not a big fan of the current penetration Vs range setup.

[baron]

To me the current scale doesn't feel right.
For example take tiger Vs slugger.
it doesn't feel right that they both go from not being able to fire at each other [max range +1 meter] to bother being able to kill each other [max range -1 meter] in a fraction of a second of movement.

there should be a point where bother can shoot at each other without a chance for front hull penetration, to where one can maybe penetrate the other to them both having a chance to penetrate.

this goes for all tanks, if each was to face itself, there should be a point where they can fire at each other but not penetrate, otherwise you might as well just use the lightly armoured tank destroyers with the big guns all the time, considering that a tank of equal cost is no more safe then the TD.

also having the AT guns being so superior that it takes artillery to defeat them means that there is currently no point to having arty off, IMO.
particularly if you're playing as USA which has no heavy AA gun like the 88 or 3.7" which just totally blow tanks away, even the T29 is easily defeated by the 88 and 3.7" from what I've seen in my testing.
it is compounded by the new short range of HE shells.

HE shells should have the same range at AT shells generally speaking.
if that impacts on the survivability of AT guns, then alter the visibility of AT guns and/or give AT guns better emplacements since sandbags are essentially useless.
I'd give the AT guns a dug-in with dirt berm in front that just allows the gun to shoot over it instead of sandbags.

that way the gun would have more protection and people would have to shoot blind at it unless its fairly close.

just my thoughts on it anyway.

[[OoO]No.Mam]

there should be a point where bother can shoot at each other without a chance for front hull penetration, to where one can maybe penetrate the other to them both having a chance to penetrate.

i agree. i think this is the major reason why MoW:AS has lost all tactical gameplay.
max. range = 100% front hull penetration -> no tactical gameplay. :sad2:

[Hartmann]

I disagree.

I think you are still to much in the mindset of the vanilla game. Expensive tank slugfests are now such a small part of the game, while in vanilla that was pretty much all the whole game was about.

If I play I use primarily light tanks and plenty of infantry, perhaps supported by a tank destroyer if necessary. And playing like that I am absolutely not bothered by higher penetration tables. Quite the contrary actually, the new tables make EVERY tank useful right up to the end of the game. The only reason you would use light tanks in vanilla after the first five minutes are suicide rushes, attempting to take out that expensive tank.

Who buys Stuarts or Chaffees in vanilla, if they stand absolutely 0 chance against medium tanks? Hell, why would you even buy a Sherman? It doesn't have the speed to flank, and it's useless as soon as PIV-H enters the field. T34-76? Don't make me laugh. Don't you see that as the game progressed past 10 minutes, the useful vehicles got reduced to just 2 types?

1: The fast flanking vehicles, capable of flanking supertanks.
2: The supertanks, countering every other vehicle except fast flanking vehicles.

The game has changed from simply 'one upping' the enemy: "You bought a Tiger? Hah, I'll just buy an IS2". "Well you buy an IS2, I just buy a Kingtiger to have a 99% guaranteed counter to your IS2"

You can't deny that that was what vanilla was about, and there is absolutely nothing tactical about it.

[[OoO]No.Mam]

in vanilla y must know each strengths and weaknesses from units in same category (i dont speak about eg. IS-2 vs. PzIV).
eg. sherman vs. pzIV:
sherman -> better armor -> worse canon
pzIV -> worse armor -> better canon
with sherman i cant penetrate hull from pzIV on max. range -> but i can penetrate turet. -> these knowledge makes the game "tactical".

in MoW:AS i dont need this informations about strengths and weaknesses, because i can penetrate each tank (same category!!!) on max. range frontal with 100% hull destroy.
same with light vs. light / medium vs. medium / heavy vs. heavy units.

[Instinct]

it doesn't feel right that they both go from not being able to fire at each other [max range +1 meter] to bother being able to kill each other [max range -1 meter] in a fraction of a second of movement.
Why does it than feel right to kill at-guns this way? Move to max range, move in slightly and fire, move back and be out of range of the enemy at-gun, continue until at-gun is dead. Not even a concrete bunker will help there.

A T-29 has 178mm front armor and a Flak37 a max penetration range of 125mm, thus it can't harm a T-29 on any distance frontally. A 3.7 inch has 140mm on 160m max range.

A Tiger has max distance of 160m while a Slugger has 150m (which is a bug though), thus comparing them in that sense isn't really working. However a Tiger can't penetrate a Sluggers front armor on 160m, nor on 150m, slightly below it may do so after 1-2 hits.

The logic that a tank shouldn't be capable of destroying itself on max range, really doesn't work out at all. A Slugger has the same gun as a Pershing, would you want to make fantasy weapons for each tank? Or the most extreme example, a Nashorn... one of the most powerful guns being incapable of destroying a paper tank on max range?


However, we are currently experimenting with increase of firing distances and increase of penetration drop down above 100m.

[Instinct]

in MoW:AS i dont need this informations about strengths and weaknesses, because i can penetrate each tank (same category!!!) on max. range frontal with 100% hull destroy.
Can you display this? Because I don't see that happening.

i.e.
PZ3 vs M4A1
P4G vs M4A1
P4G vs M4A2
PZ4H vs M4A2 etc.

[Hartmann]

No.Mam]in vanilla y must know each strengths and weaknesses from units in same category (i dont speak about eg. IS-2 vs. PzIV).
eg. sherman vs. pzIV:
sherman -> better armor -> worse canon
pzIV -> worse armor -> better canon
with sherman i cant penetrate hull from pzIV on max. range -> but i can penetrate turet. -> these knowledge makes the game "tactical".

in MoW:AS i dont need this informations about strengths and weaknesses, because i can penetrate each tank (same category!!!) on max. range frontal with 100% hull destroy.
same with light vs. light / medium vs. medium / heavy vs. heavy units.

How do you not need this information in AS? For the vast majority of the tanks (light and medium) it is still very important to know their strengths and weaknesses. Saying that it is now irrelevant is simply nonsense.

You are making a bigger deal out of it then it really is. As I said, those expensive tank slugfests are so much rarer now that winning or losing them is not critical to who wins the game.

Don't you agree that it is a good thing to make all light and medium tanks useful throughout the entire game? Even if it is at the expense of people who like to dominate everything with their supertanks? You say you're not talking about situations like IS2 versus PIV, but I think these kind of situations show exactly what is wrong with vanilla. What could possibly be the point of having a medium tank when the opponent has a supertank? What is the point of having a light tank when the enemy has a medium tank?

[[OoO]No.Mam]

some screenshots:

pzIVg vs m4a1: max range -> killed

pzIVg vs. m4a2: max range -10m -> killed

pzIVg vs T34: max range -5m -> killed

m4a2 vs pzIVg: max range -5m -> killed

pzIVh vs m4a1: max range -> killed

pzIVh vs. m4a2: max range -20m -> killed
....

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/3155/pzivgsherman11.th.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/i/pzivgsherman11.jpg/)http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/4965/pzivgsherman12.th.jpg (http://img267.imageshack.us/i/pzivgsherman12.jpg/)
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/5347/pzivgsherman21.th.jpg (http://img267.imageshack.us/i/pzivgsherman21.jpg/)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/702/pzivgsherman22.th.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/i/pzivgsherman22.jpg/)
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/914/pzivgt341.th.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/i/pzivgt341.jpg/)http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/552/pzivgt342.th.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/i/pzivgt342.jpg/)
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/110/pzivhsherman11.th.jpg (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/pzivhsherman11.jpg/)http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/7696/pzivhsherman12.th.jpg (http://img16.imageshack.us/i/pzivhsherman12.jpg/)
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4710/sherman2pzivg1.th.jpg (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/sherman2pzivg1.jpg/)http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5195/sherman2pzivg2.th.jpg (http://img412.imageshack.us/i/sherman2pzivg2.jpg/)

i speak only about tankfights with equivalent units.
i think the difference (ingame meters) between 100% hull destroy (penetration) range and max. gun range is a bit to small. this small difference dont allow me to knock out enemy step by step (1. turet -> 2nd. chains -> 3rd. flanking) with equivalent units.

[w00t]

The logic that a tank shouldn't be capable of destroying itself on max range, really doesn't work out at all. A Slugger has the same gun as a Pershing, would you want to make fantasy weapons for each tank? Or the most extreme example, a Nashorn... one of the most powerful guns being incapable of destroying a paper tank on max range?
well, since the 8,8 cm flak gun was too heavy and immobile for russian roads a quick solution was needed..
so nashorn was built and as interim solution. it's lack of armor was compensated with excellent gun which could engage enemy at long distances, and wasn't meant for close action. i don't see the logic behind it to make every tank act like that.
since i think that no drastic changes in penetration will be made, at least consider to make the aim taking more time to focus at max range on guns. and i still don't like that a flak 37 combined with a carrier is more mobile than most of the tanks, because mounting will take only 1 sec.

[pedro0930]

I still feel the nonlinear distance vs penetration is better. Yes, it can use some adjustment so tank destroyer like the nashorn would be very potent against tanks like M4A2 and T34/85.

I've seen many instances where nashorn is destroyed by counter fire from M4A1, at exactly 130 range, and while the nashorn user shouldn't have gotten that close in the first place, it just goes to show even with the most powerful gun in-game, a mere 21 points tank could still survive hits at such range and even return fire to kill the nash.

At this rate we shall soon see army of armored cars towing AT guns of various classes as the main armored fighting force.

[Hartmann]

I still feel the nonlinear distance vs penetration is better. Yes, it can use some adjustment so tank destroyer like the nashorn would be very potent against tanks like M4A2 and T34/85.

I've seen many instances where nashorn is destroyed by counter fire from M4A1, at exactly 130 range, and while the nashorn user shouldn't have gotten that close in the first place, it just goes to show even with the most powerful gun in-game, a mere 21 points tank could still survive hits at such range and even return fire to kill the nash.

At this rate we shall soon see army of armored cars towing AT guns of various classes as the main armored fighting force.


Ok honestly, how many games of AS have you played?

[baron]

Why does it than feel right to kill at-guns this way? Move to max range, move in slightly and fire, move back and be out of range of the enemy at-gun, continue until at-gun is dead. Not even a concrete bunker will help there.

it doesn't, the ranges should drop off naturally, based on real max ranges [not just effective ranges, could fire a non-fused HE round much further then the effective range of the AT rounds, but the problem is that AT guns are too easily spotted and the HE shots are still too accurate at max range, they shouldn't have crazy dispersion but they also should not be pin-point accurate.
if the AT guns didn't become visible 1km+ away as soon as they fire then they'd live longer. [combat mission for example gave only an approximate location based on sound at long ranges, it would display a generic AT/artillery icon and say 'sound contact']



A T-29 has 178mm front armor and a Flak37 a max penetration range of 125mm, thus it can't harm a T-29 on any distance frontally. A 3.7 inch has 140mm on 160m max range.

the T-29 only has 178 on the turret, 102 on the hull, yes it has a good slope, but I've tested it in-game, its possible to get front hull penetration, maybe that is a bug? like when the pak 40 sometimes gets a front penetration on the pershing?.
T29 Vs T29 has green penetration on lower front hull at 169.9m also, so it is totally useless Vs anything with a KWK-43 [except nashhorn which comes down to luck of who hits first in the right spot] too since KWK43 has even better penetration then the t29's 105mm, at best you might get lucky on a jagdpanther, but the 105mm isn't as accurate as the kwk 43.


A Tiger has max distance of 160m while a Slugger has 150m (which is a bug though), thus comparing them in that sense isn't really working. However a Tiger can't penetrate a Sluggers front armor on 160m, nor on 150m, slightly below it may do so after 1-2 hits.

the slugger is bugged then because even the sherman 76W can penetrate the slugger for hull crush/destroy at max range.
aim for the angled surface where the star is on the front.
the sherman M4A1 can penetrate the slugger front on at 30 [green] and 50 [yellow] so its acting like it has less then 72mm of armour or something like that.



The logic that a tank shouldn't be capable of destroying itself on max range, really doesn't work out at all. A Slugger has the same gun as a Pershing, would you want to make fantasy weapons for each tank? Or the most extreme example, a Nashorn... one of the most powerful guns being incapable of destroying a paper tank on max range?

First, the nashorn is not really a tank, when I say tank I mean something that is supposed to be able to take a hit, even .50 cal should be able to defeat the nashorn at close enough range.

but when you compare real tanks, mostly there should be a range that they can shoot at that they can not kill each other at.

else there is no point is spawning them, might as well just spawn a tank hunter/destroyer if real tanks die just as easily.




However, we are currently experimenting with increase of firing distances and increase of penetration drop down above 100m.

that would be better, since currently all but the heaviest tanks have little point when [for example] the 3.7" gun in on the field, it can kill all American tanks at max range and most german tanks except the very heavy tanks like king tiger, jagdtiger, elephant .etc.


while I'm here I also think the .50cal is too nerfed as is the penetration of the twin bofors M19, my data says 69mm for AP shot on the M19 at point blank, not 58mm and 20mm at 200 yards for the .50cal browning.

for the USA 40mm bofors;
USA
HE Mark 1 Mods 1 to 24 - 1.985 lbs. (0.900 kg)
HE Mark 2 Mods 1 to 35 - 1.985 lbs. (0.900 kg)
AP M81A1 and M81A2 - 1.960 lbs. (0.889 kg)

Armor Penetration with 1.960 lbs. (0.889 kg) AP Shell
Estimated for "Class B" Homogeneous Armor


0 yards (0 m) 2.70" (69 mm)
2,000 yards (1,829 m) 1.20" (30 mm)
4,000 yards (3,658 m) 0.60" (15 mm)
6,000 yards (5,486 m) 0.45" (11 mm)

40mm bofors could still penetrate many german tanks side on at 1.5km+ technically.

so if the USA heavy tanks are going to be rubbish Vs the german and UK tanks [17lb can penetrate all USA tanks front on]
then at least their light vehicles guns should be as realistic as possible.
IMO

overall, I just want it to "feel" right while also being realistic.
yes a T-29 should have basically no chance to win Vs a KT front on, but the T-29 [if it remains in the game] still should not be instantly vulnerable the moment its in range, there should be the ability to resist shots while attempting to take a track off at max range .etc.

same goes for all the medium tanks.

personally I'd like to play with no super heavy tanks and no arty on some maps, but you need arty to take out many of the AT guns currently because most of the medium tanks are unable to effectively deal with them.

[Instinct]

it doesn't, the ranges should drop off naturally, based on real max ranges [not just effective ranges, could fire a non-fused HE round much further then the effective range of the AT rounds, but the problem is that AT guns are too easily spotted and the HE shots are still too accurate at max range, they shouldn't have crazy dispersion but they also should not be pin-point accurate.
The problem lies in the gameplay itself, we can't add realistic HE distances as there is nothing as indirect fire, you can perfectly see everything as a player and by the usage of direct control making it impossible for anyone to set up defences. What will it help the gameplay if you can shoot HE shells with huge inaccuracy on the spawnpoint of the enemy without exploiting your tank to any risk that would make it possible to counterattack it with anything besides howitzers, and even howitzers would be useless unless placed behind a hill. We don't have the size of maps, scale of ranges and realistic gameplay (no direct control) for it.



20mm at 200 yards for the .50cal browning.
Would be 18m in-game, I'll look into the bofors.

[baron]

The problem lies in the gameplay itself, we can't add realistic HE distances as there is nothing as indirect fire, you can perfectly see everything as a player and by the usage of direct control making it impossible for anyone to set up defences. What will it help the gameplay if you can shoot HE shells with huge inaccuracy on the spawnpoint of the enemy without exploiting your tank to any risk that would make it possible to counterattack it with anything besides howitzers, and even howitzers would be useless unless placed behind a hill. We don't have the size of maps, scale of ranges and realistic gameplay (no direct control) for it.

I agree, but I think there might be a way around this problem.
I was thinking about it and I recalled using 'target reference points' in Combat mission.
In that game they were used to increase the accuracy and decrease the time it took to call in off-board artillery.
perhaps we could use a similar soft of thing here but instead of accuracy and arty call in time, use it to extend the range of HE shots?
have officers [or maybe new unit called spotter? maybe a new use for the old scout? or maybe some spotting aircraft you could call in to drop target smoke on a location?] able to designate a target location once they have line of sight on it, allowing tanks and indirect fire artillery to fire HE rounds at that location for a period of time, maybe 30 seconds or 1 min, even if it is outside their normal HE range.
I'd say have only 1 target reference point in use at a time with perhaps a delay [maybe 4 mins?] before using the ability again by the same person.

I think that would get around the indiscriminate fire at long range problem, but also mean that AT guns can't totally dominate the field unable to be shot at without artillery unless the tanks get into a range where the AT gun can easily kill them too.




20mm at 200 yards for the .50cal browning.
Would be 18m in-game, I'll look into the bofors.

thanks.
I'm going to go and double check, but the .50 cal feels too weak currently.
I'll edit this post when I'm done testing it again.

edit: ok I used the maxim quad 50 to try and penetrate the rear armour of the chaffee, which is only supposed to be 19mm and includes a vertical plate.

it was red all the way to point blank, unable to even contuse the crew.
I was however able to contuse the crew from the side, though the armour is supposed to be thicker there.
no penetration though.

I was also unable to penetrate the engine cover from above with the .50 cal from either the M20, the M16 quad halftrack or the AA gun on the T29.
the top deck of the chaffee hull is only supposed to be 13mm.
should be able to rip through the engine vent area with a .50cal I think.

also of note is the single bofors AA gun has an armour penetration listed in-game of 43mm, I would have thought that if it is supplied with AP rounds [as the M19 was] the penetration would have been the same?

[Rince21]

I think a spotter is a good idea. Not as an extra unit, but officers, and squadleaders should be able to do that. Maybe add an operator to bigger teams, or give one of the mp guys less grenades, but a radio. If he or the officer has line of sight, you can mark one target, ground or unit. Artillery or tanks will have better accuracy, especially on long range. In every other case, lower the accuracy strongly, also for direct control.

Dont give the operator or officer a delay, just a limit of giving away one unit at a time. Thats probably the most realistic solution.

I also would like to have the rangelimit removed, drop the penetration over distance, drop the accuracy over distance, drop the bulletheight over distance, and by this give it a natural rangelimit. Combined with the spottersystem, even HE´s wont be too strong, because they will be a hell of inaccurate, especially if you dont have a spotter, and they cant shoot too far because they drop. This way you dont have this weird driving-in-and-out-of-range. And you have a goddamn spotter! An operator, how cool is that. Snipe away the operator, and the artillery wont be accurate. Nice. Maybe another teammember can take the operating device, like a gasoline tank, and use it.

Edit: You also can use the parabolic bullet drop for infantry. You can shoot with a rifle more far than its useful; but it should not be forbidden, just, not useful because you cannot hit anything. Also, if you cant see the enemy yourself, less accuracy. (Because you if you dont know where the enemy is, you just spray in the woods.)

Edit 2: Basic summary: Terrible accuracy for everything, except if the unit itself has direct sight or an officer or a radio operator looks at the target. Bullets should drop parabolic and no rangelimit for aiming.

[Rince21]

Most vehicles should also have a radio and the ability to spot. You could put an operator in every tank, which btw. would be realistic and awesome. Kill the operator -> no spotting. I would really like that. And you could have the tankcommander look out of the tank, just like an officer, or simply to heighten the radius of sight.

Problem with this I think will be the sniper, because he will be able to kill all the operators and officers and no one will be able to touch him except another sniper. Tanks and mortars without the spotting (because all the spotters are dead) wont be able to hit him on a regular basis. But thats only one unit, that can be taken care of later.

[ZEBCEB]

I must say I like the idea of a spotter.

Its how they did it, its how we do it, its how its done.

[w00t]

spotter sounds good, at least there should a penalty for using random soldiers as replacement of regular tank crew or using captured equipment in a form on lesser accuracy, smaller view field or longer reload times.