AT-tanks need more effective range. [Archive]

View Full Version : AT-tanks need more effective range.

pelitys

16-10-2008, 00:45

Let me quote Wikipedia for starters:
Nashorn's gun was one of the most effective anti-tank guns deployed during the war. Its tungsten carbide–cored sub-calibre round, Pzgr. 40/43, was capable of penetrating 190 mm of rolled steel armour at a 30° angle of impact at a distance of 1,000 m. The gun's tremendous performance enabled Nashorn to engage enemy tanks while they still were out of range themselves.
So how is it possible that I had a Sherman Firefly, I think, knocking out my Nashorn from a range where I couldn't take him out first? What is the purpose of AT-tanks if I can't use them so that the enemy can't retaliate? Isn't that the whole point of AT-tanks? They can fire effectively at range that no all-purpose tank can match, which sadly doesn't happen.
They aren't too mobile, mostly lightly armored, and have a high profile. Isn't that enough of a drawback to give them more penetration than they have now, respectively for each model of course.

It's highly annoying that I had a british tank (the one after Firefly, Centurion I think) knock out my Jagdtiger from around 120-140m with a shot on the side of my tank, and it pierced my hull. How the hell is that even possible?!? I couldn't land an effective shot on him yet he took me out. Screw lucky shots!

Allthough it's a fair trade for 4 of their tanks that I took out with relative ease because their shots just bounced off my front armor but that's Jagdtiger for you! However, it was my last trump card and the enemy was out of reinforcements as well, we could've won the game with my one Jagdtiger because they had nothing else to throw at me but some petty infantry and that tank which destroyed my tank and a calliope.

So if Devs paid closer attention to historic details there'd be much more use for AT-tanks. I'm myself always pondering the choice between say, Jagdpanther and a Tiger. They cost about the same but Tiger can take more hurt and it can cause twice the havoc, it also does similar damage to similar range. And battle tanks need no spotters, AT-tanks do, otherwise they just get buttsexed the moment they reveal themselves.

TLDR: Screw lucky shots, if I'm firing my trump-card Jagdtiger/Nashorn I don't want it to be destroyable by any other tank than another AT-tank or arty, they deserve more range and more effective guns than normal tanks. They should be flanked and not sniped from the distance by hoping a lucky shot might happen because he can't hit you either.

Some about the performance Jagdtiger's gun should have:
In the Summer of 1945, US Army tested captured Jagdtiger, which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters.
That's from Achtungpanzer, Pershing had sloped 110mm front armor. So it should be able to destroy all but the heaviest tanks in couple of shots from range that the target vehicle wouldn't have the slightest idea where it's coming from.

filon102

16-10-2008, 00:50

Let me quote Wikipedia for starters:
Nashorn's gun was one of the most effective anti-tank guns deployed during the war. Its tungsten carbide–cored sub-calibre round, Pzgr. 40/43, was capable of penetrating 190 mm of rolled steel armour at a 30° angle of impact at a distance of 1,000 m. The gun's tremendous performance enabled Nashorn to engage enemy tanks while they still were out of range themselves.
So how is it possible that I had a Sherman Firefly, I think, knocking out my Nashorn from a range where I couldn't take him out first? What is the purpose of AT-tanks if I can't use them so that the enemy can't retaliate? Isn't that the whole point of AT-tanks? They can fire effectively at range that no all-purpose tank can match, which sadly doesn't happen.
They aren't too mobile, mostly lightly armored, and have a high profile. Isn't that enough of a drawback to give them more penetration than they have now, respectively for each model of course.

It's highly annoying that I had a british tank (the one after Firefly) knock out my Jagdtiger from around 120-140m with a shot on the side of my tank, and it pierced my hull. How the hell is that even possible?!? I couldn't land an effective shot on him yet he took me out. Screw lucky shots!

Allthough it's a fair trade for 4 of their tanks that I took out with relative ease because their shots just bounced off my front armor but that's Jagdtiger for you! However, it was my last trump card and the enemy was out of reinforcements as well, we could've won the game with my one Jagdtiger because they had nothing else to throw at me but some petty infantry and that tank which destroyed my tank and a calliope.

So if Devs payed closer attention to historic details there'd be much more use for AT-tanks. I'm myself always pondering the choice between say, Jagdpanther and a Tiger. They cost about the same but Tiger can take more hurt and it can cause twice the havoc, it also does similar damage to similar range. And battle tanks need no spotters, AT-tanks do, otherwise they just get buttsexed the moment they reveal themselves.

bah faces of war and might Men of War is too early for it

i know its really *** :sad2:

whodunnit

16-10-2008, 01:50

yeah, sometimes having nashorns sniped by at long range is really annoying... sometimes you just gotta micro them so they take a shot at the side of a heavy tank then retreat.

xt828

16-10-2008, 04:38

In my experience, doing anything other than firing once or *maybe* twice and then relocating is asking for a death with the majority of SPAT. The Hetzer can take a bit of a pounding, depending on luck, but all the other SPAT have fairly crap armour on the flanks. I'd actually prefer to see the heavier late-war AT guns, like the PaK 43 and 44 get added, because they're less visible and so you stand a better chance of getting in that all-important surprise flank shot. IMO the most important thing to remember about the SPAT is that they aren't tanks - they're mobile gun platforms, and they will die if almost anything else gets a shot in. The main utility of them is that they allow a larger gun to be available earlier - the SU-85 is available when the best tank guns are the 57mm and 76mm.

MonkEsquire

16-10-2008, 09:39

Suprise attacks, flanking and cover mean absolutely *nothing* in MoW in its current state. Seriously. An officer will completely negate absolutely every single unit the opposite team has because it will spot every single hidden soldier. at gun and tank behind the thickest cover with his magical binoculars.

What's the point of even having AT-guns which at max range, can only knock out infantry with the HE rounds? No AT gun in the game can kill any tank at that range yet the tank, will just sit back out of range and have the offier spot it out. Whoops there just goes your AT gun, sniped by a tank with a HE shell. There needs to be some *serious* accuracy reduction or deviation in the aiming when you get to extreme ranges with a relatively small target because infantry and at guns hardly do anything against a competant player who can use an officer.

Zebah (szebus)

16-10-2008, 10:20

This is true, IF U have an oficer and a good defence set up, then u just have to find enemies officer to kill him then just to wait for the enemy to atak to knock out all his units. :confused:

coRDHA_Jeff JN

16-10-2008, 11:39

MonkEsquire

16-10-2008, 11:41

This is true, IF U have an oficer and a good defence set up, then u just have to find enemies officer to kill him then just to wait for the enemy to atak to knock out all his units. :confused:

That's you think the game plays out, but it doesn't. Most no reinforcement combat games devolve into just camping at x place then putting down tank traps and mines to the edge of the map and just sitting there behind their AT guns and tanks. No sane person will attack that knowing that their officer can see *everything* within 150x of his location, snipers will not stand a chance unless you're *very* sneaky with them.

Zebah (szebus)

16-10-2008, 12:32

For now this is what i have seen , becouse if team A captures 3 form 3 flags then Team B is attaking those flags to recapture them or exit the game.

Instinct

16-10-2008, 14:25

The gun's tremendous performance enabled Nashorn to engage enemy tanks while they still were out of range themselves.
This little sentence doesn't mean there is no tank on the field that could do so. Try to engage a Nashorn with a simple Sherman.

So if Devs paid closer attention to historic details there'd be much more use for AT-tanks. I'm myself always pondering the choice between say, Jagdpanther and a Tiger. They cost about the same but Tiger can take more hurt and it can cause twice the havoc, it also does similar damage to similar range. And battle tanks need no spotters, AT-tanks do, otherwise they just get buttsexed the moment they reveal themselves.
What do you want us to do? The gun values are based on historical values and no the Tiger doesn't do almost the same damage as the Jagdpanther does, you may want to check that up?

That's from Achtungpanzer, Pershing had sloped 110mm front armor. So it should be able to destroy all but the heaviest tanks in couple of shots from range that the target vehicle wouldn't have the slightest idea where it's coming from.
You will understand that we can't change a gun according to two sentences written somewhere on the web giving us almost zero information, how much mm can the Jagdtiger actually penetrate, on what ranges, with what ammo and so on. You put a lot of assuming in your post, not to say only assuming. Cover your arguments with useful facts and documents, than we can change something if there is something to change.

Zeke Wolff

16-10-2008, 19:47

The gun's tremendous performance enabled Nashorn to engage enemy tanks while they still were out of range themselves.
This little sentence doesn't mean there is no tank on the field that could do so. Try to engage a Nashorn with a simple Sherman.

The Nashorn was capable of knocking out enemy tanks from ranges more than 2,000 meters away, but this isnt the same thing as to say that it couldnt itself be knocked out from the same distance (even if most Allied and Russian tanks guns sucked at that range when it comes to penetration and chance of hitting a target). The Nashorn had 30mm "thick" armor on the front lower hull and 15-20mm on the rest of the lower hull. The upper structure had 10mm thick armor overall, meaning that the tiniest AT shell could penetrate its armor. To use the Nashorn effectively, you must fire one shell at a target, and then get away faster than the enemy can fire back (if the target is still alive). This is the way the Nashorns (and most tank destroyers, if not all) was used during the war and thus, if you want to keep it alive, you must use the same tactic.

So if Devs paid closer attention to historic details there'd be much more use for AT-tanks. I'm myself always pondering the choice between say, Jagdpanther and a Tiger. They cost about the same but Tiger can take more hurt and it can cause twice the havoc, it also does similar damage to similar range. And battle tanks need no spotters, AT-tanks do, otherwise they just get buttsexed the moment they reveal themselves.
What do you want us to do? The gun values are based on historical values and no the Tiger doesn't do almost the same damage as the Jagdpanther does, you may want to check that up?

The Jagdpanthers gun was much more powerful than the 88mm KwK56 as carried by the Tiger I, even the smaller caliber 75mm L/70 gun carried by the Panther medium tanks was more powerful than the Tiger I´s main gun.
"And battle tanks need no spotters, AT-tanks do..." make no sence... All combat vehicles needs to have spotters otherwise they wont know a thing about the battlefield condition etc. Try send out a Panther into a Russian held territory without any spotters, and I promise you that you will lose your precious Panther tank in no time to a flanking T34...

That's from Achtungpanzer, Pershing had sloped 110mm front armor. So it should be able to destroy all but the heaviest tanks in couple of shots from range that the target vehicle wouldn't have the slightest idea where it's coming from.
You will understand that we can't change a gun according to two sentences written somewhere on the web giving us almost zero information, how much mm can the Jagdtiger actually penetrate, on what ranges, with what ammo and so on. You put a lot of assuming in your post, not to say only assuming. Cover your arguments with useful facts and documents, than we can change something if there is something to change.

Well, AchtungPanzer.com is quite trustworthy, its a website run by a WWII book author (he isnt the only one maintaining the site though)... but a Nashorn could kill a Pershing thats a fact, the only M26 Pershing that was a total loss during the war, was penetrated frontally by a 88mm round fired from a Nashorn at less than 800 meters away but this isnt the same thing as to say that it could kill a Pershing each time. Tiger I´s has been known to knock out a T34 at a range of 3,900 meters and a Panther once knocked out a T34 at a amazing range of no less than 7,224 metres! Should the dev´s change the guns capabilites after these one time lucky shots, or should they rely on available data found in books? I know which I prefer...

~Zeke.

wvb

17-10-2008, 00:23

Let me quote Wikipedia for starters: [quote]Nashorn's gun was one of the most effective anti-tank guns deployed during the war. Its tungsten carbide–cored sub-calibre round, Pzgr. 40/43, was capable of penetrating 190 mm of rolled steel armour at a 30° angle of impact at a distance of 1,000 m. The gun's tremendous performance enabled Nashorn to engage enemy tanks while they still were out of range themselves.
So how is it possible that I had a Sherman Firefly, I think, knocking out my Nashorn from a range where I couldn't take him out first? What is the purpose of AT-tanks if I can't use them so that the enemy can't retaliate? Isn't that the whole point of AT-tanks? They can fire effectively at range that no all-purpose tank can match, which sadly doesn't happen.
They aren't too mobile, mostly lightly armored, and have a high profile. Isn't that enough of a drawback to give them more penetration than they have now, respectively for each model of course.

It's highly annoying that I had a british tank (the one after Firefly, Centurion I think) knock out my Jagdtiger from around 120-140m with a shot on the side of my tank, and it pierced my hull. How the hell is that even possible?!? I couldn't land an effective shot on him yet he took me out. Screw lucky shots!

Allthough it's a fair trade for 4 of their tanks that I took out with relative ease because their shots just bounced off my front armor but that's Jagdtiger for you! However, it was my last trump card and the enemy was out of reinforcements as well, we could've won the game with my one Jagdtiger because they had nothing else to throw at me but some petty infantry and that tank which destroyed my tank and a calliope.

So if Devs paid closer attention to historic details there'd be much more use for AT-tanks. I'm myself always pondering the choice between say, Jagdpanther and a Tiger. They cost about the same but Tiger can take more hurt and it can cause twice the havoc, it also does similar damage to similar range. And battle tanks need no spotters, AT-tanks do, otherwise they just get buttsexed the moment they reveal themselves.

TLDR: Screw lucky shots, if I'm firing my trump-card Jagdtiger/Nashorn I don't want it to be destroyable by any other tank than another AT-tank or arty, they deserve more range and more effective guns than normal tanks. They should be flanked and not sniped from the distance by hoping a lucky shot might happen because he can't hit you either.

Some about the performance Jagdtiger's gun should have:
In the Summer of 1945, US Army tested captured Jagdtiger, which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters.
That's from Achtungpanzer, Pershing had sloped 110mm front armor. So it should be able to destroy all but the heaviest tanks in couple of shots from range that the target vehicle wouldn't have the slightest idea where it's coming from.[/quote:27pthjdg]

Calm down.

You know what happened? You had a bad game.

Have you seen a Katyusha blowing up 2 King Tigers with one launch? I did it. Believe me. They're togheter, of course, and they both blowed up in fire.

The game is like it is. If you have a .50cal MG you will be able to blow up all the light vehicles of the game (like Puma, Sdkfz, BA-11, M8 Greyhound, etc).

Other example: the artillery range has been reduced ridiculously. Now a SU-152 only can shot at 150 game meters.

MonkEsquire

17-10-2008, 07:46

150m ingame is 3000m in RL if I recall, and yeah AT tanks are ridiculously ****ty at any range than up close. the shells just lose so much penetration and power over that distance that it's worthless to even bother trying to attack at long range with them. You have to get up close and personal which is a pretty big waste of time if the other team even has a single brain cell between them.

Don't even get me ****ing started on how overpowered the russians are either :)

Zebah (szebus)

17-10-2008, 08:42

Hehe, I guess I got lucky... have destroyed with 2 US M5 artys (about 4 AP shots each) a Tiger witch was out of range :twisted:

MonkEsquire

17-10-2008, 09:59

Why would you attack ATguns with AP shells? you can snipe every single AT gun in the game from out of their range with the HE shell and either decrew it or instantly kill the gun in 1 shot if the tank shell is big enough.

wvb

17-10-2008, 14:53

150m ingame is 3000m in RL

ISU-152s were often used for preparatory bombardments. The gun's maximum range was nearly thirteen kilometres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152

MonkEsquire

17-10-2008, 17:03

Soo what, you want the russians to be even more overpowered by being able to hit anything over the entire map?

pelitys

17-10-2008, 19:40

What do you want us to do? The gun values are based on historical values and no the Tiger doesn't do almost the same damage as the Jagdpanther does, you may want to check that up?

Well I did exaggerate a bit there but it is still quite a minor difference imho, because heavy tanks like Tigers can get closer, which negates the difference in AP-power over a distance.

What I'd possibly like to see is reducing the range on tanks and increasing it on those "armored AT-platforms" (since the maps can't be scaled to be bigger instead), so that they have a function that's different from tanks. For example in Bazerville map: There are vast fields that are empty, I could have an AT-tank camping behind the hedgerow and with the help of couple well placed spotters I could take out tanks heavier than T34 from a range (the other side of the field and farther) where they couldn't shoot me back unless I missed few times in a row so they could close distance and finish me off instead. AT-tanks ftw because they can't be sniped with HE except for Nashorn maybe ;) Just AT-guns are too vulnerable to tanks they can't one-two shot.

At the moment it's quite opposite from the tactic Americans used against hidden Tigers: They had a column of 4 Shermans, when one of them got shot the rest tried to locate and flank the Tiger while it was reloading, and sometimes one remaining Sherman could just about reach the Tiger to place an effective shot on it. In MoW people just turn their tanks and deal with me just by staying still and duking it out. Not good. Hell, like a poster above said AT-tanks were quite rare and they should deserve to be good to justify their rarity, and price. I don't mind changing the price of Jagdpanther, Hetzer or Nashorn to a heftier one because then enemy would have consider the possibility of such a tank waiting for them. And not just rush in and hope to just "deal" with it up-front.

Also on the River map, lack of good AT power except for lame artillery hurts. Germans vs. Russians is a no-brainer, Germans wait it out until they can afford King tigers and then they just camp in the trees at the ridge for targets. The best Russian AT-tank Su100 can't out-shoot them and it can't out-armor them either, so by trying take out German Jagdtigers you only contribute to their score. I haven't experienced with Su152 but it seems too clumsy to do any better than Su100 (they still need to be too close to penetrate anything with their huge AP-shells, and the result is obvious). But that's understandable because they obviously didn't need to deal with King tigers that often, it's different in-game however. Everybody got big tanks. That's why either it should be encouraged to use medium tanks like T34 against which current AT-tanks are just perfect, or scale AT-tanks to be better against heavy armor, because like I said before, there weren't as many heavy tanks present like in the game, which makes AT-tanks, that rarely had to face heavy tanks, underpowered. And if AT-tanks kill medium tanks in one shot anyway, it doesn't matter if they are more powerful but can't shoot any farther.

To sum it up, for the sake of game dynamics, I think of this like:

1. Tanks got more armor and weaker gun, AT-tanks got the opposite, thus:
2. AT-tanks own tanks at their maximum range, but if the tank was closer it can shoot back and kill it's nemesis (Gun power and armor balance each other out but lets forget that)
3. Now AT-tanks have a real purpose. Flank them or hope they don't have any forward spotters so it can fire on you from where you can't retaliate. Also they will now take out heavy tanks that are camping because nothing else but artillery can currently smoke them out. Because heavy tanks will now be made quite obsolete by AT-tanks countering them, it would be wiser to spam lighter tanks (like realistically happened) to overwhelm the AT-tank and take a shot at it's rear/sides. Heavy tanks still retain their purpose if the opposition doesn't have any big caliber AT-power.

Or something :insane:

xt828

18-10-2008, 03:13

I think the game is more balanced towards king of the hill and control area than combat. The former two mean that you can't just endlessly screw around waiting for the tanks of awesome. Most combats I've been in have ended up with KTs vs IS-3s up and down the line. Both tanks are relatively rarer in battle zones, and quite rare in flag.

Latdonine

18-10-2008, 18:12

To sum it up, for the sake of game dynamics, I think of this like:

1. Tanks got more armor and weaker gun, AT-tanks got the opposite, thus:
2. AT-tanks own tanks at their maximum range, but if the tank was closer it can shoot back and kill it's nemesis (Gun power and armor balance each other out but lets forget that)
3. Now AT-tanks have a real purpose. Flank them or hope they don't have any forward spotters so it can fire on you from where you can't retaliate. Also they will now take out heavy tanks that are camping because nothing else but artillery can currently smoke them out. Because heavy tanks will now be made quite obsolete by AT-tanks countering them, it would be wiser to spam lighter tanks (like realistically happened) to overwhelm the AT-tank and take a shot at it's rear/sides. Heavy tanks still retain their purpose if the opposition doesn't have any big caliber AT-power.

Or something :insane:

I'd say no to these suggestions. The game has realism on the guns and armour so doing those changes it would really ruin the realism on the game. Better way to balance the game is to adjust the prices of tanks and other stuff. :typing:

Flanker15

25-10-2008, 10:41

Since you can't change the realistic values for guns and armor you'll need to balance them other ways:

Stealth: The low hull means they are hard to spot when in cover so you could make them much harder to see if you hid them in bushes/cover.
Cost: Tank hunters are much cheaper to build than their tank equivilant so they should be cheaper in game.
In the example given in the origonal post both AFVs should be able to kill each other in one hit did you miss the FF or did he shoot first? Things like a Jagdpanther should be able to chew through regular Shermans, if a bunch of them appeared in front of one it should be able to knock the all out before the Shermans get in range to hurt the Jagdpanther (does this happen in the game now?).

pelitys

25-10-2008, 19:55

.
In the example given in the origonal post both AFVs should be able to kill each other in one hit did you miss the FF or did he shoot first?
I got a couple of shots on the firefly but they just bounced off, doing no damage whatsoever.

Latdonine

26-10-2008, 18:58

pelitys

30-10-2008, 15:48

madgelo

30-10-2008, 20:15

Mad Cat

30-10-2008, 20:20

Let me quote Wikipedia for starters:...

No offense, but seriously...
http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/2998/wikifacts1wk1.jpg

Doink9731

31-10-2008, 01:45

Thank god. Someone else who understands that laws of physics warp and improve the performance of the weapons when the letters AT were added to them.

:pang:

All the historic detail and developer support in the world won't fix stupid.

Flanker15

31-10-2008, 11:33

They bounced off!?
No No No that can't be right the 88mm L/71 Pak43 is one of (if not) the most powerful AT guns used widly WW2, better than any other wide use AT gun used by the Germans or Allies (cept maybe the IS-2's gun). You should be able to slice something with such week armor like a Sherman apart in one hit, heck you should be able to shoot through several Shermans with one shell.
Penertration values need to be investigated.
The 88mm L/71 has .2meters (lol 2 meters, time to go back to maths class!) of penertration at 1.4km, 90o angle.
For comparison the 17pnd on the Firefly and the 90mm on the M26 has only have about .175meters,
while the Tiger 1's 88mm L/56 gun only has .125meters.
Even if you hit a Firefly at a very steep angle on its strongest armor you'd still penertrate.

s.pz.abt.503

31-10-2008, 12:04

Everybody...but everybody want to german tanks to be invulnerable. Topics or replies on topics like " How it is posible to my Kingtiger or Tiger or Nashorn , etc. to be knoked out by a ....." of course allied tanks, it is sound like an ignorance thing.
I want to see just one time somthing like "How it happend to my Archer couldn't take out a Tiger from 40m in game ?".
German tanks are far to be invulnerable if you know how to defeat them, but if you don't know...well it is true u are a "sitting duck". The best army in the Men of War game it is not german army or soviet, or....it is the Player it self.
The developers do a great job by now.

Hartmann

31-10-2008, 12:42

They bounced off!?
No No No that can't be right the 88mm L/71 Pak43 is one of (if not) the most powerful AT guns used widly WW2, better than any other wide use AT gun used by the Germans or Allies (cept maybe the IS-2's gun). You should be able to slice something with such week armor like a Sherman apart in one hit, heck you should be able to shoot through several Shermans with one shell.
Penertration values need to be investigated.
The 88mm L/71 has 2meters (yes meters) of penertration at 1.4km, 90o angle.
For comparison the 17pnd on the Firefly and the 90mm on the M26 has only have about 1.75meters,
while the Tiger 1's 88mm L/56 gun only has 1.25meters.
Even if you hit a Firefly at a very steep angle on its strongest armor you'd still penertrate.

lol

Zeke Wolff

31-10-2008, 15:27

The 88mm L/71 has 2meters (yes meters) of penertration at 1.4km, 90o angle.

:huh: Where did you find this information?? The 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 could penetrate (with Pzgr39-1) 203 MM of armor angled 30 degrees from vertical at 100 metres... so I find it quite hard to believe that it could actually penetrate 2000 MM at a range of 1.4 kilometres... The much superior, and much rare, Pzgr40-43 could penetrate 237 MM of armor angled at 30 degrees from vertical at a range of 100 metres... You better check your sources again and be sure that you read the data correctly... :confused:

~Zeke.

Flanker15

31-10-2008, 18:13

Whoops forgot my maths 200mm is .2meters not 2. Just move the decimal point left one number on all the stats. So it has 200mm at 30o not 90o, that's even better than I thought.
Also I don't want the German tanks to be invulnerable, it's a Nashorn it has no real armor anyway. What I was concerned about was a Sherman IVc being hit by a Pak 43 shot and it bouncing off, for that to work you'd have to hit it at an incredibly flat angle so the shell skims off the tank.

Kettenhund

05-11-2008, 09:32

Nice discussion here, but all people here must remember that this game will not be historical correct!
It can´t be historical correct. The developers change their way to put out a balanced game with less historical correctness. Some point´s to think about:

1.) The maps are to small to have realistic conditions
2.) The shooting range are also to small and not in a proportional scaling degree
3.) HE rounds have to much influence of tank vs. tank combat and are terrible overpowered
4.) The hit-point-system is still in there, and in real live no armour plate have a hit-point reservoir
5.) On map the money and buying system does not have historical correct year dates. You can buy all stuff totally mixed-up.
6.) Penetration dates are totally incorrect for most of the weapons
7.) Armour values also incorrect, and the behaviour of amour unintelligible
8.) Artillery is totally wrong mutated to tank hunters/killers
9.) Very important german stuff lacks, also the variation of german armour left out. Russian nation have even or more tank variation as the german nation in game.
10.) Many tank models are not correct
11.) Paint schemes for german tanks are made from modellers fantasy
12.) No ammunation variations
13.) Behaviour of german anti tank infantry weapons like Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust and it´s damage deal to russian or allied big tanks

I m sure you will find much more indications. But i have to say that historical correctness and realism must not be FUN for all, especially for the russian nation and their heavy looses on material and human resources. Realism is realism... there is nothing to compromise. And for me i want realism... This include the german surrender also as a fact.

pelitys

05-11-2008, 16:46

Also I don't want the German tanks to be invulnerable, it's a Nashorn it has no real armor anyway. What I was concerned about was a Sherman IVc being hit by a Pak 43 shot and it bouncing off, for that to work you'd have to hit it at an incredibly flat angle so the shell skims off the tank.
Exactly, I don't care if my Nashorn is a shopping trolley with a big gun fixed to it with duct tape as long as it can withstand small arms fire or HE shells and take out enemy tanks from a range they can't take me out from.. If I can't see them, they can slip into close range and take a shot at me, I'm toast. Knowing the mobility of a Nashorn you really don't expect to do any hit&run with it, do you? If you want to do that, choose USA and micro your Sluggers to victory.

Migalex

25-11-2008, 20:07

Every body says that this game has to small maps for big ranges, the truth is, i made a small mod for russian mp beta with ranges up to 400 (200m was 1000m in real, 400 was 2000) And it worked fine, i increased also field of view and stuff and was so so so cool be able to kill tanks from very far, i also taked german penetration data from achtung panzer and for allied and russian from other pages, and what happened is that jagdpanther from example could kill a sherman up to 400, dont hurry, since you cant view the enemy from point to point, and the shots were more inaccurated, it was not over for shermans.
The gane looked like other game, ask rafo...

Zebah (szebus)

26-11-2008, 17:20

TTorpedo

26-11-2008, 19:33

I´m in the realism wagon.
For me is fun:
Not knowing where the well did that shot come from!
Not even thinking of moving my heavy's before sending infantry to spot the surrounding. knowing that urban areas are off limits for my Armour, prior to any infantry house to house search or heavy arty leveling bombardment.
Hunt down the whereabouts of that pesky AT-gun all the way across the map
lay cover fire on a house with a team before tempting an assault with another just to find out it was empty
Loose a Tiger and feeling that it matters
play hide and seek for 5 minutes before any exchange of shoots
Having an AT ambushed the all game just to see it knocking the spearhead of an enemy advance..
or just see the crew bailing out to live another day
etc

Anyone that played Close Combat knows what i´m talking
This engine is different and not build for a simulation experience but can also be excellent in is on way.

PS: Kettenhund, Looking forward to SOE2

Rafo

27-11-2008, 04:01

Theatre of War + MoW MP buying system + direct control = prefect game...

^^ that would be my dream...

... was so so so cool be able to kill tanks from very far ... And it is so so so not cool if you play with the Allies and your tanks don't stand a chance agains the enemy ? :huh: Have you tried beeing with the small ones ? :toast:

Was it cool either way when US tank crews in ww2 that served in shermans were owned by a tiger with one shot from a mile away and their guns couldnt fire back because they were outta range? They had to flank and use speed plus good number of tanks to kill one tiger... and u can do that in mow with sluggers and hellcats by flanking and shooting at the side.

Mad Cat

27-11-2008, 04:14

... was so so so cool be able to kill tanks from very far ... And it is so so so not cool if you play with the Allies and your tanks don't stand a chance agains the enemy ? :huh: Have you tried beeing with the small ones ? :toast:

Yeah, but that's what modding is for. There's no need for people to cry about authenticity in a game when they have the ability to mod it to their liking. I love it when there is authenticity in a game. It forces one to actually use tactics instead of trying to go head to head against a superior design or enemy. I ain't popping my tank out in front of an enemy that can pop it to pieces in one shot. Shermans were forced to use the terrain to their advantage instead of standing off and slugging it out with enemy tanks. Lay some hills and cover on the map after tweaking the armor and ranges and there you go, a decent realism factor. Allied commanders had better make efficient use of the map or be destroyed outright.

TTorpedo

27-11-2008, 12:12

Agreed.
Besides numbers, Trow in some Air assets to the allies ( at list recon planes) to level the ods, Germany in 1944 Is the underdog.
Thats what makes the north African scenario so interesting, the contenders are more less leveled material quality wise, maybe a 1942 option can be reintroduced for MoW´s MP.