The Panzer IV is the new T-34

[Nikita]

It seems to me like fixing the "instant position switch upon crew death" bug might actually have a very large impact. Given all the data analysis that Phoenix, Sarkis, and Mormegil have done, it seems that getting a lead of just one penetrating shot on an enemy in an engagement could be totally decisive. Whereas the Panzer IV's firing can be interrupted by killing the gunner, the T-34's firing is not temporarily stopped by having the gunner killed, and this has a gameplay impact when, on average, the tank that gets the first penetration wins.

That, and the consequences of a penetration should be increased, particularly due to the fact that killing a tank by blasting its turret is enormously inefficient at the moment. (An issue here is that IRL, a turret penetration on either tank is not likely to result in a catastrophic explosion, but rather in a "kill" through inducing the vehicle's abandonment by the crew)

 

[migmadmarine]

Kills via crew death or evacuation would be good, as not every tank goes up in a big flash of fire.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

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 already addressed the actual points he brought up much earlier in the thread, such as the vastly different vulnerabilities (Testing shows the difference is much more narrow than he says) and the crew-swap bug (Which had already been discussed quite a big). During that testing, we're seeing 75-80% of T-34s destroyed in 1-2 hits. The most common result for both tanks is a 1-hit kill. If there's some point that you think I've missed, please point it out so I can address it.

Something about this post made me think of looking through a section of the code to double-check how some things worked, particularly one aspect that might be relevant to discussing ATRs and tank cannons: the ActualRHA (Penetration), TestPlateHardness (Effective armor resistance is modified by comparing the round's TestPlateHardness to the armor plate's OverallHardness), and ImpactDamage of the various anti-tank projectiles:

GUN               Penetration          Hardness          Damage
PTRS-41           36mm                 300               125
PzB 784           55mm                 450               125
T-34              85mm                 300               400
Panzer 4          117mm                300               400

The PzB's high TestPlateHardness means its penetration will be higher in comparison to the other rounds than its ActualRHA would indicate; for example, on a 300 hardness armor plate, the round's hardness will effectively reduce the effective armor thickness by 30%, which is the same as increasing its penetration by roughly 42%, when compared to the other projectiles and their 300 hardness...

So the PzB isn't penetrating 50% thicker armor than the PTRS, it looks to be penetrating 116% more (78mm on a 300 hardness test plate). That's 92% of a T-34's F-34. (Although, less than 1/3 the damage, not that it matters if you roll the KillPercentage on an applicable zone)

I'd like to update my opinion on the modeling of German-only tungsten ammo from "somewhat excessive" to "holy crap!"

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Regarless of all the "walls of text" - the fact still remains that the Tanks require serious attention. As it stands now, they are totally out of balance for whatever reasons.... Players are tired of the relentless spawn/die cycle when using the PZ IV.... until the shortcomings are fixed, tanking in RO2 is less than desirable and certainly not enjoyable for those who wish to play the German side.

The Tanks need fixing.

 

[migmadmarine]

It is still perfectly possible to one-shot the T-34, (hell, I did it with the AT rifle the other day on Pavlov's house) once you've leaned to used the Pz.Kpfw. IV to its advantages. There are bugs to be fixed, but the tanks themselves are not inherently imbalanced.

 

[[Mad_Murdock]]

I'd like to update my opinion on the modeling of German-only tungsten ammo from "somewhat excessive" to "holy crap!"

This. The way the ATRs are handled right now is not just flawed, it is completely insane. Both from a gameplay and historical perspective. Fixing this would go a long way to making the game more enjoyable.

Gameplay-wise, a bonus that excessive goes far beyond assymetrical balance and into the realms of wtf. In theory, what I believe the devs wanted to do is give one side a tank with better armor and the other a tank with a better gun. Makes sense, then they turn around and give the side with weaker armor a supercharged ATR. Why? What was the point of that. By artificially balancing the ATR they effectively eliminate any need to change tactics when switching sides. Theres no need to aim better or pick better positions, just pick a tank and fire away the way you usually do, the bonus will take care of the rest.(I am assuming the player knows not to fire ATRs at the front glacis.) Bam, assymetry gone.

This is of course discounting the obvious reaction of anyone upon seeing it and saying "Well @$&@/#, thats not fair at all!". Not to mention, if the tanks armor is made more equal, it leaves the PZ4 with an almost 40% more powerful gun, in which case the only logical thing to do would be to boost the Russian ATR to keep the assymetry going. Weak tank gun + strong ATR vs. vice versa.

Lastly, why give both sides the same ATR in the first place, thats not balance, thats lazy. Not as bad as everyone having the same guns a la COD, but then again we pretty much have that with the enemy loadouts. But I digress.

Now the authenticity reason that was given for this was "The Germans have a lot more tungsten cored ammo available for it." Which makes no historical sense whatsoever for two reasons.

First, the justification is: The Germans captured a lot of tungsten ammo, so they get it. The tungsten ammo was rare in the Red Army so they dont get the bonus. But those are contradictory statements. If the Germans captured so much ammo that they were capable of reequipping the entire 6th army with (majority) tungsten ammo for a weapon they did not probably posess in large numbers (due to being reequipped and reconstituted just before the offensive), then the ammo could not have possibly have been that rare. But if the ammo was so abundant, then did the Red Army just toss it as soon as it was received?

Secondly, I am aware that some German factories produced ammo for the captured PPShs. But as far as I know that was the only weapon. Producing tungsten rounds for the PTRS stretches the imagination. Implying that at some point someone in the German high command turned to their buddies and said "Hey guys, you know all that tungsten we have lying around out back because it is such a common element and entirely unnecessary for our war effort? We should take that to a factory that we are not using for anything important and have them make ammo in an obscure caliber not used by any other nation in this conflict or any of our own weapons for an outdated weapons system on the off chance that our guys capture some"

Sorry to go off topic like that but I think a discussion on balancing tanks could use some input on AT weapons. I am all for balancing/nerfing/buffing tanks mildly to make gameplay more fluid, but at least be consistent! Besides I wanted to say this for a while but I dont think it deserves its own thread.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

It is still perfectly possible to one-shot the T-34, (hell, I did it with the AT rifle the other day on Pavlov's house) once you've leaned to used the Pz.Kpfw. IV to its advantages. There are bugs to be fixed, but the tanks themselves are not inherently imbalanced.

They are imbalanced..... because of the BUGS!


The tanks need fixing.

 

[migmadmarine]

Ok, I get what your saying, yes, lets fix the bugs we currently have, before changing anything else, then go from there.

 

[ro2player]

The Panzer IVG was THE tank made to beat the T34/76. And at that it was most effective.

Panzer IV is more powerfull than the panzer that RO 2 created...

 

[Mekhazzio]

The Pz4 wasn't the tank designed to defeat the T-34, it was the tank designed to not get completely owned by the T-34. The Panther was the silver bullet design (and the first good German tank of the war, IMO, but that opinion is kicking a hornet's nest )

 

[Kuikka]

Yeah, bug fixes first, then balancing. And new tanks/tank destroyers.

Destroying tank is more based on luck than skill - check (pics will tell the story http://imageshack.us/f/694/sarjistekstill.jpg/)

2-3 players in same tank might result to eternal spectator mode - check

And the best of all, players spawning to tank - check. Stupid idea but what can you do for it now... It was way better system in RO1 as players were available to abandon tank in case of damages, now it has to be destroyed with a big BOOOOM, killing also the crew. Also think about implementation of new tanks (by community, as I believe we can wait "official" part another year or two, if they never make any) - how players will choose their vehicle? Picking a tank from the select role -menu?

 

[migmadmarine]

Mike, you've made your point that the tanks have their bugs that need to be fixed, and I and many others agree with you on that point, but must it be said in every other post?

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Mike, you've made your point that the tanks have their bugs that need to be fixed, and I and many others agree with you on that point, but must it be said in every other post?

No, all I ever needed was a "yeah, we know they need fixing and it will be addressed in the next update..." from TWI and I would be happy to not remind. Instead, I get sarcasm and cheap shots from those very players I'm trying, albeit indirectly, to help.

And ppl wonder why.....

 

[Twrecks]

The tanks need fixxorz, do it now!

 

[Lord_Lovat]

No, all I ever needed was a "yeah, we know they need fixing and it will be addressed in the next update..." from TWI and I would be happy to not remind. Instead, I get sarcasm and cheap shots from those very players I'm trying, albeit indirectly, to help.

And ppl wonder why.....

Well Mike,

take a look in the bug and support forum. They never (or very rarely) respond to bug reports. That doesn't mean they don't look into it though. I once made a thread asking for some feedback and people were very eager to put me back in my place. I really do not understand TW's interaction with the community. Yes, they do interact, but in such vague manner that raises many questions with me.

and to be on topic: Yes, the tanks are bugged. Instant respawning in the t-34 and being able to start driving when you are in the middle of changing position from commander to driver when driver is shot.

Lord Lovat

 

[ro2player]

The Pz4 wasn't the tank designed to defeat the T-34, it was the tank designed to not get completely owned by the T-34. The Panther was the silver bullet design (and the first good German tank of the war, IMO, but that opinion is kicking a hornet's nest )

Panzer IV was created to destroy T 34 76. T 34 85 was created to destroy Panzer IV. Panther was created to destroy T 34 85.

But Panzer IV (version F 2, G and anothers) have been created to the goal to destroy T 34 76.

The tanks need fixxorz, do it now!

You mean Panzer IV ? Or T 34 ? or Panzer IV and T 34 ? You write "tanks" ithink you ask bugs fixed for T 34 AND Panzer IV.

I don't know very well tanks : i know more Panzer IV than T 34. But i think Panzer IV is more powerfull than T 34.

 

[Sarkis.]

i know more Panzer IV than T 34. But i think Panzer IV is more powerfull than T 34.

The T-34 had sloped armor and a comparable gun to that of the Panzer IV. While the Panzer IV had other goodies as well that were very important, is safe to say that in a straight forward comparison between both steelbeasts, if they are put against each other in multiple scenarios.. The T-34 wins hands down. The real one.

And still, yes, the G variant of the Panzer IV was armed with a gun intended to defeat the T-34's armor, and it did that. What it did not, was make the Panzer IV superior.

 

[ro2player]

The real Panzer IV (the real one, P IV version G) was superior than the real T 34-76.

the Panzer IV superior.

The Panzer IV was superior to T 34 and not only by its gun.

 

[Sarkis.]

The Panzer IV was superior to T 34 and not only by its gun.

Mind explaining how? Because I don't see that this is true.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

In game-useful terms, comparing the T-34/76 and Panzer 4 F2/early-G (The two tanks modeled in-game currently):

The T-34 had (significantly) superior armor to the Panzer on all facings (It is more protected on the sides than the Panzer is in the front). It had a slightly higher on-road speed, a significantly higher off-road speed, and a significantly higher power-to-weight ratio (Note that the game uses on-road speed, despite the off-road terrain, rather axing the T-34's advantage here).

The Panzer 4 had a more powerful gun, with better optics.

In terms not really useful for the game:

The T-34 is cheaper, more reliable, and easier to maintain.

The Panzer 4 has a radio in every tank, improving coordination between vehicles. It has a separate gunner and commander, improving crew efficiency and situational awareness. It also has a commander's hatch that isn't so stupidly designed as the T-34's.

In every useful comparison of stats that should matter for this game, the T-34/76 and Panzer 4 F2 are fairly even in firepower-to-armor, with the T-34 having slightly better protection against the Panzer's gun than the other way around, and with the T-34 being much more maneuverable. Taken just from that, the T-34 is easily the superior tank. The elements that don't really matter in this game, such as the separate commander and more frequent use of radios, often led to the Germans having the advantage in tactics. This often gave the Germans the advantage despite the otherwise superior Russian tanks, but that's something that would be hard to model in-game.

And you really can't discount cost and ease of production. By a quick skim, it looks like Russia produced more T-34/76s from 1940-1944 then Germany produced tanks, of any kind, throughout the entire war. The ~6,000 Panthers that Germany managed to produce in the last 3 years of the war? Russia made as many T-34/85s in 5 months.

As for this:

Panzer IV was created to destroy T 34 76. T 34 85 was created to destroy Panzer IV. Panther was created to destroy T 34 85.

You should really look up the actual history of the tanks more. The Panzer 4 was created as an infantry-support tank. The F version that first encountered the T-34/76, in 1941, was found to be severely lacking. They cobbled together a quick fix in the up-gunned F2 (Or early G) version, but this was a band-aid rather than a real fix. It let the Panzer 4 actually fight against the T-34/76 without being completely outclassed, but it was still leaning in the Russian's favor. The real "counter" was the introduction of the Panther tank at the very beginning of 1943, which not only carried over the superior firepower, but finally offered a German tank with superior armor protection (And, tellingly, had a design very much like that of the T-34).

The Panther was most definitely not created to destroy the T-34/85, as that tank wouldn't even exist for more than a year, in early 1944.