, since GOTY.

Huh, I've never seen that happen. Weird. I'll admit, I never saw that happen. Had my loader shot out during my testing, but he still reloaded.

Tanks are OFF in our servers now just as they soon were shortly after the release of the game for the very same reasons. Only at that time the T-34/76 was a marshmallow and Tank aiming was off-the-wall not to mention the crippling AI.

And yet it was six months after the game's release when you were saying that the tanks were balanced.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

And yet it was six months after the game's release when you were saying that the tanks were balanced.

Really? 6 months.. back in those days nobody wanted to harm TWI's RO2 sales.. I'd be inclined to believe 3 months for the public position and a matter of weeks on our servers. Hard to believe how time flies.

Just what are you trying to prove.. that you can badger me into silence?? No chance for that.

Regardless of all your noise.... the Tanks still need fixing.

 

[Coin-goD]

I want to say that I have experienced my loader getting replaced and not doing anything. Resulting in an obvious death.
Very, frustating. Specially after getting shot only once, and not being able to fire back.

PzIV.


Phoenix: I think it is dumb to ignore Mike's points on the PzIV just because he didn't complain when it was the T-34 wich was flawed. I battle most of the time with the PzIV, since I recently started using tanks, and I can see where he is coming from. I can get destroyed with few shots (Front armour) more often than I can destroy a T-34 (front armour).

The other day I experienced a horrible thing. I was getting my whole crew murdered by some Russian and his ATR. Every time I spawned he would shoot a few rounds and kill my whole crew.
I was terrified to even leave my base. Not sure if this is normal, but damn.