Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Forgotten Hope 2 => Community Polls => Topic started by: THeTA0123 on 06-07-2010, 19:07:11
-
Ok guys. Normally i promised i shouldnt be posting for 3 days, but here is a matter i want to bring up and get it over with.
Last days, i suddently see alot of people complaining about the balance. Normally when they bring up good reasons i would love to support them in it(Like the the current desert tank balances aka allied tanks rape panzers) but the last days i have seen people complaining about the panzers in normandy being so called....underpowerd. And the entire german army in FH2 underpowerd
Not only ingame, but on the forums aswel. A few example's=
1.Tiger is no better then the panther.
2.Panthers shouldnt die one shot from the sides by the 75mm gun and 6pdr
3.17PDR shouldnt penetrate the frontal armor of panthers/tiger
4.German tanks shouldnt die in one shot from allied AT weapons (PZIV and STUG)
5.Faust should one shot shermans
6.G43 should be not limited and more present (Clearly explained in forums that
And more of these things. First i think that they must be joking, but they arent. I see alot of these guys shooting 4 tanks in their life with their Panzer, they die, and they then complain about Panzers being severly underpowerd. No kidding.
So let us make a little poll about it, Are the germans TRULY underpowerd?Is FH2 unbalanced?
I honestly think, that next to the NA balance, FH2 2.26 is one of the best balanced releases. The amount of maps wich are biased to one team have been reduced to 2(Mersa for germans, Aberdeen for allies).
About the people whining about german tanks being underpowerd they forget these things=
1.Shermans could kill PZIVs and STUGS frontally(Ingame this is not)
2.Shermans Easily penetrated the Panthers side armor and resulted in 80% of all cases a kill (Ingame it is 2 shots for the large side armor areas, and 1 shot for the tracks)
3.Not all panzers had shurzen.
4.In Normandy, the tank ratios of allied vs Germans is rarely 2:1 mostly 1.5:1. When In the normandy campaign it was 6:1
5.The player numbers are 32 vs 32. This is normal and it should be, but remeber that the allies had much more manpower, yet the ingame vehicles of the allies are just as strong as they where IRL
RULES=
-When you vote, state a short reason what you think of the balance.
-You can discuss things a bit, but dont start a flamewar and before you say something, make sure that it is based on actual facts not things you hear/see on a documentary (Like STG44's in normandy, most people know they where very rare)
-2 votes per person, as their are multiple choises
My vote is simple= FH2.26 is well balanced to acceptable levels.
Note=No flaming whatsoever, dont break the rules. I will lock the thread the moment this starts, flippy and the other mods can also lock it anytime it starts or remove it if it goes out of hand.
I want a normal discussion here guys. Not an allied bias vs Axis bias thread. I want to see this fanboyism on both sides go down because i seen some crazy people suggesting crazy things and whining when they dont get it (like that one guy on 762 wich wanted the pershing, and called us all fucktards because we said to him it couldnt be used)
-
I voted for both that the maps are unbalanced and that both armies are unbalanced.
I did this because balance is on a map by map basis and clearly there are some maps that are not balanced, but also there are some things that are FUBAR for both teams.
-
Panther should stand more shots to it's side, Faust should one shot shermans, Panther is better than Tiger -> Germans are underpowered
Btw, are the 3 days over already?
-
Panther should stand more shots to it's side, Faust should one shot shermans, Panther is better than Tiger -> Germans are underpowered
Btw, are the 3 days over already?
It was actually for the update that was supposed to came Friday, but since Azreal went AWOL ;)
i dint said i would be gone 3 days for Sundays update if it dint included the jagdpanther.
-
I'd say units are mostly quite fine. But on some normandy and almost all african maps, we got some balance issues. I'd love to see africa balanced and well playable once again.
-
I DON'T LIKE BALANCE. I LIKE HISTORICAL ACCURACY.
What do I vote for?
-
Most of the mod is balanced. But just like Ajappat said, some African maps might need some balancing.
-
It could use a tweak here and there *cough*returning the power of Geballte Ladung to be able to 1s1k Sherman like in 2.15*cough* but I find the mod mostly balanced.
-
"Balance" kinda sucks. Why not paint the models red and blue and make it a "Blue vs Red army" tm game and give everybody the same load out.
Balance is for pussies ;D
-
"Balance" kinda sucks. Why not paint the models red and blue and make it a "Blue vs Red army" tm game and give everybody the same load out.
Only if hats are involved.
I voted for the first option.
-
"Balance" kinda sucks. Why not paint the models red and blue and make it a "Blue vs Red army" tm game and give everybody the same load out.
Only if hats are involved.
I voted for the first option.
Free hat?
-
"Balance" kinda sucks. Why not paint the models red and blue and make it a "Blue vs Red army" tm game and give everybody the same load out.
Balance is for pussies ;D
They do this you know, during Civil Wars..... ::)
-
It seems to me that of the many of the people that exclusively play germany, their complaints are usually somewhere along the lines of "How dare the game allow a puny American tank to blow up my precious panther, it should be invincible!"
-
Not only ingame, but on the forums aswel. A few example's=
1.Tiger is no better then the panther.
2.Panthers shouldnt die one shot from the sides by the 75mm gun and 6pdr
3.17PDR shouldnt penetrate the frontal armor of panthers/tiger
4.German tanks shouldnt die in one shot from allied AT weapons (PZIV and STUG)
5.Faust should one shot shermans
6.G43 should be not limited and more present (Clearly explained in forums that
And more of these things. First i think that they must be joking, but they arent. I see alot of these guys shooting 4 tanks in their life with their Panzer, they die, and they then complain about Panzers being severly underpowerd. No kidding.
Jerrys underpwrd alies overpwrd
-
It seems to me that of the many of the people that exclusively play germany, their complaints are usually somewhere along the lines of "How dare the game allow a puny American tank to blow up my precious panther, it should be invincible!"
Quoting Squirrel?
-
It's a golden quote.
-
Something that I really hate is that Curchill has better armor in FH than Tiger ??? ???. Not really historically correct if you ask me. You need 2 APDS rounds from 6 pounder to kill Churchill to side and Tiger gets destroyed by one shot to the front. Is that a bug or something? Also did 6 pounder APDS have better penetration and damage statics than 88 AP? (just asking)
Also Shermans having HVAP in Normandy is also historically incorrect as it was really rare and mostly only M10 got them. They should have them in later west front though.
Also aircraft balance is just meh... bad. Please make some maps where other team wont have any air support like in FH42.
Balance is overall good but there are some thing I would like to be changed.
-
I find German armor to be unimpressive unlike FH1. All allied tanks seem to destroy panthers and tigers like it's nothing (as well as I), and they just don't feel like that big of a threat like any other tank. I find fausts to be underpowered against allied tanks, and the special ammo to be very annoying, I think only tank destroyers should have them (since they're meant to destroy tanks). At the moment, everyone just sets their ammo to the special ammo anyways (because theres 8 shots and it takes very long to switch ammo types so there isn't much strategy there) and just reload more when they die (since you get a full 8 anyways once you die).
Imo, make all tanks have regular ammo, and tank destroyers with special ammo. Sure it could be more historically accurate, but there is no logistics in this game, you can't have a limited amount of special ammo in the army pool on a map, so I say allow only tank destroyers with special ammo. That's my big concern in tanking.
-
Something that I really hate is that Curchill has better armor in FH than Tiger ??? ???. Not really historically correct if you ask me. You need 2 APDS rounds from 6 pounder to kill Churchill to side and Tiger gets destroyed by one shot to the front. Is that a bug or something? Also did 6 pounder APDS have better penetration and damage statics than 88 AP? (just asking)
because the tiger defiantly not dies frontally by the 6PDR APDS.
And yes the 6PDR apds had better penetration then the Flak 18 AP. APDS 6PDR=110mm penetration at 1000m. Flak 18=99mm penetration
Keep in mind that the 88 on the tiger is based on an aircraft weapon. Those where always designed to fight planes not tanks. Take the 88 on the KT. That one was purely designed to fight tanks.
But Tiger I tanks HE firepower>KT HE firepower
Jerrys underpwrd alies overpwrd
Give a reason, not a blind answer
-
I mean 88 AT gun AKA Tiger 1 gun. I am pretty sure Tiger gun is better against tanks than Flak 88, it has muzzle brake and all :).
And I am pretty sure I got oneshotted to front by Churchill in Totalize by Paythoss (Damn you :P).
Anyway Tiger frontal armor is 120 so its more than 110 (obviously) and IIRC FH armor penetration characteristics was based on 1000 meters? Of course not in point blank range but overall. I say give Tiger bit more health so it can survive 2 shots if it cant right now, like Churchill has HUGE health you can penetrate it easily but it still won't die. I do like Churchill though my fav allied tank after crusader 3 so don't get me wrong that I would like to nerf it :P.
-
FH2 armour penetration is based on 500m iirc.
-
FW190 definitely needs to be nerfed in some way, I get that the cannons are powerful because of where they are placed and all, but it's not just it's weaponry, it's the fact that it can turn like twice as fast as the Allied planes. Also, .50 cals on the US planes need to be improved (i.e. increased RoF/CoF). It would be great if we could have planes overall faster so they wouldn't get ridiculously shot by AT guns but if devs say it's so bad for Normandy then I guess nothing can be done here. Furthermore, removing special ammo from most of the tanks (and perhaps lowering the count for the rest) would seem to be historically correct and it would stop Axis moaning of their tanks being oneshot all the time.
-
FW190 definitely needs to be nerfed in some way, I get that the cannons are powerful because of where they are placed and all, but it's not just it's weaponry, it's the fact that it can turn like twice as fast as the Allied planes. Also, .50 cals on the US planes need to be improved (i.e. increased RoF/CoF). It would be great if we could have planes overall faster so they wouldn't get ridiculously shot by AT guns but if devs say it's so bad for Normandy then I guess nothing can be done here. Furthermore, removing special ammo from most of the tanks (and perhaps lowering the count for the rest) would seem to be historically correct and it would stop Axis moaning of their tanks being oneshot all the time.
Imo thats the only balance issue with FH2 2.26 next to the Desert combat tanking
-
And Sherman HVAP.
-
Couple things:
1. The Tiger I had 120mm in the mantlet, the front hull/superstructure were 100mm.
2. FH gun values are based at 1000m penetration, at least going from the numbers in the code
3. The Churchill 6 has less HP then the Tiger
4. The Tiger has PzG40, along with every other Axis tank (some situations downright wrong), and is 1 shottable to the front with the Panther or Tiger.
5. Some Africa maps actually have the Axis tanks dominating, the large breakout from Tobruk where you have IVF2s and III-Js against Crusader Is and Grant is one of them. So they would definitely need to be addressed map by map, and not just by nerfing some vehicles.
I vote the maps are generally the problem when it comes to balance. Balance is not swayed in any one direction, it all comes down to loadout vs loadout and terrain. We've had over 6 WaW battles since 2.26 came out, all generally fine when the loadouts match up equally. In our pre-campaign scrims, we actually had maps that both sides would switch loadouts, and maps went both ways over the 11 hours.
And Para, as I said, if you really want to remove the Sherman's HVAP, then you lose the PzG in the Stug, PIVF2/H, Panther, Tiger and King Tiger, because none of them had it on the western front. It that's the way things go then so be it, just realize that door swings both ways (and actually hurts the PIV/Stug and Tigers offensive ability if going by the current build)
-
FW190 definitely needs to be nerfed in some way, I get that the cannons are powerful because of where they are placed and all, but it's not just it's weaponry, it's the fact that it can turn like twice as fast as the Allied planes. Also, .50 cals on the US planes need to be improved (i.e. increased RoF/CoF). It would be great if we could have planes overall faster so they wouldn't get ridiculously shot by AT guns but if devs say it's so bad for Normandy then I guess nothing can be done here. Furthermore, removing special ammo from most of the tanks (and perhaps lowering the count for the rest) would seem to be historically correct and it would stop Axis moaning of their tanks being oneshot all the time.
Agree 50 cals on planes need a little splash damage IMO is very hard to strafe emplacements with them.
-
FW190 definitely needs to be nerfed in some way, I get that the cannons are powerful because of where they are placed and all, but it's not just it's weaponry, it's the fact that it can turn like twice as fast as the Allied planes. Also, .50 cals on the US planes need to be improved (i.e. increased RoF/CoF). It would be great if we could have planes overall faster so they wouldn't get ridiculously shot by AT guns but if devs say it's so bad for Normandy then I guess nothing can be done here. Furthermore, removing special ammo from most of the tanks (and perhaps lowering the count for the rest) would seem to be historically correct and it would stop Axis moaning of their tanks being oneshot all the time.
Agree 50 cals on planes need a little splash damage IMO is very hard to strafe emplacements with them.
Why would an MG have splash damage? :P
Anyway, I voted that it is generally well balanced. The problem with tank-vs-tank-bias is due to the fact that the engine can't handle angles. Sure a Panther would blow up when hit 90 degrees from the side but how often do you really do that? The Panther is toast even from 10 degrees. Therefore, I don't consider Panthers a threat since I know I just have to shoot the tracks to 1s1k them and this is possible from almost all angles part from dead on front engagement.
-
FW190 definitely needs to be nerfed in some way, I get that the cannons are powerful because of where they are placed and all, but it's not just it's weaponry, it's the fact that it can turn like twice as fast as the Allied planes. Also, .50 cals on the US planes need to be improved (i.e. increased RoF/CoF). It would be great if we could have planes overall faster so they wouldn't get ridiculously shot by AT guns but if devs say it's so bad for Normandy then I guess nothing can be done here. Furthermore, removing special ammo from most of the tanks (and perhaps lowering the count for the rest) would seem to be historically correct and it would stop Axis moaning of their tanks being oneshot all the time.
Agree 50 cals on planes need a little splash damage IMO is very hard to strafe emplacements with them.
Lol, no. They need a faster ROF and more convergence.
-
The main balance problems with planes are thus:
-RCMGs do a disproportionatly high amount of damage which means that tanks and 109 dominate (simply reduce damage taken).
-50cal of US planes has a pityful rate of fire (easy solution - make a new projectile with the same damage as now only it fires 3 of these at once like a shotgun (4 for the fighter P47), all the guns are together so it is visually OK and some deviation makes strafing easier).
-Convergence is at the monumental 400m (reduce to 200m to allow wing guns to be more effective).
Other issues:
-M4A1(W)76 is strangely resistant compared to M4A1 despite having same hitpoints and same side armour.
-Tanks with loads of special AP.
-2pdr domination!
-Ineffective 5.0cm guns vs. Crusader III and Sherman II.
-
The main balance problems with planes are thus:
-50cal of US planes has a pityful rate of fire (easy solution - make a new projectile with the same damage as now only it fires 3 of these at once like a shotgun (4 for the fighter P47), all the guns are together so it is visually OK and some deviation makes strafing easier).
-Convergence is at the monumental 400m (reduce to 200m to allow wing guns to be more effective).
Uh... didn't ALL P-47's have 8 machine guns? I've never heard of one with 6... but the P-51D did have 6 guns (B & C only 4).
Also, a realistic convergence of well under 200 meters (even just 100 meters would be more realistic than the current pre-war RAF config which was not maintained beyond first combat experiences, and the Germans already began with smaller convergence range) would make not only Allied fighters' guns, but German wing-mounted cannons on 109E and 190 more deadly.
Oh, and get rid of the wing cannons on 109F, they did not have any even as add-on packs (unlike 109G), only the Motorkanone.
-
The main balance problems with planes are thus:
-RCMGs do a disproportionatly high amount of damage which means that tanks and 109 dominate (simply reduce damage taken).
-50cal of US planes has a pityful rate of fire (easy solution - make a new projectile with the same damage as now only it fires 3 of these at once like a shotgun (4 for the fighter P47), all the guns are together so it is visually OK and some deviation makes strafing easier).
-Convergence is at the monumental 400m (reduce to 200m to allow wing guns to be more effective).
Other issues:
-M4A1(W)76 is strangely resistant compared to M4A1 despite having same hitpoints and same side armour.
-Tanks with loads of special AP.
-2pdr domination!
-Ineffective 5.0cm guns vs. Crusader III and Sherman II.
All of the above=Defiantly approved. These are what making the current balance issues.
-
Uh... didn't ALL P-47's have 8 machine guns? I've never heard of one with 6... but the P-51D did have 6 guns (B & C only 4).
Also, a realistic convergence of well under 200 meters (even just 100 meters would be more realistic than the current pre-war RAF config which was not maintained beyond first combat experiences, and the Germans already began with smaller convergence range) would make not only Allied fighters' guns, but German wing-mounted cannons on 109E and 190 more deadly.
Oh, and get rid of the wing cannons on 109F, they did not have any even as add-on packs (unlike 109G), only the Motorkanone.
On the P47 with 6 guns - according to Gunnie (who codes vehicles) the ground crews would remove the outermost guns to save weight if the plane was carrying rockets or bombs.
Convergence was 200m, then someone (Remdul?) suggested that it should be longer because the veiw distance is longer on plane maps. It then got changed to 400m before the 200m setting could be tested.
There is a 109F without the gunpods in existance - however it has the unfortunate problem that it is called bf109f4_trop while the one on the maps now is called bf109f4. Thus when Lobo went and added the plane to the maps - he just picked the first one in the list.
-
Just pretend you're Adolf Galland I guess, he was the only one to put 20mm wing cannon on his F4 :p
-
-50cal of US planes has a pityful rate of fire (easy solution - make a new projectile with the same damage as now only it fires 3 of these at once like a shotgun (4 for the fighter P47), all the guns are together so it is visually OK and some deviation makes strafing easier).
ROF is not engine limitation you can make american planes fire MUCH higher ROF.
-
ROF is not engine limitation you can make american planes fire MUCH higher ROF.
No, when you have 6 or 8 guns each with a ROF of ~900rpm and the engine has a max ROF of 1800rpm - you have a problem.
-
Shermans need to have Hvapn taken away or have only 1 shell. shermans didnt get Hvap with the amount that is in the current game.. sherman crrews would have to bargin with TD crews to get them making them very rare. towards the end of 44 i could see them getting them as the HVap was more common.
i have to agree that that the tiger and and the panther are not as scary as they were in Fh42, they are just too stoppable..
-
I have no real opinion, I'm not savvy enough on the ww2 subject to know what should kill what and how.
The only time I experienced one side dominating the other is when in one team the players work together and in the other one they don't.
(http://chopard.fest4.free.fr/emoticons/army/armata/armata_PDT_15.gif)
-
I must say the testers have done a amazing job - not forgetting the devs ofc!!
-
Balance? Tiger and Sherman one shot each other. Yay, that's balance.
-
1 degree angle roof shots are not readily repeatable and have allways and will allways exist. Therefore they do not factor into this discussion.
-
Whiny tards, be glad you have FH2.
-
Whiny tards, be glad you have FH2.
Many people forget this
I must say the testers have done a amazing job - not forgetting the devs ofc!!
And this
you guys did an amazing job. And 24 persons agree with this
-
So guys who have criticism and want to improve the mod are whiner assholes that play to mod because someone forces them to? Pretty short-sighted to me.
Shermans need to have Hvapn taken away or have only 1 shell. shermans didnt get Hvap with the amount that is in the current game.
Shermans should not have them at all, only M10 should have it in Normandy.
1 degree angle roof shots are not readily repeatable and have allways and will allways exist. Therefore they do not factor into this discussion.
Can this be made to Churchill top armor as well? Top armor is as good as front on Churchill, so cant it be made even with other heavy tanks? Also 1 degree angle shot aren't that rare, against Panthers its normal.
-
I mean 88 AT gun AKA Tiger 1 gun. I am pretty sure Tiger gun is better against tanks than Flak 88, it has muzzle brake and all :).
And I am pretty sure I got oneshotted to front by Churchill in Totalize by Paythoss (Damn you :P).
Anyway Tiger frontal armor is 120 so its more than 110 (obviously) and IIRC FH armor penetration characteristics was based on 1000 meters? Of course not in point blank range but overall. I say give Tiger bit more health so it can survive 2 shots if it cant right now, like Churchill has HUGE health you can penetrate it easily but it still won't die. I do like Churchill though my fav allied tank after crusader 3 so don't get me wrong that I would like to nerf it :P.
Your tracks was asking for sweet hit from APDS ... i just cant say "no" to them ;D
Im voting for more historical accuracy ... but i know that may kill a fun from game :-\
-
Criticism is ok but some people are never statisfied and some complaints are just ridiculous, like that kingtiger guy.
-
Criticism is ok but some people are never statisfied and some complaints are just ridiculous, like that kingtiger guy.
The way I understood the request from the kingtiger guy is that he simply want consistency when it comes to the top armour problem. I.e. The top armour shot should apply to all tanks or no tanks (today that is not true).
I think it is a minor problem.
-
Criticism is ok but some people are never statisfied and some complaints are just ridiculous, like that kingtiger guy.
The way I understood the request from the kingtiger guy is that he simply want consistency when it comes to the top armour problem. I.e. The top armour shot should apply to all tanks or no tanks (today that is not true).
I think it is a minor problem.
He complains about alot more, just as many others on this forum who are defiantly only intrested in seeing their german army buffed so that they can kill 9 allied tanks in one life instead of the current 5.
Of the above votes for the topic "German army is underpowerd" half voted just for the bad tank balance in NA, while the other half voted blindly for their german bias. And dont deny it, just look at the amount of people who came to these forums suggesting things that would completly Unbalance the whole game.
-
I understand that the game neads to be balanced but when a Tiger got killend from a frontal shell of a Sherman II ???. This means that Shermans are Stronger than Tiger because they are faster en both can kill each other with one shot. And on most maps ( for example Goodwood) the allied have more Tanks then there German enemy.
I doin't think that a Panzerfaust must destrooi a sherman with one hit because it will make the Germans to Strong. Why not let the faust destrooi te tank for 95% so that it is on fire and the Sherman nead to fall back to repear or the Crew nead to bail out.
A Stug or pzkw IV die to fast from one frontal AT Round of a antiTank infantery of the allieds. they must be a little bit stronger to resist these weapons. there shields are now useless.
The panther must be strong frontal and weak on the Flanks. This will make it still posible for the allied tanks to kill a panther.
On some map the Allieds are underpowerd. At Purple Heart Lane they start with Blead and and must take lots of devense points in Bold frontal attacks. perhaps a Commander abilitie to give smoke cover (shells)?
-
Axis tanks aren't better in FH2, like they were in FH1. I really loved how the balance between tanks and air support were in FH1. Right now Churchill is probably best overall tank after King tiger (not even sure about that because once again you can shoot its to the top from front). APDS shells should be made much more inaccurate than normal AP shells like IRL. Also with no matter of angle allied tanks one shot German tanks all day long, either to the top or side, at least i do it all the time.
IMO allied should have air superiority and axis overpowered tanks, so allied need to use tactics and air support to beat axis tanks, thats what I loved in FH1, the teams were so different. Special ammo ruins the balance and harmony that FH1 had, especially on tanks like Sherman that shouldn't even have it in Normandy.
-
FH1 was NOT balanced. By far. FH1 was a perfect example of German bias. What made things worse is that the main servers added alot of german stuff to maps and added zero allied things to counter it. Example was TDP. They added PANTHER tanks on Maps like el alamein. I once asked on the server "Do the allies even win?" and everyone started laughing and answering=Sometimes.Maybe. Rarely
IMO allied should have air superiority and axis overpowered tanks, so allied need to use tactics and air support to beat axis tanks, thats what I loved in FH1, the teams were so different. Special ammo ruins the balance and harmony that FH1 had, especially on tanks like Sherman that shouldn't even have it in Normandy.
And german tanks dint had PZG40 at all in normandy. Yet they still have it. Each and every tank.
The 76mm shermans with HVAP is something i can go with you, but it doesnt change the fact about german tanks. They still are very strong, infact much stronger then IRL. You do realise that the allies lost 4400 tanks in normandy, when the germans lost 2200 right? Thats a ratio of 2:1
IRL panthers died when they got hit in the sides and rear. IRL PZIV"s and Stugs could be penetrated frontally by shermans and a range of 500m. All of these things are not included in FH2. So be glad about that.
-
Panthers didn't die when they got hit to side by 1 degree angle neither did Tigers when they got shot to top by 1 degree angle. This happens in FH ALL the time though. Allies won lots of times in FH1, its was pure allied bias in many maps where Typhoon raped 8 Kingtigers by one run, I did really often. SSM are out of question you can't argue with those. Lots of Axis tanks were destroyed by air raids while allied tanks were killed by AT gun and tank fire. Also Churchill is not one shotted by Tiger gun to side though it should and APDS ammo should have 50% hit chance on longer distances as it was inaccurate round compared to normal AP.
This mod is DEFINITELY NOT Axis biased. Look at Gazala.
-
I voted for historical accuracy and that the Germans are underpowered.
The reason for that is the pzfaust, the shell penetrations on German tanks and the fact that they don't have a fighter-bomber while allies have their thyphoon which destroys EVERYTHING! It should destroy everything but the germans have nothing like that. About the semi-auto vs. bolt action, I prefer historical accuracy and it should be as it was. About the tanks issues, I agree with Paavopesusieni!
-
Panthers didn't die when they got hit to side by 1 degree angle neither did Tigers when they got shot to top by 1 degree angle. This happens in FH ALL the time though. Allies won lots of times in FH1, its was pure allied bias in many maps where Typhoon raped 8 Kingtigers by one run, I did really often. SSM are out of question you can't argue with those. Lots of Axis tanks were destroyed by air raids while allied tanks were killed by AT gun and tank fire. Also Churchill is not one shotted by Tiger gun to side though it should and APDS ammo should have 50% hit chance on longer distances as it was inaccurate round compared to normal AP.
This mod is DEFINITELY NOT Axis biased. Look at Gazala.
Gazala is desert and we all know desert balance is bad
And panthers did died when a shell penetrated their sides/rear. 80% of all ammo and fuel lines are stored in the side area's. A panther tank had 85% of catching fire/exploding when it got penetrated. Thats the same % as a Sherman tank M4A1
Churchills side armor is barely thinner then the Frontal armor. And the sides need 2 shots.Front 3. But you have your PZG40 wich shouldnt even be their. These are NOT the main balance issues of FH2. Desert tanking is.
-
Example was TDP. They added PANTHER tanks on Maps like el alamein. I once asked on the server "Do the allies even win?" and everyone started laughing and answering=Sometimes.Maybe. Rarely
Bullcrap. They also added M19 and dual boffors on "battle of Britain"(pure rape) and destroyers on omaha (meaning that one beached the ship and then raped the bunkers using the ships AA). As much as I hate SSM, they did it in both ways
FH1 was NOT balanced. By far. FH1 was a perfect example of German bias. What made things worse is that the main servers added alot of german stuff to maps and added zero allied things to counter it.
And yet most request we get is :
"Why are vehicles not like in FH1"
"Why are aircraft not like in FH1"
"Why are tanks not like in FH1"
considering this (and I slightly agree), vehicle combat FH1>vehicle combat FH2.
If FH1 axis vehicle biased > FH2 axis vehicle biased, so be it.
But judging from amount of requests FH1 vehicle fun > FH2 vehicle fun
thus there is a clear relation between how more axis biased you think it is and how fun our vehicles turn out to be.
So how more you cry axis biased, the closer we get to a perfect FH2 vehicle fun
-
And panthers did died when a shell penetrated their sides/rear. 80% of all ammo and fuel lines are stored in the side area's. A panther tank had 85% of catching fire/exploding when it got penetrated. Thats the same % as a Sherman tank M4A1
Sherman shot simply didn't penetrate from 1 degree angle. Also if Shermans should be able to oneshot panthers then panzerfaust/shreck should oneshot Sherman, Tiger normal ammo should oneshot Churchill, Churchill top turret armor should be 1s1k (like tiger and tiger II). Engagement ranges should be 1500 meters where Shermans and couldn't do anything. Also Panzer 3 panzergranate should oneshot Shermans to sides and oneshot crusaders.
Sherman oneshotting Panthers just isn't an argument as angle doesn't matter, thats why Cromwell should always need to shots to kill Panthers IMO same with Chuchills when they shoot panthers and tigers from 1 degree angle. FH should just get rid of all special ammo, it just doesn't fit the gameplay with such a small engagement ranges, with no logistics and such a short life time of a tank.
Sherman HVAP is an Normandy tanking issue IMO.
-
Example was TDP. They added PANTHER tanks on Maps like el alamein. I once asked on the server "Do the allies even win?" and everyone started laughing and answering=Sometimes.Maybe. Rarely
Bullcrap. They also added M19 and dual boffors on "battle of Britain"(pure rape) and destroyers on omaha (meaning that one beached the ship and then raped the bunkers using the ships AA). As much as I hate SSM, they did it in both ways
FH1 was NOT balanced. By far. FH1 was a perfect example of German bias. What made things worse is that the main servers added alot of german stuff to maps and added zero allied things to counter it.
And yet most request we get is :
"Why are vehicles not like in FH1"
"Why are aircraft not like in FH1"
"Why are tanks not like in FH1"
considering this (and I slightly agree), vehicle combat FH1>vehicle combat FH2.
If FH1 axis vehicle biased > FH2 axis vehicle biased, so be it.
But judging from amount of requests FH1 vehicle fun > FH2 vehicle fun
thus there is a clear relation between how more axis biased you think it is and how fun our vehicles turn out to be.
So how more you cry axis biased, the closer we get to a perfect FH2 vehicle fun
I am not crying axis bias. I am the one who voted for the option that the game is well balanced. With both factions in need of adjustment.
And TDP was a server wich was axis biased. I saw 80 axis victories and like 20 allied ones. El ala was a def german victory, while yes indeed Battle of britian was a AA whore fest. Omaha beach IIRC never had a destroyer. Then they must added it before or after that i played FH1. FH2 is way more balanced then FH1.
But judging from amount of requests FH1 vehicle fun > FH2 vehicle fun
I think the vehicle fun was mostly because of the many diffrent types of tanks on diffrent fronts., not the way they played. Jagdpanther, tigerI,Firefly, Jackson, Panther, KV1,IS2... all of these tanks where fun to drive on FH1 because they where complete overkill. you truly felt that you where dominant when you where driving in one of these tanks.
Who doesnt remeber the Tiger I on Prokharakovka
Or the KV1 on Kharkov
But FH1 is not the discussion here.FH2 is. And it is well balanced IMO exept with a few minor issue's on both sides. The Devs and Testers did a great job for the normandy front in 2.26.
And panthers did died when a shell penetrated their sides/rear. 80% of all ammo and fuel lines are stored in the side area's. A panther tank had 85% of catching fire/exploding when it got penetrated. Thats the same % as a Sherman tank M4A1
Sherman shot simply didn't penetrate from 1 degree angle. Also if Shermans should be able to oneshot panthers then panzerfaust/shreck should oneshot Sherman, Tiger normal ammo should oneshot Churchill, Churchill top turret armor should be 1s1k (like tiger and tiger II). Engagement ranges should be 1500 meters where Shermans and couldn't do anything. Also Panzer 3 panzergranate should oneshot Shermans to sides and oneshot crusaders.
Sherman oneshotting Panthers just isn't an argument as angle doesn't matter, thats why Cromwell should always need to shots to kill Panthers IMO same with Chuchills when they shoot panthers and tigers from 1 degree angle. FH should just get rid of all special ammo, it just doesn't fit the gameplay with such a small engagement ranges, with no logistics and such a short life time of a tank.
Sherman HVAP is an Normandy tanking issue IMO.
Special ammo is yes indeed been a large discussion. Only specialised units should have them, like tank destroyers.
Regarding the churchill, why are you complaining about that one? It could withstand shots of the tiger at 1000m range. FH2 applies the 1000m range. If they made it 1s1k, then what is the use of adding the churchill? it is just a slower sherman. Your're not bringing a decent argument on this one.
Also Panzer 3 panzergranate should oneshot Shermans to sides and oneshot crusaders.
GOd you just keep on going on that. We ALL know that and we all know that needs to happen. Desert NA tanking is a bit messed up, everyone knows that ;D
-
Regarding the churchill, why are you complaining about that one? It could withstand shots of the tiger at 1000m range. FH2 applies the 1000m range. If they made it 1s1k, then what is the use of adding the churchill? it is just a slower sherman. Your're not bringing a decent argument on this one.
Just like if Shermans could oneshot Panthers, they would be Panzer IV with better gun and more vulnerable to handheld AT. Just saying that if Panthers can get oneshotted by Sherman from small angle then also Churchill should be oneshotted by the same logic.
I haven't complained about it just using it as a example.
Thing I am complaining about is HVAP ammo for Shermans and Africa tank balance. Also about Normandy allied air superiority.
-
Regarding the churchill, why are you complaining about that one? It could withstand shots of the tiger at 1000m range. FH2 applies the 1000m range. If they made it 1s1k, then what is the use of adding the churchill? it is just a slower sherman. Your're not bringing a decent argument on this one.
Just like if Shermans could oneshot Panthers, they would be Panzer IV with better gun and more vulnerable to handheld AT. Just saying that if Panthers can get oneshotted by Sherman from small angle then also Churchill should be oneshotted by the same logic.
I haven't complained about it just using it as a example.
Thing I am complaining about is HVAP ammo for Shermans and Africa tank balance. Also about Normandy allied air superiority.
But the churchill is used on one map. The panther on nearly all normandy maps. The churchill's front armor is 104mm thick, the sides are 99mm.
HVAP you are correct. Shermans shouldnt have them.
Africa tank balance you are correct
Allied air supperiority is not. Everyone knows that the current FW190 pwns each and every single allied plane. The US planes barely have any firepower against them while the Current spitfire is the old MKVB model wich was replaced by far newer and better Spitfire models in 1944. (It is true however that the FW190 raped the shit out of the MKVb)
-
I understand that the game neads to be balanced but when a Tiger got killend from a frontal shell of a Sherman II ???. This means that Shermans are Stronger than Tiger because they are faster en both can kill each other with one shot. And on most maps ( for example Goodwood) the allied have more Tanks then there German enemy.
I think the Sherman hit your top armour with a 1 degree shot.
In FH1 the balance is poorer, everyone could spawn with a panzerfaust and the Shermans are really useless. The PanzerIVH got a invincible skirt to HEAT weapons, this is especially clear in maps like Arnhem... German tanks reload so fast that everything enters the sight of a panther died very quick.
In FH2 it is better for the weapon penentrations, but you don't get the quicker, less realistic reload in FH1, which could be really helpful to "stun" a foe in FH1 using your crappy sherman. But the larger HE splash radius is probably something really nice in FH2. (though in FH1 the tactic is to SPAM shells so every gerries fly around, I can't say which is more effective)
-
Thank you General henry for bringing up the words i couldnt find!
-
Criticism is ok but some people are never statisfied and some complaints are just ridiculous, like that kingtiger guy.
I post my first thread in 2.2 times because in that version 2 shots by cromwell on Tiger/KT's sloped top turret would kill it. Look at 2.26, one shot like that Tiger is dead. What do you mean by "never satisfied"?
Ridiculous? Well, I'm actually collecting some really ridiculous video using cromwell to one shot KT in public server, I already collected 2 kills, hopefully the video would be released very soon. Until then you'll know why Theta said 2.26 is the most balance version so far.
I only asked for 2 things and they are for good reason:
1, Top turret or cupola (especially sloped top turret) should not be a weak point, if it should, Churchill,Matilda,Valentine,desert Sherman should have these same weak point as well.
2, Panther sides should resist 1 shot of short 75mm guns, and current 76mm HVAP are overpowered, if it's not, then the "penetration > armor = kill " logic should apply to german guns as well, desert IIIJ/L with pzg40 should one shot Valentine/Sherman's frontal hull and Matilda from the side, pak40 or any guns more powerful one shot Sherman categorically, Churchill should be one shot by Panther/Tiger with normal AP.
When I asked Theta why Tiger/Panther can't one shot a Churchill with normal AP, the answer was: FH2 use 1000m distance penetration. A few months later I asked, why Panther can be one shot by HVAP from the front. The answer I received is: HVAP penetration is x mm in 500m distance.............I surrender.
-
In FH1 the balance is poorer, everyone could spawn with a panzerfaust and the Shermans are really useless. The PanzerIVH got a invincible skirt to HEAT weapons, this is especially clear in maps like Arnhem... German tanks reload so fast that everything enters the sight of a panther died very quick.
Allied got bazooka with many rounds and everyone could spawn with it, allies also got air support on many maps and raped German tanks so this OP tiger couldn't even cross the bridge in Market garden. Allied got M19 duster that raped every infantry and AT gun around. You know both sides had its strengths in FH1 teams were just really different and needed to use different tactics. I had no problems owning Axis as allied in FH1, but in FH2 it seems axis tanks have no match against fast allied supertanks that oneshot big easy to hit few German tanks. No need to use tactics or air support as allied. I say allied raped in FH1 with über typhoon and unlimited zooks.
I just hate 1 degree angle shots.
-
The M19 duster only appeared on alpenfestung and on the modded map of Battle of britain on FH1
Bazooka in FH1 was EXTREMLY difficult to handle and aim, same went with the piat. FH1 is not the discussion here, FH2 is.
Criticism is ok but some people are never statisfied and some complaints are just ridiculous, like that kingtiger guy.
When I asked Theta why Tiger/Panther can't one shot a Churchill with normal AP, the answer was: FH2 use 1000m distance penetration. A few months later I asked, why Panther can be one shot by HVAP from the front. The answer I received is: HVAP penetration is x mm in 500m distance.............I surrender.
I am sorry,HVAP penetration at 1000m range=130mm. Panthers frontal armor 120mm. you where saying?
Plus you are once again forgetting that the Panther only dies from a 75mm gun when it hits the tracks, wich is Extremely difficult to hit on medium to long ranges. You need time to aim for the tracks, the panther doesnt really need time to aim at your sherman.
-
As far as I know, the penetration is based on values from 500 meters (or yards as that seems to be the most common unit used in different sources). The damage that the penetrated round deals is varied by the distance. (Excluding HEAT rounds of course, they do always the same amount of damage.)
-
I am sorry,HVAP penetration at 1000m range=130mm. Panthers frontal armor 120mm. you where saying?
Need some calculation? 80mm/(sin 35) = 140mm, but the one coded in FH2 is 83mm/(sin 35)
(.....................................................................................German steel quality is so low so low.....Tiger's front only equals some 70mm,Panther is just about 90mm..........) I can predict your reply :P
Plus you are once again forgetting that the Panther only dies from a 75mm gun when it hits the tracks, wich is Extremely difficult to hit on medium to long ranges. You need time to aim for the tracks, the panther doesnt really need time to aim at your sherman.
Did you ever try cromwell and 75mm churchill?
-
Ye but they use APCBC wich was better penetrating
And the Strength of the Panthers tank armor is 120mm, not 140mm
-
And the Strength of the Panthers tank armor is 120mm, not 140mm
Shouldn't it be 140mm?
Panther's front plate is 80mm thick. Now, if you bent that back 55 degrees, the total thickness should be 140mm and not 120mm.
Or is wikipedia lying?
-
I'm going to go ahead and post this here:
Some of you might have seen it (front is at the top).
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/
My comment on the 1 degree shots is that you have to live with it. There is no real fix.
-
Love that site! Seen it before but lost it. According to that 17 pounder AP and 76mm HVAP wont penetrate Panther Ausf. G frontally. :)
And even 17 pounder APDS cant destroy Tiger II frontally.
-
I think the overall balance of FH is good (otherwise I would go mad on the Testers-forum :-* ) . There are certainly some maps which are out of balance (Aberdeen), but that´s only rare. On nearly every map it depends on the team which is playing, I´ve seen both side win equally.
Of course there are vhicles which aren´t balanced. But they are historically then. Things like 1° side shots I declare as bugs and engine limitations. But because of that the Devs have to react that stuff.
Let´s see what the people are complaining about:
FW 190: People are saying allied planes are standing no chance against it. That true, but it has to be like that. In 1944 the FW was a beast to fight against. It was the queen of the mid air fights. For example the P51 is stronger than the FW in over 7000 meters, but that high is not reflected in FH2. And I stongly doubt that it is possible with the engine to simulate different highs to performance of planes. So the FW in FH2 reflect the domination in real life. The fact that the Spitfire is not up to date for 1944 has nothing to do with that, even with the newer one it has to be like it is now (maybe not that worse for allied pilots). That the american planes are shooting to slow is a bug and will be fixed with the next patch IIRC.
My conclusion: From the plane stats everything is correct here
Panther: Due to the one degree sideshots that thing is in my eyes gameplaywise just a Panzer IV with better gun, better front armour, less handheld AT protection and a more priorate target (so not better in my eyes). The Panther has to resist two 75mm shots in the tracks again in my humble opinion and I´m crying the Devs ears to make it that way. Atm it´s for me no difference in fighting a Panther or a P IV and that is definatly wrong. Still it is a fearsome opponent in the hands of a skilled tanker
My conclusion: Needs to be fixed
Tiger: Nearly the same applies to the Tiger but not a worse. It can be ripped apart with a 17pd or a 6pd with special ammunition really fast, but the Tiger was not invicible. When you drive one and you have some teammates which spot the enemy tanks for you it is really easy to destroy multiple enemy targets without being harmed once. Without them you can be killed with ease. It´s a matter of the driver and his teammates. Still it is not as fearsome as in FH1. I think that is because of the sideshots which are more easy than in FH1, due to the better zoom and more accurate iron sights, therefore my skilled shooting in FH2. But still I have seen some, and did it myself, who are surviving a whole round in a Tiger or Kingtiger without camping at a save spot.
My conclusion: Ok as the engine allowes it
One more word to the sideshots: For the allied it is not that important, as most of their tanks are oneshot anyways. Besides from that I think the guns of the german tanks, where you should do this, are not as accurate as guns from the Sherman, Cromwell and Crusader.
-
it's quite balanced ??? They should work on the gameplay, and make teamwork (more) required then it is atm. (PR style)
-
it's quite balanced ??? They should work on the gameplay, and make teamwork (more) required then it is atm. (PR style)
Oh ye, bring up PR...
-
Allied got bazooka with many rounds and everyone could spawn with it, allies also got air support on many maps and raped German tanks so this OP tiger couldn't even cross the bridge in Market garden. Allied got M19 duster that raped every infantry and AT gun around. You know both sides had its strengths in FH1 teams were just really different and needed to use different tactics. I had no problems owning Axis as allied in FH1, but in FH2 it seems axis tanks have no match against fast allied supertanks that oneshot big easy to hit few German tanks. No need to use tactics or air support as allied. I say allied raped in FH1 with über typhoon and unlimited zooks.
your zooks are useless when your enemy have skirts, your best chance is to get to his rear. (that is why in FH1 pzIVH rapes infantry better than panthers, thus sometimes overall better tank) Even PIATs are better as you have a slight chance of hitting the non-skirted areas in front/side. In FH1 indeed the allied are more interesting to play (and require a little bit more tactics).
oh, and talking about plane balance: the P51 simply isn't a very good dogfighter (the Japanese planes/Russian planes are better for that), the best of P51 is that you could run away if you failed to kill your enemy unless your enemy got jets. But having fw190s strafing/bombing your tanks in Normandy just don't feel right. In FH1 the Germans don't got even a storch in Normandy.
In FH1 you're very certain that one side is weaker than the another (no mirror balance), but that is what makes the fun, beating the US in Kaserrine Pass, stopping the Germans in Arnhem, repelling Russians in Berlin/Seelow Heights. In the good old days a sherman is probably your best weapon against a tiger. I feel that this is almost lost in FH2 ... maps like Mersa Matruh/Alam Halfa is probably the one that resembles the FH1 feeling, the desperate feelings in one side. Port en Bessin is the only Normandy map that I considered to be insanely fun.
-
FH1 wasn't axis biased you just suck if you couldn't fight well as allied get over it. Also this is about FH2.
-
That the american planes are shooting to slow is a bug and will be fixed with the next patch IIRC.
My conclusion: From the plane stats everything is correct here
Yes, once you fix the wing gun convergence to realistic mid-to-late war values.
Also, if you do have a "genuine" F-4 Trop without the gunpods, then please do use that instead of the rare F-4/R1 in NA maps (Google to the rescue, Galland was indeed the only one to have integral wing cannons on his 109F, but the pods were available to a small number of late-production F-4's.)
-
FH1 wasn't axis biased you just suck if you couldn't fight well as allied get over it. Also this is about FH2.
no he is quite right. Why do you think everyone here want the german tanks of FH1? Because they where much stronger. to strong
That the american planes are shooting to slow is a bug and will be fixed with the next patch IIRC.
My conclusion: From the plane stats everything is correct here
Yes, once you fix the wing gun convergence to realistic mid-to-late war values.
Also, if you do have a "genuine" F-4 Trop without the gunpods, then please do use that instead of the rare F-4/R1 in NA maps (Google to the rescue, Galland was indeed the only one to have integral wing cannons on his 109F, but the pods were available to a small number of late-production F-4's.)
That aswel. Their infact where F-4's with Wingcannons. A small number, but they had em.
-
FH1 wasn't axis biased you just suck if you couldn't fight well as allied get over it. Also this is about FH2.
no he is quite right. Why do you think everyone here want the german tanks of FH1? Because they where much stronger. to strong
Where did I say that exactly, plus German tanks in FH2 are weak, too weak.
-
Err, you could say that for the allied side as well, people just like tanking is all. Even on the allied side, people waited to take tanks, so the argument can be said for either side imo. The allies just have more tanks, which means less people waiting for tanks.
Imo, the panther tank has what 55-60mm armor from the sides that I'm pretty sure can be penetrated by most allied weaponry. It's the front that should be z0mg uber. The HVAP and PzG40 rounds is what's putting everything out of wack because everyone can just one shot each other no matter what.
The churchill atm, doesn't even seem that scary or feel like a heavy tank because my PzG40 just nukes it in 1-2 shots. I think only tank destroyers should have these special rounds, not regular tanks.
I'm for the historical accurate approach for FH2, that's what sets it apart. If I wanted to play an arcadey-semi realistic balanced game I'd just hop on the 1000 other shooters that have better engines than the FH2 one. If all the weaponry is historically accurate, then the balancing that needs to be done is just the maps themselves.
An example: Cobra, as germans lose flags....They're screwed for the rest of the game. The allies get more tanks whereas germans get less. I've yet to see the axis win one game on cobra because the odds are against them. If Germans lose all the flags, well. Ring of Sherman armour around their main occurs and well they're screwed.
Also just for clarification, is the allied bazooka really supposed to be that inaccurate? I would've thought since it's in a recoiless tube, it wouldn't veer off as much as it does until much longer ranges :/
-
Cobra is a map where the germans win more then the allies. If the allies took all those flags, they deserve to win imo
-
To my mind FH2 is very well balanced as is and alot of people has done one heck of a job with it, for that i salute them.
The only issues i do see have been adressed already wich is the special ammo and desert tanking.
-
To my mind FH2 is very well balanced as is and alot of people has done one heck of a job with it, for that i salute them.
The only issues i do see have been adressed already wich is the special ammo and desert tanking.
Ye. FH2 is currently well balanced, unlike what those guys say. The main concerns of people seems to be special ammo and Desert tanking.
-
FH2 is not well balanced for Africa...
And for some others that say German tanks should be on par with allied. http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ (http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/)
-
FH2 is not well balanced for Africa...
And for some others that say German tanks should be on par with allied. http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ (http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/)
The calculator is not accurate. It claims the 76mm HVAP couldnt penetrate the frontal armor of a panther, while it did IRL. Theirs enough cases where it did happend
But yes, FH2 desert tanking is imbalanced.Not extremely unbalanced, but enough to see that panzers should be stronger.
-
Cobra is not balanced because the map has balance problems. You have a Allied mainbase in-between the Axis main and the flags, and you have the Axis airbase in a place where it is very easy to gray/camp. Once the FWs are down, the TDs come into serious play and the German main is isolated from the flags by hills and an uncapturable Allied tank spawn.
The main problem also is the fact once the Allies take Watermill they have something like 14 tanks to the Germans 4-6. When over half of those tanks are long 76s, the Panthers seem weak due to target overload of things that can kill them.
Compare that to Goodwood where only the Fireflies have that pure ability, and the Panthers can run the map.
The Panther had 40mm of side armor, for all intents and purposes it should die in 1 shot at FH2 ranges. What needs to be done is better map balance so that the Panthers can actually be tactically useful, much like Goodwood and Totalize.
The Panther excels as a standoff tank, any good tanker on Totalize can show you that. With that 40mm of side armor, it should NOT be able to tank a 75mm APCBC round to the side from under 200m and still be alive. So in my opinion the Panther is fine, the situations its put in are not.
Another problem with the fact that some of want tanks to absorb hits is the fact that everyone has a god damn wrench when they go out in a tank, or should. You should not be able to to just magically fix your damage so that when that Cromwell comes back hes fighting a brand new Panther/Tiger. You guys all preach that the Allies should take skill to kill Panthers and Tigers, but it should take an equal amount of skill to stay alive in said german tanks.
As for the Churchill, in this case should also die then of 1 shot penetrations, although that would make the Churchill a horrible tank to get into since it would have no benefits other then a gun that still can't kill Tigers or Panthers in 1 shot. But I would agree that needs to be modified.
The Sherman 76 is not that overpowered, look at Luttich for a clean example of where its merely a good tank, not OP. The problem with the 76 currently is that Allies get 3-4 of them on a map that suits them and is already Allied bias in most pubby matches.
It could use a reduction in HVAP down to 2-3 rounds though, so it actually is used as "special" ammo.
-
And before I'm accused of Allied bias, I was an Axis tanker at WaW for 2 full campaigns, and voted best Axis tanker in both. The Panther is my baby, and still one of my favorite tanks in this mod.
I'm just annoyed at these arguments that the Panther is underpowered and shitty now, because its still the same monster it ever was, and back when it had better side armor is was just simply OP.
All you need to do is drive carefully with it, and use it in situations it was made for, like standoff shooting and defense. You guys all want it to be the "do everything, breakthrough tank" and that's not what it is. That's what the Tiger and its all around armor is for when you need it.
So drive it right, and use it how its supposed to be used, and its still a monster.
And get Cobra fixed so you don't have to fight 19 tanks across a giant front all at the same time in decently high fog.
-
And before I'm accused of Allied bias, I was an Axis tanker at WaW for 2 full campaigns, and voted best Axis tanker in both. The Panther is my baby, and still one of my favorite tanks in this mod.
I'm just annoyed at these arguments that the Panther is underpowered and shitty now, because its still the same monster it ever was, and back when it had better side armor is was just simply OP.
All you need to do is drive carefully with it, and use it in situations it was made for, like standoff shooting and defense. You guys all want it to be the "do everything, breakthrough tank" and that's not what it is. That's what the Tiger and its all around armor is for when you need it.
So drive it right, and use it how its supposed to be used, and its still a monster.
Thank you mazz. Nobody is gonna yell allied bias at you. Because simply the panther Ingame is the best way it represented IRL. Deadly when encounterd frontally. Challengable when encounterd in the sides.
-
Today I tanked for the first time in ages on Cobra and boy is tanking easy lol
-
Today I tanked for the first time in ages on Cobra and boy is tanking easy lol
That depends mostly on who you are facing.
-
FH2 is not well balanced for Africa...
And for some others that say German tanks should be on par with allied. http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ (http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/)
The calculator is not accurate. It claims the 76mm HVAP couldnt penetrate the frontal armor of a panther, while it did IRL. Theirs enough cases where it did happend
But yes, FH2 desert tanking is imbalanced.Not extremely unbalanced, but enough to see that panzers should be stronger.
It was certainly axis bias in the older versions when you panzer IIIJ Late just 1s1k most allied tanks you see... The grant was a big deathtrap and a crusader a funny tank with crap gun.
I think the balance is better now except that you destroy the panzers with a hit to that cupola place... which is weird.
-
The 6 pounder is right in that it does kill most of its Africa opponents in 1 shot, it also has a good amount of drop and actually has a gun deviation cone more noticable then every other tank gun (shoot at a window 4 times at long distance, you'll see 1-2 go off to the left or the right to a noticeable degree).
The 50mm L/60 seems to underperform in my opinion though, and the other German guns just get outclassed in Africa (cept the long 75). I do not want to see it kill Shermans to the front (that means the Puma would), but it definitely could use a boost against Crusaders.
But in reality, its really the mobility and tiny profile of the Crusader III, plus that fact that its gun depression lets you shoot from positions that makes you nearly invisible that really makes it stand out over the Panzers.
Then again, the 75mm of a well placed PIVF2 can really decimate Aliied tanks due to its ease of use at range (El Al, Supercharge, Mersa Mat). But in most cases, the Allied tanks in the desert are superior overall. Mersa Matruh being the exception because the 2 pounder cannot compete at long range with the IVF2 or IIIJ late.
-
So allied tanks just want an equal chance to kill their enemy, then gain victory by larger amount and faster spawn time.
(I also want an equal chance when I'm facing Matilda and Valentine in desert period)
And don't say as if I got killed too often in axis tanks and then came here. First I play both sides, 50% of time I'm in allied tanks, second, I don't perform bad when I'm in panzer, from 2.0 to 2.26. But just get a bad feeling when I got killed by unreal allied uber tank, 80 degree side shot of panther, uber HVAP, pointless axis tank weak spot, those things are keeping FH2 away from a realism mod I like.
-
Larger amount maybe, but I don't agree with faster spawn timers. Just going out there to die does not solve anything in the balance department when your getting camped or trapped by some tank you cannot get to.
You can bet your ass people still go 40-4 in a Panther in 2.25-2.26 just like they did in 2.2. They just now have to actually worry about getting flanked and paying attention instead of just absorbing shots to the side, returning a kill shot, and then retreating to repair.
I don't want complete parity, I just see no reason you have to buff Axis tanks just on some people's opinions when you can leave them alone, and balance the maps where it will actually matter.
I'm also a pretty regular tanker for both sides, and I have no problem dying to those things because I realize I'm going to die to shit, my job is just to make my time alive count as much as I can. I'm perfectly happy with getting killed frontally by a HVAP or 17 pounder round, because its not like I couldn't have shot first and killed them just as quickly.
Basically, I'm tired of people driving Tigers and the 2.2 Panthers and being called good tankers because they can get high scores when its the tank saving their ass. What I want is Tigers and Panthers doing well because the people inside them know how to play to their advantages.
And like I said, Cobra makes the Panthers look shitty because they has to fight like 15 tanks at a time and over half have HVAP. Solve that problem on that map, and the Panther is gravy.
-
Either should guy in 76 mm Sherman called good tanker or neither in Achilles. You just oneshot everybody but your are not such a big and target. Its actually harder to be in Tiger or Panther, as everybody tries to kill you. Bad tanker wont get 40-1 in Tiger, you need to be good and usually Tiger drivers are much more careful than those Sherman drivers that just rush and get a new tank 10 seconds later.
Panther ain't any better than Panzer 4 against Shermans, except against the super Sherman (76mm) that has unrealistically HVAP.
-
But why not in Sherman 76, or Achilles, or in a Panther fighting all tanks that can kill it to the front? That argument doesn't stand up in reverse because its all about the fact they can all die in 1 return shot. Going 40-4 is a lot more impressive when you do it in a IV-H or Sherman 76, or even a Panther on Cobra, because your killing things that can actually kill you back. Taking that option way then creates my whole argument. I'm saying its fine as is, because the current Panther needs just as much skill and situational awareness as the long-barrelled Shermans to stay alive.
I'm saying I don't want to see Panthers become OP again because some people don't like dying in them. They work just fine as is, and can still run the battlefield because they are still superior to most of the things fighting them. The Tiger also works as is, it can take over 3 side shots currently from a Cromwell, just the 88 underperforms a little against the only Allied heavy, which I said should be fixed if incorrect.
As I said, the only map the Panther really does poorly on is Cobra, or Totalize when the Germans are getting butt-raped across the board.
BTW, I bolded the parts I felt important, because I know a lot of people skim these threads wall of text posts.
-
Its not, you will get one shotted in panther and so you do get in 76mm Sherman. Only that Sherman has much allies beside him that might get targeted first, plus you are smaller target and its harder to recognize you from far from others. Its much easier to tank as allied, thats my experience. With Tiger I get like 25-1 with Sherman its something like 35-1. You just need to use Shermans strengths as its advantage, noobs try to use it like panther. Also you will probably get bombed as Panther unlike in Sherman. Panther has so many more threats, try to tank as axis for once against average allied team.
Its just that some allied players want to make allied tanks as good as axis though thats not the case. In FH2 engagement ranges are so small so you need to compensate that. Allied tanks need to use tactics and their strengths like numbers and fast tank respawn.
-
Well all I can say to that is if the maps are setup in a way where the Allies then gain numerical advantage and therefore a tank advantage when they're all 76s, then its a map problem, not a tank problem. You could very easily do it like Luttich or Totalize where the Germans have Panthers but the Alliess only have an equal number of 76/17s to Panthers, and call it a day. It works just fine on those maps. Maybe not perfectly historical accurate but neither is more Tigers and Panthers then IVs or StuGs or an air force chalk full of 190s in Normandy.
-
Before changing Cobra into total German bias, or messing with armour values and totally changing the balance on every Normandy map, I would simply try removing HVAP from 76 mm Shermans and Fireflys and test what are the results on tank combat, because mostly the Normandy tank combat seems to be balanced already now. While we're removing special ammo, we could balance this by removing the PzGr40 from Germans in all post-D-Day Western Front maps, as they don't really need it. Pz3N could still keep its HEAT for self-defense, but I would increase the HE loadout on that and maybe remove the mostly useless AP altogether (it was a dedicated anti-infantry platform anyway, the 75L24 AP just makes the Shermans laugh, and to suppress the occasional AT gun HE should be enough).
In Cobra, the Windmill is pretty much indefensible for the Germans anyway, they should concentrate on holding the Station-Farm line with tanks (the anchorpoint should be the conveniently placed PaK near the station), with an infantry screen forward of the line to prevent artillery spotting and/or infiltration. Even if the Farm (with 88, PaK and Sturm spawn) eventually falls, they have a 88 and PaK40 as a "secondary line" to protect their route from main base to town.
Strangely, whenever I have played Cobra, the Amis usually charge at the "line", die by the dozens in their tanks doing the frontal assault, then after they have capped the Farm they sneak infantry in through north or south (nobody manning the guns in the south or the FlaK-Vierling in the north, sad) and eventually get a foothold in the town, but still usually lose having lost enough tickets on the way. Also, the Germans often make hasty, uncoordinated tank charges to recap the Watermill, and as a result, the two armies interpenetrate until everyone can target everyone's rear armour. Which of course results in OMG ALLIED BIAS.
-
Well Cobra could be improved by simply dropping the number of HVAP tanks down to 3-4, not the current 5-8. And also making a plane that can actually dogfight a well flown 190, because the current 2 can't for shit unless you have a pilot who can exploit turn.
I do agree with dropping the HVAP down to levels that make it a question to load (1-3), but I also think it should stay around and stay viable for that occasional Panther/Tiger encounter.
-
But Shermans didn't have them in Normandy, mostly only M10.
-
Well Cobra could be improved by simply dropping the number of HVAP tanks down to 3-4, not the current 5-8.
I do agree with dropping the HVAP down to levels that make it a question to load (1-3), but I also think it should stay around and stay viable for that occasional Panther/Tiger encounter.
But Shermans didn't have them in Normandy, mostly only M10.
This. I think M10, M18 and Achilles should be the only ones having access to HVAP.
And also making a plane that can actually dogfight a well flown 190, because the current 2 can't for shit unless you have a pilot who can exploit turn.
Upping the fire rate of American MG's (promised already) and also dropping the convergence to a more realistic 100-150 m (nobody opposing the idea) should help.
However, making a plane that can actually dogfight a FW in FH2 environment is easier said than done, because American fighters of the period were optimized for high-altitude combat and "zoom and boom" attacks, whereas FW was optimized for low-altitude performance and manoeuverability. And down low, 190 could out-turn even a Spitfire. (Typhoon the FW-Killer was that just because in 1941 it was the only plane fast enough to catch a bomb-laden FW at low altitude - Spit Mk V wasn't. Being at a slight disadvantage in a dogfight was still mission accomplished, if the Jabos had been forced to drop their bombs before reaching their target.)
The one American plane that could match FW down at the deck would be the Airacobra. While it couldn't out-turn a Zero it could turn with the FW, and down at the deck was about as fast (though early P-39's started to lose power earlier than 190 when they went higher up, which is not an issue with the BF2 engine). Too bad the Western Allies never deployed it properly and never realized its full potential, unlike the Soviets. Of course, it had even shorter range than the Jug, so that was maybe another reason to retire it for the 41-44 period when airfields across the Channel were not available -- and reintroducing it in '44 would have been problematic for the logistics.
I still think that aircraft should have their historical performance values. The American planes already outnumber the Germans 2:1 on Cobra, so they should be able to shoot them down.
-
But Shermans didn't have them in Normandy, mostly only M10.
This is true. Only around september did they recieved an "official" supply of HVAP. They where on the list on recieving HVAP, but rarely did they got it.
This is how HVAP was handed out=
1.Self-proppeled TD (M10,M18)
2.Towed TD units (76mm M5 gun)
3.Other units
Now if you understand that the Towed TD units dint even saw the HVAP sometimes...
Regular armoured units with 76mm shermans often had to borrow or........find a diffrent way to aquire these shells.
-
Let TDs have 9-10 HVAP, tanks got none....that will be even better than all of them got 2-3.
-
Let TDs have 9-10 HVAP, tanks got none....that will be even better than all of them got 2-3.
No that is to much. 4-5 for TD's is MORE then enough. HVAP was still an uncommon round. More common then the PZG40. But defiantly not common enough to make up 20% of the ammo supply
-
So allied tanks just want an equal chance to kill their enemy, then gain victory by larger amount and faster spawn time.
(I also want an equal chance when I'm facing Matilda and Valentine in desert period)
And don't say as if I got killed too often in axis tanks and then came here. First I play both sides, 50% of time I'm in allied tanks, second, I don't perform bad when I'm in panzer, from 2.0 to 2.26. But just get a bad feeling when I got killed by unreal allied uber tank, 80 degree side shot of panther, uber HVAP, pointless axis tank weak spot, those things are keeping FH2 away from a realism mod I like.
Valentines are of equal match with the panzer IIIJ Late (loaded with PZG40) I think (it also got the thin-like-hell top armour)
Matildas are more horrible if engaging it at a long enough distance/poor angle. Matildas could be invincible if you cannot hit it's engine part/side. With the upgunned 2 pounder the German tanks don't quite stand a chance.... (and the annoying frontal weakspots)
-
But guys....Matilda's WHERE like this in WW2.... They simply charged in close enough to even penetrate the frontal armor. Matilda's Outclassed german panzers. They where the KV-1's of the westren allies.
Take mount Olympus. The matilda is FTW. But ONE stuka and its dead. Siege of tobruk. The matilda is amazing, but can be so easily killed by the stuka.
-
So was Tiger II and Tiger, though they get oneshotted to top turret armor, Unfair IMO.
-
So was Tiger II and Tiger, though they get oneshotted to top turret armor, Unfair IMO.
Thats not true. Tiger II and Tiger I where not in the same situation as the Matilda's and KV-1's in 1941.
When the Germans faced these tanks they had nothing to counter...Litterly NOTHING. They had to improvise setting up Flak 18's or send in stukas to deal with them.....all wich where costly efforts. Taking these vehicles out was extremely difficult and MANY panzers where shot to pieces before they where down.
Now in normandy vs the Tiger and KT this was diffrent. Yes they where mighty powerfull, but the allies HAD guns to kill them. For the US it was the 76mm gun and for the British it was the 17PDR. They where strong yes, but they faced units that COULD kill them.
-
When allied countered Tiger they had NOTHING against it plus it got huge ass gun unlike Matilda. And matilda should be able to be shot into cupola by Panzer 3 AP if Tiger can be by Sherman.
And Matilda wasn't holy crusader that shot all panzers to pieces, it simply got shot by flaks and stukas like you said and its tiny 2 pounder couldn't penetrate panzer frontal armor. Tiger on the other hand was more of an rape machine when it first became to battlefield.
-
Actually Matilda is a fine example of top armor modding, the top turret, cupola are not weak spot, but the limited space of engine roof could be one shot. Churchill is very much similar. Valentine has good protection on turret top and engine roof but it has some other reasonable weak spot.
Unfortunately it doesn't happen to tiger.
-
When allied countered Tiger they had NOTHING against it plus it got huge ass gun unlike Matilda. And matilda should be able to be shot into cupola by Panzer 3 AP if Tiger can be by Sherman.
And Matilda wasn't holy crusader that shot all panzers to pieces, it simply got shot by flaks and stukas like you said and its tiny 2 pounder couldn't penetrate panzer frontal armor. Tiger on the other hand was more of an rape machine when it first became to battlefield.
Now you are once again not well informed. Matilda was a holy crusader. Many battles and lives where saved when the british deployed these beasts defensivly. But because the british where dumb in deploying them also offensivly, many where lost when the germans deployed the Flak 88.
When the tiger tank was first deployed, it was deployed wrong. The first tigers sended out where send in stalingrad against a mass number of powerfull soviet AT cannons.
The Tiger recieved its legendary status because it destroyed many sherman tanks wich couldnt hit the tiger back. Not frontally or barely from the sides.
The KV-1 struck more fear in german hearths when they first encounterd it, then the tiger did to the allies.
-
When allied countered Tiger they had NOTHING against it plus it got huge ass gun unlike Matilda. And matilda should be able to be shot into cupola by Panzer 3 AP if Tiger can be by Sherman.
And Matilda wasn't holy crusader that shot all panzers to pieces, it simply got shot by flaks and stukas like you said and its tiny 2 pounder couldn't penetrate panzer frontal armor. Tiger on the other hand was more of an rape machine when it first became to battlefield.
Ever played Mareth? In that time the allied had no way to kill it efficently (when it´s frontal like the Matilda for Germans), on Mareth the Tiger gets mostly killed by Beaufighter or bad driver. Remember: In Normandy the allied allready had fought the Tiger in Africa and Italy, so the knew what could kill it.
-
@Theta: Don't you agree that the top armour 1s1k should apply to all tanks or no tanks?
Not like it is today where some tanks has it and some don't.
-
@Theta: Don't you agree that the top armour 1s1k should apply to all tanks or no tanks?
Not like it is today where some tanks has it and some don't.
Sure! apply it to the sherman :p Not like that many tanks will ricochet shots on my churchill
It is not something they did intentional guys. IMO if people so much complain about it, then thicken the armor up so it takes more then 1 shot.
BUT. The panthers tank Ausf A shottrap should NOT be removed. This shottrap WAS in effect IRL and many panthers DID got killed that way.
-
The Tiger recieved its legendary status because it destroyed many sherman tanks wich couldnt hit the tiger back. Not frontally or barely from the sides.
It received its legendary status on eastern front against the mighty T-34...
Really allied heavy tanks have some random extra armor on points where they shouldn't have it. Ask every damn veteran would they like to be in Sherman, Churchill or Tiger. Tiger is pretty obvious answer. But because FH2s 1 angle shots axis tanks lose lot of their potential. Why the hell Kingtiger gets shot by Sherman to the front?! Also in FH2 engagement ranges are so small, thats where German tanks lose one more advantage, really all this needs to be compensated IMO.
I loved in FH1 where allied planes and tank destroyers took care of big cats not some bloody Shermans and Cromwells. Air support feels so absent in FH2 Normandy, tanks keep shooting down planes and both sides always got planes. I just get such a stupid feeling when I get in Cromwell/76mm Sherman and take out whole Schwere Panzer Abteilung. Would be cooler I should take cover and wait for proper tank destroyer or air support.
IMO Allied air support need bigger role.
-
@Theta: Don't you agree that the top armour 1s1k should apply to all tanks or no tanks?
Not like it is today where some tanks has it and some don't.
Sure! apply it to the sherman :p Not like that many tanks will ricochet shots on my churchill
It is not something they did intentional guys. IMO if people so much complain about it, then thicken the armor up so it takes more then 1 shot.
BUT. The panthers tank Ausf A shottrap should NOT be removed. This shottrap WAS in effect IRL and many panthers DID got killed that way.
Good. We're on the same page then. :)
-
I would say the balance is pretty good but I think there are some areas needing adjustment.
Tank combat in NA maps is off, it's shifted from being too hard for allied players in earlier releases to being too hard for axis players particularly when tanking with pz3.
The top shot expliot that has been mentioned on the KT and the pz3 needs to be sorted, I'm not sure this was intentional seems to be just an oversight to me.
Plane combat is far too easy now, personally think planes should handle like they did in older releases with clear advantages & disadvantages just now it's circling fights which are usually won by 190/109.
Plus on the whole special ammo issue/allied bias in normandy maps I find myself agreeing with Mazz, I think the panther is well balanced just now, it's certain maps that it's placed on that make it look bad. You can't demand historical accuracy remove HVAP rounds and then ignore the over abundance of Pzg40 that axis shouldn't even have. I think there should just be a severe reduction in the number of special rounds carried by both sides. Players should really be motivated to save them for the heavies and you can do that by only giving them one or two.
It'd be intersting to play totalize & cobra with the axis getting lots of mobile AA rather than 190's. That's something I'd really like to see.
-
@Theta: Don't you agree that the top armour 1s1k should apply to all tanks or no tanks?
Not like it is today where some tanks has it and some don't.
Sure! apply it to the sherman :p Not like that many tanks will ricochet shots on my churchill
It is not something they did intentional guys. IMO if people so much complain about it, then thicken the armor up so it takes more then 1 shot.
BUT. The panthers tank Ausf A shottrap should NOT be removed. This shottrap WAS in effect IRL and many panthers DID got killed that way.
Good. We're on the same page then. :)
Always have been. I am more concerned about those things then you think. And by far am i allied bias
-
You can't demand historical accuracy remove HVAP rounds and then ignore the over abundance of Pzg40 that axis shouldn't even have. I think there should just be a severe reduction in the number of special rounds carried by both sides.
But the fact is, pzg40 in Normandy doesn't make too much difference, HVAP is another story.
At least, pzg40 or HEAT in desert don't hurt allied Sherman and heavy tank from the front, and won't be an one shot kill from the side.
-
I'm pretty sure pzgr40 and HEAT rounds can shred Shermans from the front(except the 20mm PzGr40 obviously). However, I do like the setup of the special ammo on maps like Aberdeen, because it does actually feel special since Pz.IIIs have to keep it for fighting the Valentines and Matildas, and it still takes multiple hits to kill most tanks with it.
And as kingtiger said, PzGr40 on most of the axis tanks is a moot point since they can one shot most allied tanks with regular AP anyways. If HVAP gets removed from 76mm Shermans and similar tanks, then StuGs and PzIVs should lose their PzGr40 rounds as well, but HVAP is the much bigger issue.
-
50mm L/60 PzG40 2 shots a Sherman to the front, and 1 shots a Sherman to the side if you don't hit one of the tiny strongpoints or turret.
I'm done with this conversation, really is leading no-where, we will see what happens next release, and live with it.
-
I don't mind certainly to add a weaker top armour for Sherman - it is weak already...
no no, top armour should be thicker, it is not necessary to model the actual thickness as in 99.9% of the cases a 90 degree top shot is impossible. (unless the tank flipped, but that is another story) It is kind of funny to have your tiger killed by a cromwell in the front when you're reloading...
The same applies for tanks like Valentines, the Valentine's top armour shouldn't really allow damages to happen when the impact angle is poor. Currently you put a PZG40 round into it and the Valentine is so gone.
The panzer IIIJ was quite nerfed when 2 pounders could damage it frontally (threads, cupola). While I agreed that hitting the threads should severely damage the tank or even kill it, it is kind of funny that your tank got destroyed when a shell just touched your cupola... I think the pzIII is all fine except that cupola thing.
I don't see this would hurt the balance, it just force the tankers to shoot at the other places.
-
50mm L/60 PzG40 2 shots a Sherman to the front, and 1 shots a Sherman to the side if you don't hit one of the tiny strongpoints or turret.
I'm done with this conversation, really is leading no-where, we will see what happens next release, and live with it.
Its more like 3 shots to front and 2 to sides. It sure isn't one to side, done its so many times in supercharge and seen Sherman take it easily. Maybe at point blank 5 meter range but at longer range its 2-3 to sides.
-
I don't mind certainly to add a weaker top armour for Sherman - it is weak already...
no no, top armour should be thicker, it is not necessary to model the actual thickness as in 99.9% of the cases a 90 degree top shot is impossible.
Thicker top armour? So that instead of two Geballte Ladungs you would then need three (compared to 2.15's one)? ::)
-
I don't mind certainly to add a weaker top armour for Sherman - it is weak already...
no no, top armour should be thicker, it is not necessary to model the actual thickness as in 99.9% of the cases a 90 degree top shot is impossible.
Thicker top armour? So that instead of two Geballte Ladungs you would then need three (compared to 2.15's one)? ::)
Just upgrade the Geballte Ladung for the Germans to deal more damage. It is just some math. (but this is heavy math, of course, so I don't expect this to be done actually)
-
50mm L/60 PzG40 2 shots a Sherman to the front, and 1 shots a Sherman to the side if you don't hit one of the tiny strongpoints or turret.
I'm done with this conversation, really is leading no-where, we will see what happens next release, and live with it.
Its more like 3 shots to front and 2 to sides. It sure isn't one to side, done its so many times in supercharge and seen Sherman take it easily. Maybe at point blank 5 meter range but at longer range its 2-3 to sides.
All lower caliber guns have the same problem, for example, the 2 pounder, past about 60 in-game meters (little over 1/2 a grid), can no longer one shot the early IIIs or the IVF2 to the side. The 6 pounder on the CruIII can 2 shot a Tiger to the tracks point blank, but at a grid, that goes up to 3-5 hits.
But, I have seen the 50mm L/60 1 shot a Sherman at about 3/4-1 grid, so it its mostly a desert problem with the long fog, and like I said, fixable with the power ratio change.
Screenshots from a WaW test map. Granted, I could only get it to happen about half the time, and aiming at the tracks often gives you a 2 shot kill. You need to hit the clean side hull, and that's not a real simple shot. But it is possible to do it in 1 from much further then you imply.
Before:
(http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5821/beforeiw.th.jpg) (http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5821/beforeiw.jpg)
After:
(http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/994/afteret.th.jpg) (http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/994/afteret.jpg)
-
Got a link to that map, Mazz? I would like to test somethings vehicles as well.
-
Let us see at the current results shall we=
What is FH2 2.26 version current state of balance?
It is well balanced 34 (24.6%)
Allied army is underpowerd 1 (0.7%)
German army is underpowerd 17 (12.3%)
Allied army is Overpowerd 13 (9.4%)
German army is overpowerd 4 (2.9%)
Not the Units, but the maps are imbalanced 25 (18.1%)
Balance problems on BOTH armies 15 (10.9%)
No opinion 6 (4.3%)
Historical accuracy>Balance 23 (16.7%)
25% thinks that FH2 is well balanced. Thats good. 1/4 of all players plays FH2 thinking it is as good as it is. I am one of them
0.7% thinks the allied army is underpowerd. Honestly i really wonder who that is. Next to the Allied airforce, their issent really any place for a buff for the allied army
12.3% thinks the german army is underpowerd Assuming a fair sum voted for this because of the desert tanking imbalance. Correct. 100% agreed. Those who claim that normandy panzers are Underpowerd and voted for this reason, i cannot really follow their
9.4% thinks the Allied army is Overpowerd. In what ways? Desert tanking imbalance? it is not the allied units wich are to strong, it is the german ones who are to weak imo.Allied tank gun vs german armor is accurate. German guns vs allied armor is not. Probaly the german fanboys who used their second vote ;);)(jk). However, the famous "HVAP on Sherman" is just imo.
2.9% thinks the german army is Overpowerd The only account i can take into is the FW190. That is imo the only overpowerd unit for the germans. For the rest, i think the german army quite lives up to its name
18.1% thinks the maps are imbalanced i was honestly, VERY surprised in this! The only imbalanced maps imo are Aberdeen(ALLIED BIAS!) and Mersa matruh (GERMAN BIAS). And maybe villers bocage wich i see more germans winning then allies...
Who can explain me on this? :)
11% thinks both armies have balance problems And agree. Allied tanks are to strong (Or german units to weak) in NA and German planes are simply to strong overall(their figthers are)
17% thinks again that Historical accuracy>Balance Sometimes agree yes. Not always. It needs to remain playable on both sides. But a Sherman tank wich doesnt die from a panther tank shot or a PZII wich survives a 17PDR round is not acceptable.
Imo good and intresting results. The results can vary though. If we all remeber another poll "wich is your favorite army" in wich the german army came in as a winner of a whopping 60% or so, some might have just voted in favour of their army, not for the actual balance situation.
Then again, this poll is just a public project by me. Nothing is related to the FH2 team or anything. I wanted to see what the community thinks, and i was well pleased and amuzed with the results.
The poll will remain open for a while.
-
German planes are simply to strong overall(their figthers are)
Totalize: you are putting Typhoons, whose mission should be tank-hunting, and an outdated Spit against the best low-altitude fighter the Germans had. Typhoon was faster than 190 but less agile, Spitfire had marginally better turn rate but worse roll rate. However, the current Mk V was IRL and is in mod simply underpowered to fight the 190 on equal terms. Solution: two Mk IX Spits (faster, more agile than Mk V), and/or the fighter FW gets changed to a 109 (around which the Spit should be able to fly in circles, but see later).
Cobra: see my post in the other thread, but basically, change the "fighter" 190 into a 109.
NA/Greece: as far as I have understood (and personally experienced in the BoB event), 109 out-turns Spit and Hurri. Should not be that way. 109 should be faster and climb better instead.
-
TheTAO123,
Sorry to ask this, but I think you are confusing "overpowered" with "too powerful."
"Overpowered" = unable to deal with a powerful enemy
So if you and the people who answered the poll don't understand the questions in the same way, your analysis is upside down. 8)
Gubaru
-
TheTAO123,
Sorry to ask this, but I think you are confusing "overpowered" with "too powerful."
"Overpowered" = unable to deal with a powerful enemy
Hmm, yes, you make a point there :D
But since there is also 'underpowered' it's, I guess, fair to believe that most voters have accepted 'overpowered' as an opposite of 'underpowered'.
-
TheTAO123,
Sorry to ask this, but I think you are confusing "overpowered" with "too powerful."
"Overpowered" = unable to deal with a powerful enemy
Hmm, yes, you make a point there :D
But since there is also 'underpowered' it's, I guess, fair to believe that most voters have accepted 'overpowered' as an opposite of 'underpowered'.
This was my intention :)
But everyone understood it.
German planes are simply to strong overall(their figthers are)
Totalize: you are putting Typhoons, whose mission should be tank-hunting, and an outdated Spit against the best low-altitude fighter the Germans had. Typhoon was faster than 190 but less agile, Spitfire had marginally better turn rate but worse roll rate. However, the current Mk V was IRL and is in mod simply underpowered to fight the 190 on equal terms. Solution: two Mk IX Spits (faster, more agile than Mk V), and/or the fighter FW gets changed to a 109 (around which the Spit should be able to fly in circles, but see later).
Cobra: see my post in the other thread, but basically, change the "fighter" 190 into a 109.
NA/Greece: as far as I have understood (and personally experienced in the BoB event), 109 out-turns Spit and Hurri. Should not be that way. 109 should be faster and climb better instead.
You are correct.
FW190 was a great plane. When it faced the Spitfire MKVb it earned its reputation Butcher bird for something. BUT this was in 1943. Totalize is 1944 August. By this time the MKVb was indeed replaced by far more powerfull planes.
Typhoon was like the ME109 vs spitfire. It could climb and dive better then the FW190 but the FW190 simply pwned the Typhoon elsewhere
and yes, ME109 currently outturns Spitfire and Hurri. It shouldt be this way. This is my only OP call of the german army. It just shouldnt be this way.
-
Germans also need better tanks, right now they are only bigger targets than allied ones. Easy to hit with HVAP.
Tank fight just should be made FH1 style so that tanks have more health and no insta "wtf pwned shots". This would also help against the 1 angle shots that allied do all the time.
-
No opinion and hystorical accuracy.
I voted no opinion because when i play, im always having fun(either that or bad day) and never feel im lesser or better than the opponent. Ofcourse when im in a Tiger or churchill im better equipped and feel awsome, but when im the one in a Sherman or pnzIII/IV i try to make the best out of it.
Hystorical accuracy stuff because i like the thought im fighting a RL bttle.
-
Germans also need better tanks, right now they are only bigger targets than allied ones. Easy to hit with HVAP.
Tank fight just should be made FH1 style so that tanks have more health and no insta "wtf pwned shots". This would also help against the 1 angle shots that allied do all the time.
ooh yes, lets go to the WELL balanced tanking of FH1
-
It was well balanced, ???, I really don't understand your hate towards FH1. IMO FH2 is allied bias but its ok.
Also in tanking Germans should win, allies have other strengths.
-
It was well balanced, ???, I really don't understand your hate towards FH1. IMO FH2 is allied bias but its ok.
Also in tanking Germans should win, allies have other strengths.
But they dint win. You think that german armor was WTFPWN ALL but they where NOT. Allied tank losses and german tank losses where 2:1 in normandy. Of wich, btw, a large portion of allied tanks got killed by PAK40's.
Stop being so Romantic about German panzers. They where NOT invinsible. They where NOT ownage. They only had better armor and a better gun then the allied, but they still died. The bocage fighting ment engagements where on short range, in wich the allied tanks had no problem dealing with the german panzers. Losses where still higher, but it never exceeded 2:1. German tank succeses was mainly because of well trained crews.Of wich after 1943, the quality was much lower then in 1942
Infact their where plenty of battles where the germans barely destroyed more allied tanks then their own losses. Infact theirs enough battles where more german tanks where lost then allied one's.
A good example is the battle of arracourt, where the germans lost 3 times more tanks then the allies. the majority of panzers being Panthers, and the grand majority of Allied tanks being SHERMANS with 75mm guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
-
"The cause of the heavy losses for the Germans was the disjointed nature of the attack, and the poor tactical deployment of the German AFVs (Armored Fighting Vehicles) in the heavy fog and rolling terrain of the battlefield, which allowed the American tanks (mainly 75mm M4 Shermans, and a few M5A1 Stuart light tanks), M18 tank destroyers, and 155mm artillery units to maneuver and stay hidden until the German AFVs (the majority of which were Panther tanks) had closed within range."
Children, this is a textbook example that german AFV's were total bullshit and propaganda. Once tested by the invincible forces of Good and, as some call them, forces of Light (read: Allies), they fell, broken and destroyed by our mighty tanks. We lost 2 tanks, and that was due to friendly fire.
-
A good example is the battle of arracourt, where the germans lost 3 times more tanks then the allies. the majority of panzers being Panthers, and the grand majority of Allied tanks being SHERMANS with 75mm guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
36 < 86 its mi my opinion 1 < 2 not 1 to 3....
Maybe 1 to 2,5 but not 1 to 3...
Learn math.
Btw. You may dont know this but more german tanks was destroyed by airplanes not tanks...
But if You think its always tank vs tank, inf vs inf and plane vs plane than it...............
And one more thing Wiki is a little crappy source of info -> go read books 'bout history, inf weapons and vehicles. Its also good to watch discovery and history channel.
-
Stop being so Romantic about German panzers. They where NOT invinsible. They where NOT ownage. They only had better armor and a better gun then the allied, but they still died. The bocage fighting ment engagements where on short range, in wich the allied tanks had no problem dealing with the german panzers. Losses where still higher, but it never exceeded 2:1. German tank succeses was mainly because of well trained crews.Of wich after 1943, the quality was much lower then in 1942
German tanks were better and did better during WWII against US and British tanks. One reason being tanks were better. Right now they are not better, just bigger targets to oneshot. Also when 1 angle shots are possible even Cromwell can oneshot panther to front. Allied tanks are better in FH than they really were with 1 angle shots. Huge amount of Axis tanks casualties were by allied air support, like in that battle you brought up. Allied definitely didn't win the war because of good tanks. Who said i want Axis tank to be invincible I just want them to be better than allied, now they are more in par because of 1 angle shots and axis tanks being huge target.
And no need to tell me about good German tank crews, of course I know that.
-
I agree with paavo and fred...
-
"The cause of the heavy losses for the Germans was the disjointed nature of the attack, and the poor tactical deployment of the German AFVs (Armored Fighting Vehicles) in the heavy fog and rolling terrain of the battlefield, which allowed the American tanks (mainly 75mm M4 Shermans, and a few M5A1 Stuart light tanks), M18 tank destroyers, and 155mm artillery units to maneuver and stay hidden until the German AFVs (the majority of which were Panther tanks) had closed within range."
Children, this is a textbook example that german AFV's were total bullshit and propaganda. Once tested by the invincible forces of Good and, as some call them, forces of Light (read: Allies), they fell, broken and destroyed by our mighty tanks. We lost 2 tanks, and that was due to friendly fire.
What kind of an BULLSHIT post is that? What part of that is a Textbook example of propaganda? Is it because the german tanks dint won they you brought up an answer like that?A good example is the battle of arracourt, where the germans lost 3 times more tanks then the allies. the majority of panzers being Panthers, and the grand majority of Allied tanks being SHERMANS with 75mm guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
36 < 86 its mi my opinion 1 < 2 not 1 to 3....
Maybe 1 to 2,5 but not 1 to 3...
Learn math.
And one more thing Wiki is a little crappy source of info -> go read books 'bout history, inf weapons and vehicles. Its also good to watch discovery and history channel.
Arracourt was part of an entire operation. Of the 280+ german AFV, only 80 remained or so. Thats 200 german tanks destroyed. Allied losses where around 60-70. Thats 2.5 a misscount.
Btw. You may dont know this but more german tanks was destroyed by airplanes not tanks...
But if You think its always tank vs tank, inf vs inf and plane vs plane than it...............
You DO realise that 0.6% of all german tanks in Normandy where destroyed by Airplanes?
And this also applies to the allied tanks. The grand majority where destroyed by AT guns, not Panzers
Seriously why do you guys ALWAYS try to sweet-talk the german army?
-
It's very rare that I kill a german tank with first shot when I'm using an allied tank... no matter what gun it has on it. Only Marder I:s which are pretty much dead even with Sherman's HE. For Panther, always two shots in the side, always. Maybe it's just my luck.
-
This is the last time i'm going in discussion with this. In the end, no matter what the facts, you guys come up with German army> Everything they are so awesome.
Well then, why did they lost the war? Because they where not the best.
-
It's very rare that I kill a german tank with first shot when I'm using an allied tank... no matter what gun it has on it. Only Marder I:s which are pretty much dead even with Sherman's HE. For Panther, always two shots in the side, always. Maybe it's just my luck.
Not with Sherman, that would be outrage, but with Cromwells, 76mm HVAP Shermans, Churchills and that sort of tanks. Shermans can 2 shot though and work really well as "cover" for HVAP Shermans. Also Shermans rape inf and airplanes (really good 75mm AA gun, but there is a different thread for that problem).
Would be nice to see tanking bit more FH1 style where tanks have more hitpoints, then 1 angle shots and these low engagement ranges wouldn't be such a big problem. Would also help immersion IMO.
@THeTAO
Germans lost because of logistics and ruskies, if it would have been technology, training and weapons only world might look different now. What are americans ???
-
WWII simply ends around September 1944 if allied keep one shot their enemy like that.
For me, most of the German tanks I killed was one shot.
-
It's very rare that I kill a german tank with first shot when I'm using an allied tank... no matter what gun it has on it. Only Marder I:s which are pretty much dead even with Sherman's HE. For Panther, always two shots in the side, always. Maybe it's just my luck.
Not with Sherman, that would be outrage, but with Cromwells, 76mm HVAP Shermans, Churchills and that sort of tanks. Shermans can 2 shot though and work really well as "cover" for HVAP Shermans. Also Shermans rape inf and airplanes (really good 75mm AA gun, but there is a different thread for that problem).
Would be nice to see tanking bit more FH1 style where tanks have more hitpoints, then 1 angle shots and these low engagement ranges wouldn't be such a big problem. Would also help immersion IMO.
Good you are staying on-topic
Well, the sherman was designed to fight along with the infantery, not to fight tanks. You cant complain about the 75mm gun being so effective against infantery or in a very lucky case planes, because it was this effective. It litterly ripped trough everything that wassent a medium tank.
@THeTAO
Germans lost because of logistics and ruskies.
Many many more things. A few examples=
-Not introduced new infantery weapons fast enough (STG44 could have deployed way earlier)
-Bad artillery. German artillery was to few, to complex and most off all=Far to many types.
-In terms of AA, the lack of a Intermediate AA gun.
-Bad logistics
-No way to counterattack allied industry
-To high set standards for productions.
-To many types of tanks fielded. They should have just focused on the panther, or PZIV.
The list goes on
-
It's got nothing to do with German tanks not being as good as people might think they should be, hell, I 'd be okay if the devs made the shermans supertanks since I'm not a huge stickler for historical accuracy. It has to do with the mod completely lacking any variety in tank combat. In Normandy I find the 75mm Sherman the most fun tank to use simply because it's the only one I actually get into combat with.
For instance, the last time I played Cobra I used an M10 for one life, in which I 1-shotted a Panther and a Pz.IV, neither of which saw me, and I hit the Panther when it wasn't even in view range using the peripheral vision glitch (I suppose it's kind of an exploit but I assume most people use it and theres no way not to use it really). I then spontanously exploded due to a Pak40. Nothing in that life actually resembled combat, it was just sniping and not really any fun.
-
you cant resemble actual fighting with a game. You simply cannot do that. If germand and old allied veterans would see this game, they would say it is a nice attempt but is nothing towards actual reality in terms of combat
-
you cant resemble actual fighting with a game. You simply cannot do that. If germand and old allied veterans would see this game, they would say it is a nice attempt but is nothing towards actual reality in terms of combat
I specifically said I don't care about historical accuracy, if it makes tank combat more fun. My problem is in Normandy the guns are so powerful and accurate that combat rarely amounts to much beyond who shoots first, not that it's too unrealistic.
-
It's very rare that I kill a german tank with first shot when I'm using an allied tank... no matter what gun it has on it. Only Marder I:s which are pretty much dead even with Sherman's HE. For Panther, always two shots in the side, always. Maybe it's just my luck.
Not with Sherman, that would be outrage, but with Cromwells, 76mm HVAP Shermans, Churchills and that sort of tanks. Shermans can 2 shot though and work really well as "cover" for HVAP Shermans. Also Shermans rape inf and airplanes (really good 75mm AA gun, but there is a different thread for that problem).
Would be nice to see tanking bit more FH1 style where tanks have more hitpoints, then 1 angle shots and these low engagement ranges wouldn't be such a big problem. Would also help immersion IMO.
Good you are staying on-topic
Well, the sherman was designed to fight along with the infantery, not to fight tanks. You cant complain about the 75mm gun being so effective against infantery or in a very lucky case planes, because it was this effective. It litterly ripped trough everything that wassent a medium tank.
What the hell, I ain't complaining about Sherman being good against infantry stop distorting things all the time and try to make things look like I would complain about all obvious things and stop trying make my complaints meaningless. I said what Shermans can do so you wont say its shit against tank bla bla. I aint complaining what your problem. How does it look like i am complaining about Sherman in my post?
And your list what you put there can be analysed in different ways and also the other list goes on. But main reason was Russians and bad logistics.
Liked FH1 tanking much more and am also pretty sure that so did many others (in ways of balance). Right know i would take Cromwell/HVAP sherman over Panther, doesnt feel right. Feels like allied bias.
-
Not allied bias.. Physics of the game engine.. One shot, one kill is the norm for most armor engagements, no matter what tank(s) are involved, save for a few. Reason being is that the tank battle ranges are taking place at distances under wich one shot one kill is possible.
Spread the tanks out and I can assure you that rounds DO bounce off the tanks and that it takes more than one shot to kill stuff. Axis armor is supreme at the longer ranges over allied armor. The problem here is that you guys are stumbling into each other at less than 100 meters and he who sees the other first, wins.
Knoffhoff had a formula that he established when he coded the main guns and projectiles of the tanks. He tested this formula tirelessly and figured out what was going to work best for the majority of how he envisioned tank battles would take place.
For the most part, this works and has worked well, but many don't understand the physical aspect of this setup, but only see the negative side, due to the close combat encouters they are having. Perhaps, more adjustments need to be made, since the tank combat is not occurring in the manner in which it was originally envisioned. Most anything under 100 meters is going to kill something else with one shot. Save for the smaller calibre of guns.
Again, spread yourselves out and you guys would see that the system does work.
-
Ok.
First. Theta, how the hell did you get the AXIS BIAS nickname? Your every word points to the quite opposite. I don't know, maybe you're doing that on purpose, to get rid of it.
Second. I support the idea of having the german armor A TAD stronger. It was for heaven's sake.
Third. Again at Theta, for that stupid statement that I'm actually SORRY because the Germans lost. Yeah, sure, I hate the fact, because if they won I wouldn't be alive, but still I just love the germans -.-
FOURTH: You're OBSESSED with the allied armies. You'd love to see 10 Churchills + 5 Fireflys + 3 Typhoons in one map, against 2 Panthers and 4 Panzer IVs and call it balanced.
The second that someone suggests some new equipment for the axis, you immediately go to the internet to search for evidence so you can claim that it isn't historically correct. Yet you support anything on the allied side. I'll remind you of that with 2 threads. Panzerknacker magnetic mines, and the G43 problem (which you made your own SIGNATURE!). I'm sure I'd be able to find more of such cases, but I really don't care.
Now why do you always have to spit on the, in my eyes, suggestion that axis should have the tank advantage, and the allies numbers (yet not 40:1 ratio), and that the allies would have to actually coordinate with their air forces to make a breakthrough?
-
FOURTH: You're OBSESSED with the allied armies. You'd love to see 10 Churchills + 5 Fireflys + 3 Typhoons in one map, against 2 Panthers and 4 Panzer IVs and call it balanced.
Yeah that is just wrong!
we should have 10 Fireflys + 5 Churchills instead ;D
seriously UNTIL Firefly oneshots Tiger when shot at side and M18 oneshots everything with HVAP i dont care about german tanks
-
Ok.
First. Theta, how the hell did you get the AXIS BIAS nickname? Your every word points to the quite opposite. I don't know, maybe you're doing that on purpose, to get rid of it.
Second. I support the idea of having the german armor A TAD stronger. It was for heaven's sake.
Third. Again at Theta, for that stupid statement that I'm actually SORRY because the Germans lost. Yeah, sure, I hate the fact, because if they won I wouldn't be alive, but still I just love the germans -.-
FOURTH: You're OBSESSED with the allied armies. You'd love to see 10 Churchills + 5 Fireflys + 3 Typhoons in one map, against 2 Panthers and 4 Panzer IVs and call it balanced.
The second that someone suggests some new equipment for the axis, you immediately go to the internet to search for evidence so you can claim that it isn't historically correct. Yet you support anything on the allied side. I'll remind you of that with 2 threads. Panzerknacker magnetic mines, and the G43 problem (which you made your own SIGNATURE!). I'm sure I'd be able to find more of such cases, but I really don't care.
Now why do you always have to spit on the, in my eyes, suggestion that axis should have the tank advantage, and the allies numbers (yet not 40:1 ratio), and that the allies would have to actually coordinate with their air forces to make a breakthrough?
Kinda funny. i am the one who voted for "FH2 is well balanced"
If i am allied biased, why dint i voted GERMANY IS OVERPOWERD and ALLIED ARMY IS UNDERPOWERD.(you could vote twice)
FH2 is good as it is. Look at Gunnie's post. FOURTH: You're OBSESSED with the allied armies. You'd love to see 10 Churchills + 5 Fireflys + 3 Typhoons in one map, against 2 Panthers and 4 Panzer IVs and call it balanced.
No, because then their issent any exclusivity to the Churchill. I like it because it is rare in FH2. That people regard it is as a slower sherman.
I am for Historical accuracy first, and defiantly not a setup you just made up in your rage.
And if i am allied obsessed, why do i keep hoping and saying in almost every newspost that i hope for the jagdpanther, Hetzer, PZIV Ausf J, Jagdpanzer and Only the Sherman 105?
-
Yaarrr.
The game is well balanced.
I have one fine example how well is game balanced.
Piat can 1 shot kill PZ IV (even from the front) - its ok
But it CAN'T kill sherman with 1 shot in rear armor...
And if PIAT can 1shot/kill pz IV why PF is unable to 1shot/kill sherman ?
This is how the game is well balanced.
Oh yeah PIAT CAN i was killed 10 times by hit to front armor i saw the shell fly towards me and boom im dead.
And another thing if planes destroyed only 0.6% of german tanks why they bothered with creating Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds ? Maybe Lehr Div was massacred by planes in normandy ? And why germans made dummie targets for planes and they were ambushing them with barrage from AA weapons ?
It is fact that jerrys tanks were far superior compared to allied crap. Hell if historians say so it IS the truth. The only advantage of allied tanks were numbers. Oh yeah mister NUMBERS. Allies were able to replace 1 sherman KiA with at least 4 new, while jerries couldn't. And some tanks were equal but not shermans vs panthers. If You know Jerries tanks were designet to operate as separate divs. while alied were more of infantry support. They were crappy against tanks and thats why alies made separate tank destroyers like m10.
So please stop babbling 'bout how they were great. They were ordinary just like Your almighty T-34 which You think was better than KV and German tanks.
Like i said before stop reading WIKI for Your info about WWII its crappy source... Read good books like encyclopaedia of WWII or tanks in WWII or infantry weapons.
Yet you support anything on the allied side
Master Chief I'll buy You a beer ! Agree! The best thing that could happen to him is to be able to kill tiger with russian BT.... And im not mentioning 10Church. tanks and 10ff on a single map vs jerrys armed with knives only.... >:(
Im in for historical acc. but Ive voted for it and for germans uderpwrd, alies overpwrd cuz its the way it was.
-
Thats right, behave like immature children.....
And another thing if planes destroyed only 0.6% of german tanks why they bothered with creating Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds ? Maybe Lehr Div was massacred by planes in normandy ? And why germans made dummie targets for planes and they were ambushing them with barrage from AA weapons ?
0.6% was the amount of tanks destroyed by Typhoons with rockets..
Now panzer Lehr was attacked By heavy bombers with a complete bombing run of 500KG bombs. Nothing survives that
What made the typhoons and P47's figtherbombers so devestating was that they shredded all the ammo and fuel carriers of the german panzer devision. The Wirbel/ostwind where made because it took to long to deploy the Flak 2cm when the ammo/fuel carriers where driving towards the tank.
-
Lest we forget that the majority of Panthers in Normandy suffered such terrible breakdown problems that many didn't even make it to combat?
Stop arguing against him being Allied bias when your just as obviously Axis bias in the majority of your posts.
He's the retard ying to your retard yang. Accept it.
-
Lest we forget that the majority of Panthers in Normandy suffered such terrible breakdown problems that many didn't even make it to combat?
Stop arguing against him being Allied bias when your just as obviously Axis bias in the majority of your posts.
He's the retard yin to your retard yang. Accept it.
Now thanks
but really, is their even one allied bias in any of my posts in this thread? I stopped being that ages ago. I admit i was once like that, during the 2.2 release. But you simply push that away as you understand both armies.
Stating out the truth is not being biased. It is simply true that german panzers wherent so godly and awesome as some people think they are. A 2:1 kill ratio in normandy is good, but not when the amount of vehicles your enemy has are 5:1
-
Im just telling the truth.
And wirbels were made to defend pz divs. from being attacked by planes. I dont care if the plane was a diving bomber or heavy bomber. Mobile AA-tanks happend cuz alled air forces were pounding the hell outta panzers. It would be interesting to see luftwaffe dominating in the air and the tank balance would be 1 to 1. This situation would show the real power of german ground troops. The only battleground that show that was Ardennes where german troops were kicking asses until gas ran out and the weather cleared.
And yes i love german war machine it was awsome, fearsome and most of all most of their innovations pushed the battlefields and technology to what we see today. If it wouldn't be germans we would today sit in trenches and pray for surviving another push on enemy lines.
I dont say thet PZs were godlike or anything like this, i just say that they were better than alied tanks. Of course not all cuz PZ II, III and IV wasn't. But Panther was recognized as the best tank during WWII it was well balanced between firepower, mobility and armour. While in game is nothing more than PZ IV with more powerful gun.
-
From R. J. Jarymowycz's Tank Tactics, German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):
Gunfire..............................43.8% (both from tanks, tank destroyers and anti tank guns)
Self destruction..................20.7% (crew abandons a vehicle and destroys it to prevent capture)
Abandonment.....................18.3% (crew abandons the vehicle intact)
Air Attack............................7.5% (destroyed by rockets or bombs)
Hollow-charge Rounds............4.4% (PIAT/Bazooka)
Mechanical..........................4.0% (crew abandons a vehicle 'intact' following mechanical failure)
Mines/Miscellaneous..............0.9%
In brackets is my interpretation. I've also reordered it.
-
the panther is not recognised as the best tank of the war... it has been debated here and on all over the world.
The best tank of the war is made by the following categories=Firepower, armor, Mobility, production numbers and reliability.
The panther failed in the last 2. Only the last production model had a good reliabilty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE
Now you will not like this, but that tank was really the best tank of the war. Only its armor started to fail in 1943.
From R. J. Jarymowycz's Tank Tactics, German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):
Self destruction..................20.7%
Huh? you mean, to prevent to fall into enemy hands right?
-
What else ???
I guess the didn't have suicidal crew ;D
And there's no mechanical problem that could take out a tank for good (Unless it's MADE IN CHINA)
-
Let us all embrace peace now
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Christmas_Truce_memorial_ceremony_2008.jpg/444px-Christmas_Truce_memorial_ceremony_2008.jpg)
-
And there's no mechanical problem that could take out a tank for good (Unless it's MADE IN CHINA)
Or in Germany, since later in the war there were absolutely no spare parts to fix the tank with. :p
-
It'd be intersting to play totalize & cobra with the axis getting lots of mobile AA rather than 190's. That's something I'd really like to see.
This is how i wanted to do it from the very beginning at cobra (no planes for axis). Anyway the majority wanted planes on both sides so here we are.
-
OMG not again T-34... it was horrible.If You think it was so great how do You explain russian losses during 41-44. Ruskies needed 8 tanks to kill 1 german its an average value but it shows how goot they were. In fact after Kursk Ruskies realized that they AWSOME t-34 can do nothing to panthers and tigers. The good t-34 were in '44 equiped with 85mm gun which could be used, again in numers, against german tanks.
T-34 was average tank cuz it could be easly destroyed by german tanks from 43-45.
It was no better than Sherman, but the Bolshevist propaganda showed it like a glorious and awsome tank capable to face any other tank which was absolute bullcrap :/
It was good until Vs and VI showed up on the battlefield. After Kursk they realized that is weak and they came up with model 85 but it was this same t-34 but withe better barrel.
During wwII russian lost 83 500 tanks of course not only t-34
The mayor tactic of the russians was a zerg rush nothing more.
Btw. sorry for OT but i couldn't just let it go...
-
Now, now, the T-34's success tends to be a bit exaggerated, but it was a good tank.
T-34s suffered horrible losses for the same reason the Soviet Air force did, they had good vehicles but they failed to realize the value of maintaining experienced and well trained crews for them. While there is a reason almost all the "aces" of the Eastern front ended up on the German side, it wasn't simply that the Germans had all the good tanks and planes.
This is one of those things that also gets in the way of historical accuracy, as if FH2 was to do a Kursk map for example they could not have anywhere near a realistic ratio of Soviet to German tanks or the Germans would get slaughtered, seeing as some of the Germans only advantages in the war are not possible to represent in a game.
-
It'd be intersting to play totalize & cobra with the axis getting lots of mobile AA rather than 190's. That's something I'd really like to see.
This is how i wanted to do it from the very beginning at cobra (no planes for axis). Anyway the majority wanted planes on both sides so here we are.
Why don't you make another layer of Cobra with this setup then?
-
I know but the russians were idiots, they mayor tactic was to spam enemy with tanks and infantry nothing more. T-34 was none better than Sherman but the crew was from Stalins 'sweep' i mean anyone who can drive a tractor was puted into tank :D They had no time for training and they were send intobattles almost from march. The tank itself had some advantages and disadvantages like all the tanks in wwII. But it wasn't the best tank during war it was a blind copy of Swedish design from between WWI and WWII peroid. And when Germans captured it they made this construction even better. Panther itself was far superior to t-34 but i lacked t-34s numbers and thats all. Of course V's suffered from tech problems but there was a need for it and there was no time to make it better.
Btw. You can make map more historical accurate more tanks to russians but more pf's to germans thats the way it was. They were lacking tank numbers so they came up with AT weapons numbers to balace it. And it can be done in FH too.
-
It would be interesting to see luftwaffe dominating in the air and the tank balance would be 1 to 1.
That's exactly what happened in Cobra, yet someone want to change it to allied dominating both ground and air.
The total exchange ratio in the whole WWII is 5 Sherman to 1 Panther, or 9 T-34 to 1 Panther, that's history reality. Allied tanks suffer no less non-fighting problems than Panther, especially the soviet tank, though they seem to be powerful in numerical data. The current popular one-shot each other style is just simply not reality.
Most history resource claim that M10/M18 had problems dealing with Panther/Tiger from the front, that's what made M36 in need. Now even a Sherman 76 rape anything with that mighty gun.
If I'm a allied player, I don't really care about Jadgpanther. Since it would be one-shot killed by Sherman 75mm from all directions if the current damage value remain. No problem from side and rear, from the front, just shoot its 12。 sloped top armor. And whats more, the mighty HVAP don't have any problems dealing with the strongest part of it. I would predict that this most successful Tank hunter of Axis would be a paper tiger in game.
-
Guys,
I don't really want to get into this heated debate about the best tank or which airplane should climb faster, but here is a little perspective:
1. Any side is capable of winning any map. It just comes down to a certain level of teamplay and coordination. Therefore I think it's reasonable to say the game is balanced.
2. If we wanted "historical accuracy," then we are missing a key element that I haven't seen yet in this discussion: German tanks spent like 80 percent of the second half of World War II stranded, because they didn't have enough fuel (especially in North Africa and the Russian front). You can pick almost any major battle, fuel shortages played a major role in limiting German operations. If we wanted this aspect incorporated into the game, we would need to refuel our tanks, and the Germans would have far less resources than the Allies.
By the way, since we have to reload ammo, I think having a fuel gauge on each tank would be a big plus in this game to make it a little more "realistic".
3. I'm not going to get into this in detail, but the Germans had much better optics, hence they were more accurate when firing. This could be easily fixed with a little blur in some of the sights.
-
Sorry to say this, but kingtiger do you really play the game?At all?
Because in Hslan, i see the germans holding their ground way more then the allied taking theirs
http://fh2.bfstats.info/map.php?map=operation_cobra&maptype=64
and i was correct
Allied planes dominating the skies? you DO realise that every map wich has FW190 is a victory for them right?
Totalize the FW190's face outdated model of a spitfire and typhoons wich are figther bombers.
Cobra should be better for the allies, but their planes hardly inflict damage to the FW190
And alot of people have said this, then you who say that the allies win this game more then the axis. That is a wrong statement. Overall both sides win equally.
-
I know but the russians were idiots, they mayor tactic was to spam enemy with tanks and infantry nothing more. T-34 was none better than Sherman but the crew was from Stalins 'sweep' i mean anyone who can drive a tractor was puted into tank :D They had no time for training and they were send intobattles almost from march. The tank itself had some advantages and disadvantages like all the tanks in wwII. But it wasn't the best tank during war it was a blind copy of Swedish design from between WWI and WWII peroid. And when Germans captured it they made this construction even better. Panther itself was far superior to t-34 but i lacked t-34s numbers and thats all. Of course V's suffered from tech problems but there was a need for it and there was no time to make it better.
Btw. You can make map more historical accurate more tanks to russians but more pf's to germans thats the way it was. They were lacking tank numbers so they came up with AT weapons numbers to balace it. And it can be done in FH too.
The Russians had such extreme losses because most battles took place on the giant open plains of central Russia. Its pretty easy to kill 8-10 T-34s when they are completely out of range to return fire. The Russians we're not stupid, they just exploited their manpower, and worried more about production then innovation, just like the Allies, because it was still WINNING THEM BATTLES. Your going to tell me Zhukov was an idiot? Good luck explaining how.
That is not how Normandy was, and FH2's combat ranges are nothing like that. So you get different results, and that is fine, because this is A VIDEO GAME.
I'm really annoyed with this whole "well the Germans should be leet" argument when we are playing a god damn game and people need to enjoy playing both sides. Turning most fight into 1 shot fights just means that both side's tanker has to be good to keep himself alive. Then the balancing can be fixed on a map to map basis. Some maps you get floods of Shermans that can't win frontally (Goodwood), and some maps you get a few 76s/M18s against an equal number of medium/heavy Axis tanks (Cobra/Luttich).
The last 2 examples are broken IN OPPOSITE WAYS, as the Panthers on Luttich can dominate the Allied tanks when used correctly, and Cobra the Allies just simply have way too many tanks with HVAP.
-
Simply put away the HVAP from shermans. Nobody is gonna cry a river about that. But then i wanna see something done about the FW190 dominance.
-
You can leave the ammo IMO, but drop it down to 1-2 rounds so you actually have to wait to load it or else your likely to waste it. That doesn't break gameplay and it leaves the Sherman 76 with a actual useful role over the 75s, considering they both 1 shot the Panther to the side anyway.
But to fix Cobra, just remove some of the tanks that spawn at the forward main, and at Watermill upon cap.
-
You can leave the ammo IMO, but drop it down to 1-2 rounds so you actually have to wait to load it or else your likely to waste it. That doesn't break gameplay and it leaves the Sherman 76 with a actual useful role over the 75s, considering they both 1 shot the Panther to the side anyway.
But to fix Luttich, just remove some of the tanks that spawn at the forward main, and at Watermill upon cap.
Thats not true. The 75mm sherman needs to shoot the tracks. The 76mm should have no problem shooting all the side area's
-
Actually the Cromwell's 75 can hit the tracks, side hull above the skirts, and the turret, they are all 40/50mm (A/G). You hit the skirts, you get a burning Panther.
The Sherman's 75 is a bit shittier, but will still 1 shot the Panther A in all those same spots. On the Panther G (Cobra) its generally 2 shots as the Shermans round is mitigated by the 50mm, and the skirts will only get it smoking.
-
Actually the Cromwell's 75 can hit the tracks, side hull above the skirts, and the turret, they are all 40/50mm (A/G). You hit the skirts, you get a burning Panther.
The Sherman's 75 is a bit shittier, but will still 1 shot the Panther A in all those same spots. On the Panther G (Cobra) its generally 2 shots as the Shermans round is mitigated by the 50mm, and the skirts will only get it smoking.
thats weird....
3 days ago, i came across a panther, fired at its side armor with my sherman, and it dint killed him. and it was an ausf A
OMG not again T-34... it was horrible.If You think it was so great how do You explain russian losses during 41-44. Ruskies needed 8 tanks to kill 1 german its an average value but it shows how goot they were. In fact after Kursk Ruskies realized that they AWSOME t-34 can do nothing to panthers and tigers. The good t-34 were in '44 equiped with 85mm gun which could be used, again in numers, against german tanks.
T-34 was average tank cuz it could be easly destroyed by german tanks from 43-45.
It was no better than Sherman, but the Bolshevist propaganda showed it like a glorious and awsome tank capable to face any other tank which was absolute bullcrap :/
It was good until Vs and VI showed up on the battlefield. After Kursk they realized that is weak and they came up with model 85 but it was this same t-34 but withe better barrel.
During wwII russian lost 83 500 tanks of course not only t-34
The mayor tactic of the russians was a zerg rush nothing more.
Btw. sorry for OT but i couldn't just let it go...
Heavy losses occurded from 1943 yes, but its dominance in 1941 and 1942 made it a war winner :>
Its design influenced post designs alot. Sloped armor, diesel engines....
-
Shit like that will happen, but test it on a local server, specifically Luttich as both Panther As are on there, 1 w/ the skirts and the 1 w/o.
The G, on Cobra, will often stop 1 as it has 10mm better armor and mitigates more. The G also has the shot trap code removed. But again, shit happens, so from time to time you might catch him in one (slightly hurt, etc.)
-
still that panther will mostly likely have killed you then the sherman have got you. Normandys kill/death ratio was 2:1 for german tanks for something
-
I still think the 1 angle shot exploit needs to be addressed somehow. I ain't having any problem sniping Panthers with my Cromwell. At least would be nice to see 76mm Shermans lose its HVAP, Firefly was better than 76mm Sherman though not in FH2.
-
From R. J. Jarymowycz's Tank Tactics, German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):
Gunfire..............................43.8% (both from tanks, tank destroyers and anti tank guns)
Self destruction..................20.7% (crew abandons a vehicle and destroys it to prevent capture)
Abandonment.....................18.3% (crew abandons the vehicle intact)
Air Attack............................7.5% (destroyed by rockets or bombs)
Hollow-charge Rounds............4.4% (PIAT/Bazooka)
Mechanical..........................4.0% (crew abandons a vehicle 'intact' following mechanical failure)
Mines/Miscellaneous..............0.9%
In brackets is my interpretation. I've also reordered it.
I would say that "Self destruction" and "Abandonment" includes quite a lot of results from air attacks. Less battle-hardened (or perhaps too combat weary) German crews were prone to panic attacks and abandoned their vehicles if attacked by Typhoons or Jugs (or sometimes even at the sight of them, or even at the sound of "Achtung! Jabos!") - never coming back to reclaim them. There are several battle reports from the Normandy campaign where Allied pilots reported destroying a large numbers of German panzers, yet when the footsloggers arrived on the scene, they found only a few tanks actually destroyed, but many more simply abandoned, often even completely undamaged.
Still, the vast majority of German tank losses were caused by Allied armour and AT guns. Which is obviously impossible according to some players, because ZOMFG KITTAH WTFPWNS and FH2 is full of OMG ALLIED BIAS. While I agree with the removal of the HVAP (and PzGr40) ammo for historical reasons, I still find the armoured combat with said ammo in Normandy already quite balanced and quite believable.
And the T-34 argument has been beaten to death several times over and has nothing to with the topic. I am not going to be dragged into that again.
-
The real problems are probaly 99% of all chances being looked into guys.
If shermans truly can now, one shot easily Panthers from the side, i would be glad to see it fix if in return we see the skies fixed of FW190 Dominance.
Now call me allied bias..I dare you, i double dare ****** call me allied bias one more goddam time!!!
;)
-
allied bias 8)
To answer your questions: yes, I appear on publlic servers like 762 and hslan, but I got various IDs, kingtiger1891 is probably the one with least use. ::) In Cobra, tanking as allied I got 4 enemy tanks per life on average, tanking as axis was similar, that's why I agree its an equal chance for both of them( I didn't say dominant or anything like that, though to my experience, allied dominates the ground of Cobra pretty often, I once drove a M18 and stay alive for about 12 minutes in a fully populated server, circling around the town and transition then axis tanks simply got no chance to come out.)
There's maybe some misunderstandings here but I'm only talking about tank combat, not the whole victory or lose. Infantry,planes,map design,points,team cooperate, all these things affect win or lose.
I agree FW190 is far more powerful than reality, if that remains, I don't know if we need Me-262 or Me-163. That's just as the Sherman 76, if HVAP power and amounts remains, there's no need for a M36 or comet anyway.
-
Allied bias :P
And don't you dare say I play axis all the time. I pwn the living shiat out of germans on Totalize, Cobra, Lebisey, Goodwood and Falaise. I even one shot killed a Panther with a PIAT. And then I chased the King Tiger all over the map to send it fucking sky high :D (With a PIAT).
I won't even mention the Fall of Tobruk 8)
And the Bren massacre is unbelievable. Whatever the map.
-
Heavy losses occurded from 1943 yes, but its dominance in 1941 and 1942 made it a war winner :>
Oh and that dominance made germans to lie siege of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad cuz they made so far into russia.
They were more frighten KW-1 than t-34 i remember stories about single KW stopping german division, because they couldn't do anything with pz II, III and IV(short barreled) only FlaK88 was able to kill it.
I dont know if it is truth 'bout single KW but i can believe that they were German nemesis.
And When IV ausf. F2 were put into game once again t-34 were burning. F2 with 7,5 cm KwK 40 L/43 made them burn and it was deployed in april 42. And it still was F2's 1500m vs t-34 1000m to penetrate armor.
Like i said before, and before before t-34 main advantage was numbers and tactic used by CCCP was to spam thousand of tanks and overrun enemy tanks. And mostly of all german lost in russia because of winter which forced them to stop their blitz, and while they stoped russians were able to organise themselfes and prepare for counteroffensive.
-
Heavy losses occurded from 1943 yes, but its dominance in 1941 and 1942 made it a war winner :>
Oh and that dominance made germans to lie siege of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad cuz they made so far into russia.
They were more frighten KW-1 than t-34 i remember stories about single KW stopping german division, because they couldn't do anything with pz II, III and IV(short barreled) only FlaK88 was able to kill it.
I dont know if it is truth 'bout single KW but i can believe that they were German nemesis.
And When IV ausf. F2 were put into game once again t-34 were burning. F2 with 7,5 cm KwK 40 L/43 made them burn and it was deployed in april 42. And it still was F2's 1500m vs t-34 1000m to penetrate armor.
Like i said before, and before before t-34 main advantage was numbers and tactic used by CCCP was to spam thousand of tanks and overrun enemy tanks. And mostly of all german lost in russia because of winter which forced them to stop their blitz, and while they stoped russians were able to organise themselfes and prepare for counteroffensive.
KV was more feared.
And read this
We had nothing comparable.” —Friedrich von Mellenthin
you bring up arguments wich have nothing to do with the T34.
It was a good tank.Period. Yes it sufferd heavy losses, but losses can be replaced. Its crew also had a much great chance of surviving a hit in T34 then a german panzer btw.
-
A note.
In '41 germans started using PzG shells which made PZ III able to kill t-34.
When it happend russians were in panic and they were welding additional armor to its front and side.
And this made a little suggestion. If t-34 was dominating it was between June 41 and December 41.
After that the F2 IV's started to apear and then poof once again t-34 was burning.
And if You tell me about survivability in t-34 take in mind that the fuel system was leaking and all the fuel was all over crwe part and ammo part.
-
“The finest tank in the world” —Field Marshal Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist
And keep in mind that even with those precious APCR rounds a Panzer III (50 mm KwK 38) had to be pretty close for a penetration whilst a T-34 could kill it from over a kilometre's distance.
-
A note.
In '41 germans started using PzG shells which made PZ III able to kill t-34.
When it happend russians were in panic and they were welding additional armor to its front and side.
And this made a little suggestion. If t-34 was dominating it was between June 41 and December 41.
After that the F2 IV's started to apear and then poof once again t-34 was burning.
And if You tell me about survivability in t-34 take in mind that the fuel system was leaking and all the fuel was all over crwe part and ammo part.
PZG40 was Very rare the day it was introduced, and barely affected performance at all
F2? Really?
Production of F2=A mere 1000 in total
Production of T34=12000 in 1942 alone
Ooh, and T34 penetrates that 50mm with ease....
And wtf with your fuel system leaking and fuel over Crew and ammo part? This is the first time i ever heard of that. Its DIESEL, not Gasoline.
Then explain this. Why does the T34 has a rate of catching fire of 35%, while regular panzers had 70-80%
Once again you are coming up with facts that have no truth at all . And this leads to stupid flamewars. What you are saying now about the T34, is saying that the tiger tank had shit armor and the Panther tank a weak useless gun
-
“The finest tank in the world” —Field Marshal Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist
And keep in mind that even with those precious APCR rounds a Panzer III (50 mm KwK 38) had to be pretty close for a penetration whilst a T-34 could kill it from over a kilometre's distance.
But in FH2 that wouldn't matter much because of the view distance not being incredible high so you can't actually use that advantage well (IMO one reason why bigger german tanks may seem a bit underpowered but that doesn't concern me because my fav germ tank is Panzer 4H!).I hope next front is Eastern so we can use those lovely T-34 and reduce pesky germ Panzers to piles of scrap metal!
But anyway in my opinion FH2 balance is quite nice right now but there are some things I'd like to see removed: remove PzG40 from germans on Normandy maps (like someone already wrote that ammo doesn't even help you in Normandy maps) and those HVAP from Shermans. Also it would be nice to see how Totalize and Cobra would play without luftwaffe presence and more mobile AA for germs. Ohh and I voted for historical accuracy > balance!
-
.. is saying that the tiger tank had shit armor
This is somehow what's happening right now.
-
Once again you are coming up with facts that have no truth at all . And this leads to stupid flamewars. What you are saying now about the T34, is saying that the tiger tank had shit armor and the Panther tank a weak useless gun
God damn and Your facts are from wikipedia - the shittiest source of info ever.
I live in Poland, My country was a part of "Eastern Block' and We were producing t-34s. Hell i even was sitting in t-34 and it was messy, greasy and fuel stinking piece of crap. I came outta t-34 dirtty as hell from grease. So dont tell me bullshit about that You know better. You only saw t-34 on pictures.
In one toppic Paythoss gave You tests between t-34 cannon and sherman cannon. Hell the sherman was better tank, and it was hell way better than that crappy Bolshevik propaganda tank.
-
Really, you sat in a 70 year old tank and got dirt on yourself? That means it was a shitty tank?
Well it's not actually that, is it? You hate Bolshevism and that's why everything coming from Russia must suck.
You say that one can't know something about tanks only by seeing them in pictures, so how do you know anything better than a German generals and field marshals ("The finest tank in the world") who('s men) fought against these things by sitting inside one 70 years later.
PS. Learn to use wikipedia/any other source of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#External_links
-
Ya it was in perfect condition, and still it was greasy and dirty. I hate commies but the KW tank was awsome. T-34 still was crap. No wonder from ower 80000 tanks killed in ussr during wwII large group were t-34.
T-34 was a bucket of bolts nothing more. I only wonder when You'll say it could easly destroy tiger, king tiger, leopard, abrams and merkava.
End of topic. Im not tanking with people using Wiki as a main source of info.
-
Look... i have been to poland myself. I spoke with many polish persons about the days of Poland in the Soviet union. About how the USSR head guys stopped the red army advance in order to allow the germans to stop the Uprising in Warshaw....How all those polish officers and important polish persons where massacerd at Katyn..
You cant really use it to deny the importance of the T34. This tank stopped the Nazi war machine into its tracks. It is the massive sacrifice of all those russian soldiers, men woman and children, wich made us win the war. Those where ordinary people. Regular people like you and me. Like the average allied soldier, and the average german soldier wich dint want to fight.
Ya it was in perfect condition, and still it was greasy and dirty. I hate commies but the KW tank was awsome. T-34 still was crap. No wonder from ower 80000 tanks killed in ussr during wwII large group were t-34.
Here i am trying to reason..and you bring up that..
Go to any WW2 historian. Ask him what was the best tank of the war, what was the war winning tank? And 99% of them will defiantly say the T34
T-34 was a bucket of bolts nothing more. I only wonder when You'll say it could easly destroy tiger, king tiger, leopard, abrams and merkava.
It could kill the tiger, the Kingtiger and even the Leopard as THAT bucket of bolts had 70MM of armor MAX.Now seriously, WHY do you behave like this?
End of topic. Im not tanking with people using Wiki as a main source of info.
Goodbye then. I think nobody here would love to tank with anyone who brings up false info and accusations of the one tank that stopped the Nazi war machine in its path and Revolutionized tank warfare even up to today.
And for myself. I am not biased as you think. My sole bias towards this game, and the reason why i even play FH2 is Balance. And FH2 has this. They listen to what we say.
and i agree with most of people's concern=HVAP on sherman, Desert tanking imbalance, Now that i heard the panther can get killed on its side armor by sherman... Yet i also agree with the fact that Allied planes are current underpowerd. So really, AM i biased?
And even with everything YOU just said, along with your buddies, i still hold Zero grudge against either of you. Ask me now ingame to help you with anything, and i would glady help.
NOTE= i want this thread to exist for people who wanna discuss the real balance issues with FH2.
however if anyone continues like this, Flippy, Thorondor you are free to lock this thread up.I reasoned with every post. And when you get replies like that...
-
It'd be intersting to play totalize & cobra with the axis getting lots of mobile AA rather than 190's. That's something I'd really like to see.
This is how i wanted to do it from the very beginning at cobra (no planes for axis). Anyway the majority wanted planes on both sides so here we are.
I demand the names & addresses of this so called majority!
I know a glaswegian chappy who can 'convince' them your original setup is much more fun :P
Ah well that's a shame to hear, but maybe someday when more big team battle maps have been done the majority might lean towards liking your original setup.
-
I reasoned with every post. And when you get replies like that...
Well I would love a reply to my earlier (hopefully constructive) post. What do you think of the fuel gauge idea?
Guys,
I don't really want to get into this heated debate about the best tank or which airplane should climb faster, but here is a little perspective:
1. Any side is capable of winning any map. It just comes down to a certain level of teamplay and coordination. Therefore I think it's reasonable to say the game is balanced.
2. If we wanted "historical accuracy," then we are missing a key element that I haven't seen yet in this discussion: German tanks spent like 80 percent of the second half of World War II stranded, because they didn't have enough fuel (especially in North Africa and the Russian front). You can pick almost any major battle, fuel shortages played a major role in limiting German operations. If we wanted this aspect incorporated into the game, we would need to refuel our tanks, and the Germans would have far less resources than the Allies.
By the way, since we have to reload ammo, I think having a fuel gauge on each tank would be a big plus in this game to make it a little more "realistic".
3. I'm not going to get into this in detail, but the Germans had much better optics, hence they were more accurate when firing. This could be easily fixed with a little blur in some of the sights.
-
I think it's a great idea Guba,
It would give all those tank whores one more thing to worry about.
-
You know, that would be cool.
Is this possible in any way?
-
Let us all embrace peace now
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Christmas_Truce_memorial_ceremony_2008.jpg/444px-Christmas_Truce_memorial_ceremony_2008.jpg)
(http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/05/million_peace.jpg)
Peace dude :-* ;D
-
I reasoned with every post. And when you get replies like that...
Well I would love a reply to my earlier (hopefully constructive) post. What do you think of the fuel gauge idea?
Guys,
I don't really want to get into this heated debate about the best tank or which airplane should climb faster, but here is a little perspective:
1. Any side is capable of winning any map. It just comes down to a certain level of teamplay and coordination. Therefore I think it's reasonable to say the game is balanced.
2. If we wanted "historical accuracy," then we are missing a key element that I haven't seen yet in this discussion: German tanks spent like 80 percent of the second half of World War II stranded, because they didn't have enough fuel (especially in North Africa and the Russian front). You can pick almost any major battle, fuel shortages played a major role in limiting German operations. If we wanted this aspect incorporated into the game, we would need to refuel our tanks, and the Germans would have far less resources than the Allies.
By the way, since we have to reload ammo, I think having a fuel gauge on each tank would be a big plus in this game to make it a little more "realistic".
3. I'm not going to get into this in detail, but the Germans had much better optics, hence they were more accurate when firing. This could be easily fixed with a little blur in some of the sights.
1- Very true, though on some maps one team may need a bit more coordination than the other in order to win
2- The problem is tanks don't live long enough to require refueling on a realistic timeline, and it'd be weird to have to refuel your tank every 5 minutes. Changing ammo amounts to be very low on some maps for the Germans would be interesting though, I always liked that snowy FH.7 map with the heavily damaged Tiger that was low on ammo and didn't respawn.
3- I thought the Shermans had very good optics, but if this is true for most tanks I could see it working. I'm not sure if that thing where the sights on some tanks will occasionally get misaligned is intentional, but it'd be cool if it happened more often when you were turning the tank or turret for some tanks.
-
Shermans had indeed great optics :o
Fireflies even better. It is mostly the reason of their succes
-
Shermans had indeed great optics :o
Fireflies even better. It is mostly the reason of their succes
Zeiss optic´s win.
Now I ask...did the optics actually made a difference or?
-
Shermans had indeed great optics :o
Fireflies even better. It is mostly the reason of their succes
Zeiss optic´s win.
Now I ask...did the optics actually made a difference or?
well..in normandy not really. Its pretty much thanks to the Zeiss optics that allowed the tiger to like wtfpwn tanks at ranges up to 2 km
-
What's wrong with Wiki? It's a resource that gets it's own resources from other resources, and those resources get their resources from other resources, LOL.
From what I've read about the T-34, the German Pz III was not able to penetrate the T-34 and had to use it's heavier guns like the 88 mm, etc. However, early in the war it was low in numbers and luckily didn't pose TOO much of a problem. The T-34 was a great tank because of it's ability to be mass produced, had sloped armor, LOL pwned any terrain because of it's wide tracks and it was fast.
By 1943 with 75mm Pz IVs, panthers and tigers come into play, I agree that the T-34 lost it's z0mg superiority against these tanks. However, the T-34 was a mass-produced tanks whereas the German tanks were not. I'm among the believers that the German army focused too much on quality, and yet was their downfall in that they were out-produced by the quick producing tanks such as the T-34 and the sherman (the T-34 being LOL more superior than the sherman IMO).
Back on topic though, HVAP to tank destroyers only and I think the flying speeds of what I've heard needs to be fixed. Operation Cobra needs a re-balance for the axis (they just get out-produced by so many allied tanks and the entire strategy revolves around holding all flags or else LOL lose), and removing unlimited spawns for G43s on Luttich and cobra.
If the sherman can indeed penetrate the side of a panther tank, than let it be so. However the strength of the panther was it's frontal sloped armor so let it be that way and take out the z0mg pwnz0r HVAP and PzG40 rounds for regular tanks.
-
In 1943 it sufferd heavy losses...But so many of them where built it did not really matterd. Russian commanders often just let them attack in huge swarms. in the end, the high speed and moblity of the T34 allowed them to get in range of panzers and kill them aswel.
Plus crew survivability was actually good on the T34. Many crews could abandon their tanks and run back to the frontline's, because the attack was in progress. One T34 crew during the battle at kursk switched between 6 T-34's, without losing a single crew member. And a T34 hit was often not a loss. They where very easy to repair.
When you see the tank losses on a wikipage or so, expect half of those tanks to return to the battle after repairs.
-
Wiki can be edited by anyone so even by that funny male-female guy from the History Channel, adding bullshit. I can go up there and write that during the Fall of France the Germans used 50 Panzer III's to attack a village and that the French countered it by throwing milk at their vision so they couldn't see and thats what delayed the German offensive.
-
Wiki can be edited by anyone so even by that funny male-female guy from the History Channel, adding bullshit. I can go up there and write that during the Fall of France the Germans used 50 Panzer III's to attack a village and that the French countered it by throwing milk at their vision so they couldn't see and thats what delayed the German offensive.
And they'll fall for it ;D
VERDAMNT! MILCH! ZHERRUG!KEINE CHANCE, die panzer is KAPUTT!Eraus!
-
Wiki can be edited by anyone so even by that funny male-female guy from the History Channel, adding bullshit. I can go up there and write that during the Fall of France the Germans used 50 Panzer III's to attack a village and that the French countered it by throwing milk at their vision so they couldn't see and thats what delayed the German offensive.
Now this is what im talking about all the god damned time. Fuchs You got a sixpack of beer on my cost :)
-
Not that into beer but you Poles make great vodka <hinthint>
-
Wiki can be edited by anyone so even by that funny male-female guy from the History Channel, adding bullshit. I can go up there and write that during the Fall of France the Germans used 50 Panzer III's to attack a village and that the French countered it by throwing milk at their vision so they couldn't see and thats what delayed the German offensive.
Now this is what im talking about all the god damned time. Fuchs You got a sixpack of beer on my cost :)
Yet i dont look info unto Wikipedia unlike what you have been saying to me.
And fuchs, Tyskie is good polish beer though. But take it in bottles, not cans
-
PS. Learn to use wikipedia/any other source of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#Notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#External_links
Oh, and you can see who edited the article, when it was edited and what was the edit. If someone has spent long time writing an article with tons of sources and references about, say the T-34, s/he can easily see if someone changes/adds something and delete the edit if it was bullshit.
-
If the article gets alot of things like that, only the ones who spended time creating that article are allowed to make edits.
Wikipedia issent a bad source guys. The history section of the wiki holds very high standards.
-
Wiki can be edited by anyone so even by that funny male-female guy from the History Channel, adding bullshit. I can go up there and write that during the Fall of France the Germans used 50 Panzer III's to attack a village and that the French countered it by throwing milk at their vision so they couldn't see and thats what delayed the German offensive.
Now this is what im talking about all the god damned time. Fuchs You got a sixpack of beer on my cost :)
I bet an edit like that would be wiped by admins in about 30 seconds.
-
Wiki can be edited by anyone so even by that funny male-female guy from the History Channel, adding bullshit. I can go up there and write that during the Fall of France the Germans used 50 Panzer III's to attack a village and that the French countered it by throwing milk at their vision so they couldn't see and thats what delayed the German offensive.
The problem with that, is that any addition to an article such as that must now get a confirmation. You'll notice that your changes won't appear straight away because people will review your additions and if they are indeed and confirmed correct they will add them. I've already tried it and got Lol z0mg pwned in two seconds.
I find wikipedia to be a great neutral source of information on topics, they give a great over view and if you want to dive in further you can based on the resources they provide or your own. Try adding penis to any article or any word you'd like and it will not appear straight away depending on your membership. Besides, books are no better than wiki imo, they do not have multiple peers reviewing or confirming information, just one guy saying what he thinks happened, etc. University professors are even worse, since their word is essentially law and whatever they think happened, it happened no matter what source you give.
-
Wiki can be edited by anyone so even by that funny male-female guy from the History Channel, adding bullshit. I can go up there and write that during the Fall of France the Germans used 50 Panzer III's to attack a village and that the French countered it by throwing milk at their vision so they couldn't see and thats what delayed the German offensive.
Now this is what im talking about all the god damned time. Fuchs You got a sixpack of beer on my cost :)
I bet an edit like that would be wiped by admins in about 30 seconds.
Wanna bet?
-
I voted Allied army is overpowered!
It seems to me that everything the allies have is much stronger than in reality ... axis armor performs pathetically.
1. Panthers get 1 shotted from the front by 6pounders
2. Panthers get killed to easily by shermans from the side ... i mean if you hit the side its still sloped and the shell doesnt come from 90 degrees - its rahter a small angle so it would be likely to bounce off - a 90 degree hit should of course be a kill.
3. Hellcats and sherman 76s shoot panthers from the front
-right now i perform better with the stug than the panther...
then people come up with the argument : its a short distance so they should do that - but why the hell do have panzer IVs have trouble dealing with shermans? - you need a pzgr40 to kill them from the front (or even side for a 76sherman) - but if the distance is that short even regular ap ammo would be enough - I dont get it
from what ive read and learned about history 76mm was only good at the side armor at combat ranges of the heavier german tanks ...
I think we should make german tanks stronger, make some less of them on the maps and get rid of at least 1 focke wulf per map - its 1944, the luftwaffe was non existant at that point.
just my view, sry if it sounds like flaming
-
I voted Allied army is overpowered!
Ok.
It seems to me that everything the allies have is much stronger than in reality ... axis armor performs pathetically.
Actually no. Because the allies had shit amounts of artillery, planes and ships backing them up, and those arent in FH2:)
1. Panthers get 1 shotted from the front by 6pounders
APDS rounds can do that
2. Panthers get killed to easily by shermans from the side ... i mean if you hit the side its still sloped and the shell doesnt come from 90 degrees - its rahter a small angle so it would be likely to bounce off - a 90 degree hit should of course be a kill.
Sloping dint matter. Shermans could easily penetrated the side armor at 1.5km range. The side area's of the panther housed 80% of all ammo and alot of fuel lines. A panther getting hit in the sides had a good 80 to 85% chance of catching fire or even exploding. When that happend, german tank crews just as much abandonded their tanks as allied tank crews did.
3. Hellcats and sherman 76s shoot panthers from the front
Once again. HVAP. It could penetrate the frontal armor. Now dont you german fanboys come with that the HVAP round dint always penetrated the frontal armor. Because it cant be implented and german armor quality was HEAVILY diffrent on tanks. Some tiger tanks their side armor only had 65mm strength instead of 80.
then people come up with the argument : its a short distance so they should do that - but why the hell do have panzer IVs have trouble dealing with shermans? - you need a pzgr40 to kill them from the front (or even side for a 76sherman) - but if the distance is that short even regular ap ammo would be enough - I dont get it
Only when you hit the front turret. That is 91mm thick and the penetration of the PZIV's gun is 97mm or so at 1000m. FH2 standards allow the sherman to survive
Yet why aim for the small turret when you can hit the FAT sides?
And the sherman 76mm is being looked into.Might be a bug.
from what ive read and learned about history 76mm was only good at the side armor at combat ranges of the heavier german tanks ...
Then you read and learned wrong :)
The M series of 76mm guns could easily kill PZIV and stugs. Sides of panthers was no problem. For the tiger I they had to get in range of around 800m i think. Frontal armor of Panther and Tiger was not penetratable with standard AP ammo, but HVAP did got trough.
I think we should make german tanks stronger, make some less of them on the maps and get rid of at least 1 focke wulf per map - its 1944, the luftwaffe was non existant at that point.
Not really :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_gun#Army_versions
Read the bottom of the section "army versions"
just my view, sry if it sounds like flaming
Nah dont worry.
This has been discussed however. Over and over. And made clear 1000 times.
German panzers are NOT underpowerd. They still get much and much more kills ingame then the allied one's. Yet people so overromantized and Overrated panzers as 8 allied tanks get shot for one german one.
Reality was much diffrent. In normandy the allies lost 4400 tanks. The germans 2200. Crew training was the biggest factor in panzer succeses.
And it resulted in tank aces like Johannes Bölter, Ernst Barkmann,Otto Carius or Michael Wittmann. However this list of men is small.
As stalin said=
Quantity is a quality of its own
And some guy wich name i forgot=
Quantity will be superior if it still contains quality
And thats what the allies still had.
hitting the rack!
-
I don't add my opinion here, I just QUOTE, but people gonna judge ::)
(regarding the advantage of t-34)
Wikipedia issent a bad source guys. The history section of the wiki holds very high standards.
(regarding the ineffectivness of allied HVAP)
Quoted frome wiki:
High Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, first became available in August 1944 for the
76 mm gun. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which
gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. However, this new projectile was still unable to penetrate
the glacis plate of the Panther tank although it could penetrate the turret mantlet of the Panther at longer ranges
than standard ammunition
Wikipedia is not a realible source always.
Shermans could easily penetrated the Panther side armor at 1.5km range.
HVAP penetrated 140-150MM at 1000M range. Enough to wipe out all german kitties.
Some tiger tanks their side armor only had 65mm strength instead of 80mm.
Some Tigers had their theoratical 100MM frontal hull, yet many only had a strengt of 80MM or sometimes even 65!
Kingtiger armor hull STRENGTH=110MM
In theory a Panther has 120MM armor, yet quality degraded many of them to sometimes 90MM strength.
Panthers only had 45MM of bad quality steel their.
What they need to do to make the Panther unique, is by allowing shermans and other 75MM gunned tanks to damage the
frontal armor of Panzers IV and StuG's.
Sherman turret is 91mm thick and the penetration of the PZIV's gun is 97mm or so at 1000m. FH2 standards allow the
sherman to survive.
The churchill has 104MM frontal armor. The 88 penetrates 95MM at that range. Hence the reason why the churchill
survives.
Infact, the sherman was one of the safest tanks to drive in.Their where plenty of Sherman crews who switched trough
5-6 shermans during their carreer.
Simply, Panthers blew/burned when penetrated by anything.
Zooks could penetrate 100MM of armor .
10% of all panzerfausts 60+100 should explode when being fired killing the soldier.
From short ranges, 2pdr was still mighty effective, even on the frontal armor.I once saw a photo of a British
matilda tank crew celebrating with Tea the hunt of the day= 16 Tanks.
Matilda's WHERE like this in WW2.... They simply charged in close enough to even penetrate the frontal armor.
Matilda's Outclassed german panzers.Taking these vehicles out was extremely difficult and MANY panzers where shot
to pieces before they where down.
Now in normandy vs the Tiger and KT this was diffrent...........the allies HAD guns to kill them.
I reasoned with every post.
No matter what the FACTS, you guys come up with German army> Everything they are so awesome.
-
Now honestly i could not understand that post of yours. Ofcourse people are gonna judge if you make a useless post like that. Why do you quote what i say?
1. Yes wikipedia is not a bad source.
2. It is not always a reliable source. Many things get added to it witouth a refernce. And it can take time to get those things deleted. Remeber EVERYONE can and will edit it.
3. And those things are true. Everyone is always talking about how awesome german vehicles are. Well someone has to bring it up for the allies
4. I did. Infact, the things you brought up with your concerns is what i mostly agreed with. And i was one of the few who actually listend to that.
5. And some of you did. Alot. Like the T34 case. Re-read that and i dont need to explain myself
If you think, that by adding all the things i said in a favor of the allies is for making me look like Allied bias towards, you are making a big mistake. Ofcourse you only took those posts and NOT the ones where i support German army corrections and buffs...
Dont expect me to EVER back you up for your concerns about KT 1S1K or HVAP.
-
Interesting post TAO,
while I agree with you that the side was not very welll armored on the panthers (my point was just that a panther blows up even at 1 degree in FH2 when hit into the side), I still think the frontal armor is to weak.
In this link you will find that the hull of the panther can only be penetrated at 100 metres from a 76mm gun, the tower at 700 metres, if you scroll down a bit.
http://www.members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/panther.html
-> you told me that the shermans turret is "p4 proof" at 1000 metres (which it still isnt, see the numbers you posted) - so a panther turret is also 76mm proof at 1000 metres following that logic.
And of course this neat thing here, which someone linked for me before...
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/
It will show you that the 76 cant penetrate the panthers front at combat ranges - grnted hvap sometimes can and it cant be implented correctly into the game, and for the sake of balance let the thing penetrate.
And about my post about the Luftwaffe of 1944, of course there where still planes around but the numbers where so horribly in favour of the allies (even more then on the ground) and germany at that time was low on fuel and pilots that the luftwaffe was kind of nutered - that was my point.
There was some german line concerning planes in late ww2 (dont know the words exactly)
Kinda like this:
Ist ein Flugzeug silbern, dann ist es amerikanisch
Ist es braun, dann ist es britisch
und ist es unsichtbar dann ist es eins von unseren. have fun using google language tool :P
still i get your point on some parts, cya
-
Oh well dont worry
The devs might now answer in threads like this, but they do know about our concerns.
The thing is, balance can be ruined by even small changes. Imo and most of the people agree here that normandy balancing is fine and desert tanking in NA needs balancing.
-
The point is not summing up your allied-favor threads to make you like allied-bias, the point is you ALWAYS exaggerating the axis defects and the allied gun power/armor thickness. I'll take one for example, "In theory a Panther has 120MM armor, yet quality degraded many of them to sometimes 90MM strength.", in almost every source the Panther's frontal hull is recorded as 80mm bent at 35 degree, leads to 80/(sin 35)= 140mm, and I can tell you the one coded in FH2 right now is 83mm/(sin 35)=145mm, what's the "fact" that even "in theory" its only 120mm and practically even only 90mm ?! And then Sherman has "91 mm armor"? So did the Sherman has better armor than Panther? In your allied-favor threads axis tank only got 60% of their armor thickness than numerical data, then in your "axis-favor threads"(if there's any), I can't find any allied stuffs get only 60% of their armor/gun power than history data. Instead, you claim that Churchill IV had 99mm side armor although the truth is no more than 90mm, and you claim the 1000m penetration is used but the truth is they implement the 500m penetration. Sherman's front turret is 91mm? The fact is, only small part of the front on some late version Shermans were 89mm. Now you can't one shot a M4A1's 76mm mantlet in point blank range with 75/L48 AP. Many things more...
You never did support the point that HVAP is overpowered, on the top armor consistency issues, did anyone oppose? There are people who think it's a minor problem but I hardly find anyone reject the point of consistency. And again as a player on both sides, I still love to one shot Tiger I/II's top armor or Panther from the side when I'm in a fast cromwell, or blew up anything I saw when I had uber HVAP in hand. I just announce my opinion here that I think something doesn't match history accuracy, whether it's changed doesn't really affect my gameplay.
-
Why do you think i do that?
To counter the things people do but then the other way around. All allied stuff sucks, all german things FTW and should be so in FH2.
Because i do not wanna see FH2 turn imbalanced because a few people think their panzers should be more stronger
Visa versa also. Like those guys who wanna see more fireflies and TD's on maps...NO thanks
HVAP removed on shermans? Sure. 1S1K on KT? ye thats lame... shouldnt be in
Panzers underpowerd? hell no. They arent.
This is not pointed out to you. But other people.
-
in almost every source the Panther's frontal hull is recorded as 80mm bent at 35 degree, leads to 80/(sin 35)= 140mm
yes, but it depends on QUALITY of armour, not how much there is.
-
in almost every source the Panther's frontal hull is recorded as 80mm bent at 35 degree, leads to 80/(sin 35)= 140mm
yes, but it depends on QUALITY of armour, not how much there is.
Thank you :)
And 2/3 of all panthers had bad armor quality and cracks in welding in Normandy.
And the same old discussion goes on. Let us stop right now to prevent another war.
-
HVAP removed on shermans? Sure. 1S1K on KT? ye thats lame... shouldnt be in
Panzers underpowerd? hell no. They arent.
If it is any consolation to you, I agree and this is more or less how I would change things myself. I do not think the current state is really unbalanced. Just a few tweaks like that and we would be set.
-
Some people say it's less than 140mm, some say it's more than 140mm, so the current coding is just fair.
-
God, what a thread... :-X
Special rounds (PzG40, HVAP APDS etc.) should be out, it doesn't work very well ingame, mostly due to the fact that you don't have to save them for another day and instead people cruise around with them loaded most of the time, especially if you just got killed by a Tiger or Panther ;)
I think that would decrease the worst of these "omg!wtf! killed me in that with that for there! LAME!!"
Other than that I think the tanks in FH2 works out as they should quite well.
Panther was good, but far from invincible.
[notfixable=on]
Sad thing though with the engine that can't see difference from 10 degree and 90 degrees angle hits which make large tanks like the Panther with it's quite weak side armor a very good target.
Top armor hits are very rare as far as I have seen, but I guess it happens at shorter ranges :-\
[notfixable=off]
-
Top armor hits are very common on Totalize near the Windmill, Axis heavy tanks go into the river to cross it, I can 1 shoot a Panther with a Cromwell then. Had this a couple of times (don't tank quite often) and with Mudra aboard we both had a WTF moment.
-
Ya, but thats also the Panther's fault for not knowing whats ahead of him, since you can clear the opposite coastline to the the haystacks in the field with a quick side-screen look.
You put a Panther on the road near that windmill and give him cover from the Typhoons, and he can be there ALL round (I have a 85-34-0 screenshot to prove that if necessary). There is nothing currently wrong with the Panthers, just people try to use it for things that are not what it is made for.
-
Why arent tigers and panthers feared in normandy like valentines and matildas are feared in africa? You actually have to think and coordinate to take them out in africa, For tigers and panthers almost any guns the allies have can kill them easily! Whats with that! And pz4 gun cant one shot a sherman from the front??? wtf....
-
Why arent tigers and panthers feared in normandy like valentines and matildas are feared in africa? You actually have to think and coordinate to take them out in africa, For tigers and panthers almost any guns the allies have can kill them easily! Whats with that! And pz4 gun cant one shot a sherman from the front??? wtf....
Because they could be killed like that IRL.
Panthers had SHIT side and top armor. This has been said by everyone multiple times.
Tigers where feared alot by allied tankers, but fireflies and TD's could handle them
The matilda/valentine/KV was so feared by the germans when encounterd because they had Absolutly Nothing to kill them. None of their tanks or anti-tank guns could kill them. They had to improvise heavily or rely fully on airsupport, in wich stuka's had to score almost direct hits to take these tanks out.
By the time tanks like the above where taken out in 1941-1942, they caused alot of damage. A KV-2 for example, destroyed 25 germans, killed 100 german troops and stalled half a devision for an entire day.
-
You know sherman and cromwells were much more shit, try to geet over it German design and tactics were so MUCH better. They only had lack of resources, stop saying German sucked when they did better when you take the numbers to account. You jealous allied bias :P.
look how well axis did with such a lack of resources and manpower, that got to mean something.
-
You know sherman and cromwells were much more shit, try to geet over it German design and tactics were so MUCH better. They only had lack of resources, stop saying German sucked when they did better when you take the numbers to account. You jealous allied bias :P.
look how well axis did with such a lack of resources and manpower, that got to mean something.
german tactics were good yes. players' tactics in FH2 sucks and that's why they get slaughtered.
When in panther, you should have two tanks covering your both flanks and always front towards enemy.
-
Not that easy in FH when maps have all sorts of shit everywhere obstructing your view and engagement ranges are like 100 meters.
-
Not that easy in FH when maps have all sorts of shit everywhere obstructing your view and engagement ranges are like 100 meters.
haven't caused problems for me :P
-
You know sherman and cromwells were much more shit, try to geet over it German design and tactics were so MUCH better. They only had lack of resources, stop saying German sucked when they did better when you take the numbers to account. You jealous allied bias :P.
look how well axis did with such a lack of resources and manpower, that got to mean something.
You just look upon the sherman as shit..But it wassent designed in the same way as german tanks.
What you're problem is is that you look upon everything allied that is shit. You are the one truly biased to one side.
I only play with the allies because they are more of an challenge and because i love big explosions...and the 75mm HE shells do that for me
-
Yesterday on Op Cobra i recieved 3 direct hits on the front of the Panther (from two different M4A1, i survived m all three and blew them up, please note: i was already hit twice by an allied plane and had only three bars health left. If that isnt enough for you Axis psychos i can only advice you to look for another game.
I think its perfectly fine atm, if your stupid enough to fail to secure your flanks, byebye.
-
Yesterday on Op Cobra i recieved 3 direct hits on the front of the Panther (from two different M4A1, i survived m all three and blew them up, please note: i was already hit twice by an allied plane and had only three bars health left. If that isnt enough for you Axis psychos i can only advice you to look for another game.
I think its perfectly fine atm, if your stupid enough to fail to secure your flanks, byebye.
Thats what most of these german fanboys do.
I saw this guy on totalize kill=4 shermans, 2 cromwells and a firefly.
I then killed his tiger tank with my Churchill. And the WHOLE pile of BS on how overpowerd the allies are and how underpowerd the germans where...
And i have seen this dozens of time's.
-
What you're problem is is that you look upon everything allied that is shit. You are the one truly biased to one side.
I think you are truly one biased, I play a lot as allied and love allied vehicles. I just counter whine to these Allied fanboys that keep saying how shit Axis were and how good Allies were. Like "Sherman could oneshot panther/Tiger from the side but can't in FH2" though you never take into account sherman could penetrate in perfect angle and perfect angle isn't easy to achieve. It would be more realistic if sherman couldn't penetrate at all than just shooting to side from 1 angle and one shot it. This is balanced by panther being able to take 2 shots. So stop saying to those guys that like axis that "be happy that sherman cant oneshot you panther to side", if we had angles German tanks would be 2x better armor wise while most allied tanks could still be penetrated from odd angles.
Also when engagement ranges aren't like in real life +1000m Axis lose one more advantage that those big ass guns gave them.
Because of this allies clearly have an advantage in FH2, but that ain't a problem as it balanced by other means.
I definitely ain't any biased I would just like to see these angle and range problems get some attention like shooting KT to front with Sherman and KT takes huge damage, experienced player does that easily if KT hasn't spotted him. I play lots as allied BTW maybe even more than Axis. I just loved in FH1 when you saw Tiger and it was like "holy shit, back up back up". No its just, "Oh a Tiger lets load some HVAP/APDS". I would like it to be an accomplishment when I shoot a Panther or Tiger, now I just fire some 1 angle shot with Cromwell.
-
Paavo.
Every post you make=Germans are awesome..Allies are shit
My posts are made to stop the Germanssoawesome.
if i am allied biased, why did i voted for the option "The game is balanced?"
My allied bias days have been over since 2.2 And it was for only like a week or so. Now it has remained as a FH2 meme. But when you and those other guys started with this whole Axis UP allies OP stuff, you caused much and MUCH more mayhem then when i said german bias in 2.2
You guys truly recieved a stamp of Bias.
Wich you can only use in EU posting offices btw
-
this is just for paavo.. because he is so stupid and can't understand english, I'm telling him what we have been saying in english for long time...
Jos Sherman pääsee lähietäisyydeltä (lue: fh:n taisteluetäisyydet) ampumaan pantteria kylkeen niin jo perkeleessä se menee läpi että helähtää, sivulla olevat ammukset posahtaa ja tankki lentää ilmaan.
Tigera vastustaessa pitää olla hieman lähempänä, mutta yleinen taisteluetäisyys sitäkin tankkia vastaa fh2:ssa on alle 200 metriä.
Shermannin tykin läpäisykyky 457 metrissä:
Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 90 degrees): 76 mm
Tigerin sivupanssari, joka Normandiassa oli jo huonolaatuista, oli 80mm
Lyhyeltä etäisyydeltä läpäisee. Brittiläinen 6 paunainen tykki (joka löytyy cromwellistä ja churchillistä) oli tehokkaampi tankkeja vastaan kuin tämä shermannin tykki. Varma läpäisy.
Kyllä me faktat tiedetään FH-tiimissä, älä luulekkaan muuta.
-
As i said i just whine to those that keep saying allied are better all the time and also at time by posts are something like "Allies=crap, Axis=WTFPWN" <-- you really don't take that seriously do you? Then the allied fanboys show up and tell me that OMG AXIS ARMOR QUALITY SUCKED, SHERMAN COULD PENETRATE SIDE OF PANTHER!
Well you voted that because Americans have HVAP Sherman and Brits pwn in Africa? Well IMO Africa isn't balanced so I voted axis need buff same with Shermans having HVAP as they didn't. Also I would like to see Churchill and Africa and sorts if that ain't allied bias then what?
As I said i play a lot on both sides and have come to conclusion that I always do better as allied when doing frontal assaults. With Germans I flank all the time and back cap, maybe I just suck but thats my experience.
Niinkuin edellisessä postissani sanoin jos satuit lukemaan niin taisin ilmoittaa että taistelu etäisyydet ovat hyvin paljon peienempiä usein FH:ssa toisinkuin toisessa maailman sodassa, tämä olis yksi tärkeä osa koko viestiä. Suosittelen lukemaan sen. Ja ota nyt herranjumala ne kulmat huomioon, jos fysiikkaa/matematiikkaa olet koskaan lukenut niin luulisi ymärtävän että sivu panssari on paksumpaa kuin etu panssari 1 asteen kulmassa.
-
wow, sounds like on one side is allied, one side is axis.
Only one way to settle this BS, FIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHTTTTTT!!!
(guys, it's just a game fo'fooks'sake)
-
As i said i just whine to those that keep saying allied are better all the time and also at time by posts are something like "Allies=crap, Axis=WTFPWN" <-- you really don't take that seriously do you? Then the allied fanboys show up and tell me that OMG AXIS ARMOR QUALITY SUCKED, SHERMAN COULD PENETRATE SIDE OF PANTHER!
Well you voted that because Americans have HVAP Sherman and Brits pwn in Africa? Well IMO Africa isn't balanced so I voted axis need buff same with Shermans having HVAP as they didn't. Also I would like to see Churchill and Africa and sorts if that ain't allied bias then what?
As I said i play a lot on both sides and have come to conclusion that I always do better as allied when doing frontal assaults. With Germans I flank all the time and back cap, maybe I just suck but thats my experience.
We were talking about panthers and tigers.. not about africa.
Yes, there is too much HVAP for 76mm shermans, but even without HVAP ammo, they still penetrate side armour. And that's how they kill most Tigers and Panthers in game, don't you get it? Other option is that they bounce from strong gun mantlet to weak top armor and blow the tank up. Sherman can shoot panthers side armour from 1 degree angle because of BF2 motor.
-
I have no problem with side armor but frontal, also Shermans didn't use HVAP that much in Normandy that it could be give to Shermans, only to M10 Imo and still really rare.
-
I have no problem with side armor but frontal, also Shermans didn't use HVAP that much in Normandy that it could be give to Shermans, only to M10 Imo and still really rare.
That's being worked.
-
I have no problem with side armor but frontal, also Shermans didn't use HVAP that much in Normandy that it could be give to Shermans, only to M10 Imo and still really rare.
That's being worked.
And thats been said dozens of times yet he still keeps talking about it...almost everyone agrees with it
And neither are the allies better.Infact nobody here is explictly saying=Allies where way better then the germans.Nobody ever said that. People who said=Germabns where way better then allies are ALSO incorrect. Because they lost the fcking war.
The side wich sended the most of their men to the death won. Period. Soviet generals mindlessy sended alot of their men to their deaths and the German nazi's sended millions of their and other people to their graves.
War sucks, nobody is better then another.
-
Yeah like Germany lost the war because of Americans and Brits. If war would have been about tactics and vehicle design and training, outcome would have been different. Its the manpower and supplies that made the outcome but thats off-topic. Also this is about FH not about the war, if this would be about war I would say something different.
German armor doesn't shine that much in FH because of lack of angles and engagement ranges. Also never heard of HVAP being worked on. Except by theta.
-
I believe their was a mention of this in your HVAP thread, that it is being looked into it. Search it up.
And when the general public agree's, it often gets done.
German armor doesnt need to "Shine". Its purely a personal prefernce on how awesome it is. They look cool to imo, but their really issent much of a challenge in grabbing a tiger and shooting 5-6 allied tanks.
Grabbing a sherman and killing 5 german tanks...That is a challenge. It is barely met, but when it does, i feel 100 times more satisfied then pwning an entire round with a King tiger.
-
I have created a HVAP thread? ???
-
IIRC the HVAP was reduced to 2 rounds or something.
-
I have created a HVAP thread? ???
ye dint you do that? ??? ???
-
IIRC the HVAP was reduced to 2 rounds or something.
2 or 1 for 76mm shermans at least.. i can't remember if M10 had one more...
-
Still I think 0 would be kinda cool (and accurate), it would make tanking in 76 harder... and I like hard. ;D
-
Still I think 0 would be kinda cool (and accurate), it would make tanking in 76 harder... and I like hard. ;D
But the only maps where the 76mm sherman are featured are mostly won by the germans...
-
Saying someone killed how many allied tank in one life doesn't mean anything, "kill=4 shermans, 2 cromwells and a firefly"? Well, I did a 31-0 in Luttich with Panther recently, and the Allied tanks didn't even scratch my paint, simply because either I fired first or I appeared on their rear. But those cases are not reason to say OMG AXIS ARMOR PWN, I did kill some 25+ panzer with Achilles or Firefly in one life, I didn't say allied OP because of that. BTW, 4 rockets of P47 or Typhoon is enough to knock out a fresh Tiger, so if the pilot didn't get your Panther after 2 run, it's obvious that he sucks.
And sherman M72 AP shell penetrates 66mm at 500m, not 76mm, here's another case of exagerrating allied gun power.
I just can't understand there's always people claimed that Panther is only 45-50 at the side and allied guns with some 60+mm penetration should one shot it(so as the HVAP vs Panther glacis plate case,150+mm of penetration vs 145mm of armor, thus the result is one shot kill according to this theory).
And then the Panther gun(regular AP) with its 124mm penetration can't deal with the 102mm Churchill armor, pzIVH(regular AP) with its 114mm penetration can't one shot any allied armor coded as 76mm, puma/pzIIIJ(pzg40) with its 72mm penetration can't get a Sherman from the side, while the Sherman side armor is only 38-51mm thick.
You think this is fair?
If you really think axis armor should be one shot killed when penetration>armor, then simply, the mighty Matilda doesn't survive a pzg40 side shot by pzIIIJ/L either.
-
KT, the reason for this, and why i claim it, is because that the panther tank stored the grand majority of its ammo in the side armor areas, and major fuel lines where in this area.
Any penetration..Even from a 37mm apc round, resulted in the panther catching fire or even exploding at a ratio of 80%. THATS why it deserves to be one shotted from the sides. Now i first thought that 2.26 still uses the Only tracks 1S1K system, but appearntly it changed a little bit.
-
And sherman M72 AP shell penetrates 66mm at 500m, not 76mm, here's another case of exagerrating allied gun power.
76mm in 457 meters, not 500 meters. Where did you get that information from, your head? German armour was much weaker in 1944 than it was in 1943 because of lack of metal etc. so armour was weaker. That means easier penetration.
I'll quote some wikipedia here
As the war progressed, Germany was forced to reduce or no longer use certain critical alloy materials in the production of armor plate, such as nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, and manganese; this did result in lower impact resistance levels compared to earlier armor.[49] Manganese from mines in the Ukraine ceased when the German Army lost control of this territory in February 1944. Allied bombers struck the Knabe mine in Norway and stopped a key source of molybdenum; other supplies from Finland and Japan were also cut off. The loss of molybdenum, and its replacement with other substitutes to maintain hardness, as well as a general loss of quality control resulted in an increased brittleness in German armor plate, which developed a tendency to fracture when struck with a shell. Testing by U.S. Army officers in August 1944 in Isigny, France showed catastrophic cracking of the armor plate on two out of three Panthers examined.[50][51]
Sources of this information:
49.^ Spielberger 1993, p. 82
50.^ Zaloga 2008, Armored Thunderbolt pp. 178, 182
51.^ Zaloga 2008, Panther vs Sherman p. 13
-
And no molybdenum=Terrible steel strength.
A good grade steel has low amounts of Carbon (0.2-0.5%) and has elements like molybdenum, tungsten and others. Lacking tungsten or magnesium issent so bad.... molybdenum is.
To make things worse, the germans increased their carbon levels to far to high levels. Wich made the steel brittle... but more terrible=VERY difficult to weld and terrible welding qualities.
I have experience with this, and i can assure you, that welding anything above 0.5% carbon is very difficult to do..
-
Still I think 0 would be kinda cool (and accurate), it would make tanking in 76 harder... and I like hard. ;D
But the only maps where the 76mm sherman are featured are mostly won by the germans...
C'mon, it's not like the 76 makes (well, in this case it doesn't) make any difference... I mean, there are other ways to balance this - for example take a Panther from the Axis or something.
And mind you, I'm allied bias guy ;)
-
Still I think 0 would be kinda cool (and accurate), it would make tanking in 76 harder... and I like hard. ;D
But the only maps where the 76mm sherman are featured are mostly won by the germans...
C'mon, it's not like the 76 makes (well, in this case it doesn't) make any difference... I mean, there are other ways to balance this - for example take a Panther from the Axis or something.
And mind you, I'm allied bias guy ;)
removing HVAP wont change much indeed.
-
well besides of range and angle theres also another reason why german armor sucks (compared to reality) in this game ... radio communication and combined arms:
in the early war the germans could defeat the better allied tanks because they had radio communications in every tank on multiple channels (even with those cool "throat-phones" - so that you only hear the crew speak and not the noise the tanks make), while the allies where using flags ;D. - i dont know how many allied tanks had a radio in 1944 but i think the germans where still superior in that respect.
then there are combined arms (theres also a video about tigers using combined arms at youtube):
there is a reason why panzer-grenadiere got their name... german tactics saw the tank as a key element that had to be supported and which they did well
so my thoughts are german tanks perform so bad because of RANGE, ANGLE (come on a 1 degree shot can kill a panther from the side... wtf), no advantage because of radios and your team sucking and not supporting you :P
-
And sherman M72 AP shell penetrates 66mm at 500m, not 76mm, here's another case of exagerrating allied gun power.
76mm in 457 meters, not 500 meters. Where did you get that information from, your head? German armour was much weaker in 1944 than it was in 1943 because of lack of metal etc. so armour was weaker. That means easier penetration.
I'll quote some wikipedia here
As the war progressed, Germany was forced to reduce or no longer use certain critical alloy materials in the production of armor plate, such as nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, and manganese; this did result in lower impact resistance levels compared to earlier armor.[49] Manganese from mines in the Ukraine ceased when the German Army lost control of this territory in February 1944. Allied bombers struck the Knabe mine in Norway and stopped a key source of molybdenum; other supplies from Finland and Japan were also cut off. The loss of molybdenum, and its replacement with other substitutes to maintain hardness, as well as a general loss of quality control resulted in an increased brittleness in German armor plate, which developed a tendency to fracture when struck with a shell. Testing by U.S. Army officers in August 1944 in Isigny, France showed catastrophic cracking of the armor plate on two out of three Panthers examined.[50][51]
Sources of this information:
49.^ Spielberger 1993, p. 82
50.^ Zaloga 2008, Armored Thunderbolt pp. 178, 182
51.^ Zaloga 2008, Panther vs Sherman p. 13
This is also quoted from wiki...
Quoted frome wiki:
High Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, first became available in August 1944 for the
76 mm gun. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which
gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. However, this new projectile was still unable to penetrate
the glacis plate of the Panther tank although it could penetrate the turret mantlet of the Panther at longer ranges
than standard ammunition
First, the so-called armor quality problem, doesn't decrease the axis cannon penetration.
Second, all the imformation I used is from reliable sources, and if the 457m distance is used in FH2 instead of 500m, and makes such penetration difference, there's more reason to improve axis guns performance.
Last, the "aromor quality degrade" such as welding problems won't make the steel thinner, it may cause bad performance in test field when you give it "sufficient attack", like hitting the same plate with some 20 or 30 shells, but "sufficient attack" is not commonplace outside test field. Moreover, this theory is no more than one of the unofficial theories, there're also theories said the German had alternative method to strengthen their steel in later war, and a US wartime test report said Panther's glacis plate is equal to 187mm of common steel. So should it be 187mm? No, unofficial theories should never be applied.
-
I've always penetrated front armor of sherman with axis tanks? HVAP ammo count will go down in next version like we have mentioned.
When I shoot sherman with axis tank in normandy, always 1s1k.
-
Not really, pzIVH with regular AP rounds, penetrates 114mm at 500m, yet it can't one shot allied armor coded as 76mm(such as M4A1 turret, or Sherman76 hull front),even at point blank range. And this is one of the examples that penetration>armor doesn't equals one shot kill.
-
Not really, pzIVH with regular AP rounds, penetrates 114mm at 500m, yet it can't one shot allied armor coded as 76mm(such as M4A1 turret, or Sherman76 hull front),even at point blank range. And this is one of the examples that penetration>armor doesn't equals one shot kill.
Probalby I just aim better than you then. If you are so frustrated about "allied bias" what you are talking about, don't play the game. I bet devs have no plans to change it or axis cannons. Your complaining makes just everyone angry, it doesn't make people change things.
-
Not really, pzIVH with regular AP rounds, penetrates 114mm at 500m, yet it can't one shot allied armor coded as 76mm(such as M4A1 turret, or Sherman76 hull front),even at point blank range. And this is one of the examples that penetration>armor doesn't equals one shot kill.
Dude, seriously, you just keep changing the subject to make your german team look in the disadvantage
HVAP on shermans=Being looked into
Sherman 76=Being looked into, has been said MANY times
FH2 uses the 1000m penetration table=been said nine thousand times.
Every single goddam post you make is always about the same BS. Shall i start with BS about how shermans could penetrate the PZIV or Stugs frontal armor? or that bazooka's could do that aswel? Or that No german tank in Normandy should have PZG40?
And then you come with the thing that 76mm HVAP shouldnt penetrate the Panthers frontal armor because it would fail?
Well guess what, in 1945 the panzerfaust had a 10-25% chance of blowing up in your face. How bout we implent stuff like that?
If you have something to state and complain. Go ahead. But repeating it over and over issent gonna help you
Please. If you wanna discuss things, do it about things that really require discussion. For example NA desert tanking or the dogfigthing balance.
No offense really. But you need to loosen up mate.
-
Alright, I'm sure my post makes allied fan boy angry.
Obviously I'm not asking for changing pzIVH guns to be more powerful, as I said, that's an example for proving penetration>armor doesn't equals kill.
Oh, of course, allied penetration>german armor definitely equals kill, the adjective is just crucial. Never work in an opposite way.
All I did is follow the allied boys logic of penetration>armor=kill, and if you forbid me to apply this in an opposite way, just do it patently, it's no use to raise new things like panzerfaust explosion, actually I quoted that for you on page 16 or 17, and a lot more, you don't need to repeat it .
I wish it's the old 2.2 days when someone cry for one shooting Panther and then I could say the same thing to you: If you are so frustrated about "axis bias", don't play the game.
-
I am not an allied fanboy. I am a balance fanboy. I want things to be even for both teams, not just one. You just call me an allied fanboy because of the German bias meme. of wich you wherent present when it started. Because i like to play on the allied team doesnt mean i am biased. Bias is when you devote yourself to that team and want only the benefits for that team, not the other. This is what you do. You only talked about germany being underpowerd, and Allies being overpowerd.
Calling me like that is just a fact that you cant talk yourself out of it. Keep on talking like that and who knows what happens.
And thats all their/there(sorry flippy, forgot wich one it is) is.
-
I am far from a good tanker. But even with all this OMG ALLIED BIAS, I have managed to pull good killing streaks with a Tiger and a Panther. And when I have died, it has been because of my own stupidity like exposing my side or rear. Frontally, either of those is simply invincible against anything short of 17 pdr or 76 mm. Now, with Sherman, even with the UBER KILL VEHICUL aka Firefly or 76, I do not feel nearly as invincible and die much more often to much more varied opposition.
On the other hand, I remember vividly my first Panther kill in a Sherman. It was on Totalize, and this Panther had advanced close to the ABC line. So a Cromwell barely out of Canuck main crosses the northern east-west road, and even though the Cromwell gets the first shot, the Panther on the road kills him. I'm mostly covered on the north side of the road, behind a small knoll and some outgrowth, but can partially see the side profile of the Panther through my gunsight. Seconds later, the Panther is a flaming wreck. Seconds later, the text chat fills with OMG CHEATER SHERMUNS CANT KILL PANTHORS WITH ONE SHOT and after a while after regulars have pointed out that side kills were possible historically and are in-game, this changes to OMG THIS MOD IS SO ALLIED FAVORING IM GUNNA STOP PLAYING. That the Panther had positioned himself very stupidly had of course nothing to do with the kill.
EDIT: I'm perfectly fine with the Panther, notorious for catching fire even more easily than "Ronson", having essentially the "hit points" of a light tank, ie. any penetration with a reasonably big gun is a kill.
-
they seriously got to do something about the tank balance on north africa maps though,
right now crusaders are on par with p4s which they shouldnt be... they should be on par with pIIIs at max. Its annoying if every german tank gets 1 shotted in north africa and you cant even kill a sherman or grant from the front ... i even had p4 shots bounce from the shermans side there at distance. and the pIII has 6 halfway decent shots. the other 62 are useless.
-
The Cruiser/Crusader I gets its ASS handed to it by PIIIJ(e/l)s or IVF2s, try playing Siege of Tobruk or Mersa in a Cruiser/Crusader I against decent german tankers.
If your not completely hull down, your fucking toast. Its 2-3 shots at any range over a 1/3 of a grid, and the 2 pounder can't penetrate the 50mm front hull of the IIIJ or IVF2. Compare that to the higher velocity in the 50mm or 75mm long and it being a 1 shot kill with proper ammo.
So it does go both ways, and its really only the Crusader III that just dominates the Axis tanks, because it has a 6 POUNDER.
But yes, late Africa maps are generally heavily Allied bias, and some others Axis bias unless a Matilda shows up. But you can't just make a single assumption across the board, you have to do it on a map to map basis.
-
Crusader should be oneshotted by Panzer 3, crusader 3 oneshotted by panzer granate. Fixed.
Crusader is faster and has low profile, thing s that only experienced tanker do understand it seems. Crusader is flanker and it oneshots to side. Cursader 3 on the other hand my fav tank but might a bit overpowered, it should be able to be oneshotted by panzer 3 at least by panzer granate.
-
For the most part I agree with you, except on Siege of Tobruk or Mersa where there is no possibility to flank if the Panzers are already in position and/or advancing considering the fog ranges pretty much extend to the usable ends of the map. On Mersa I'm talking about the area outside the city to the south.
Also, on El Al, you can go hull down with the Crusader III in the dunes south of Kidney ridge and not need to move, because you are literally impossible to shoot at.
Glorious good time, if not completely overpowered.
-
Crusader III's armor is seriously broken. I can't even one shot it with a PzIIIJ Late.
-
This has been noted numerous times, and IIRC, its being fixed in the next patch :P
-
I am not an allied fanboy. I am a balance fanboy. I want things to be even for both teams, not just one. You just call me an allied fanboy because of the German bias meme. of wich you wherent present when it started. Because i like to play on the allied team doesnt mean i am biased. Bias is when you devote yourself to that team and want only the benefits for that team, not the other. This is what you do. You only talked about germany being underpowerd, and Allies being overpowerd.
Calling me like that is just a fact that you cant talk yourself out of it. Keep on talking like that and who knows what happens.
And thats all their/there(sorry flippy, forgot wich one it is) is.
You slip past the point again, now I just ask you one question simply:
Do you think the "penetration>armor definitely equals kill" rule, and the 500m or 1000m distance should work on BOTH SIDES?
For the desert tanking, with the exception of pzIII/IV top armor and Crusader armor problem, I think everything is still good. I don't mind Sherman/CrusaderIII have superiority and dominate the ground in late desert maps, because that's how they were in history, and I think late desert map tanking haven't been changed too much since 2.0, but for early desert maps, if you say 2pdr is ineffective against pzIII from the front, watch this:
http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMTcwNzY5NjQ0/v.swf
-
The panzer IIIs are fine tanks except the crusader armour is a bit broken. (inconsistent penentrations)
And the panzer IIIs are great tanks in the desert when not facing shermans, their only biggest enemies besides the shermans are matildas.
The Pz III AP shots could severely damage a crusader I at fog range (yet they somehow bounce off a Crusader III at short range... but your AP still damage severely at long range) and the crusader I has very little chance to make a killshot/damage shot at such a distance. The PZGs are rather wasteful to be used on crusaders because of the buggy armour.
Now it comes to PzIII vs Grant. It is almost a fair match but the PzIII has some advantage: Panzer III J Late one shots Grant to the front at mid-short range (Using PZG), Panzer III reloads faster, Panzer III can't be one-shot frontally by grant, and panzer III is more agile. Talking about side shots it is 1s1k for both sides.
The only bigger problem with PzIII is when facing things like Valentines and Matildas. Valentines are fine tanks but they got a top armour problem also. Also they are big, slow targets for your PZG rounds. Matildas are pain in ass and you can't really damage it frontally.(unless you could somehow hit the engines) But this is fine in terms of balance, there are so many pzIIIs anyway.
Shermans are superior to PzIIIs in every aspect (And they no longer flip that often) and the only chance of the PzIII is to side shot it with PZG.
one last note, the pzIIIs reload slightly faster than pz IVF2, which is also one reason that you don't find your PzIV much better than a PzIII in some situations.
(one thing that concerns me about the power of PzIIIs is their gun deviations, it is pretty obvious that firing with the same sight allignments could have very different outcomes at long range... and that is one reason that I don't liked to fire my PZG far away)
-
Ok guys. Normally i promised i shouldnt be posting for 3 days, but here is a matter i want to bring up and get it over with.
Last days, i suddently see alot of people complaining about the balance. Normally when they bring up good reasons i would love to support them in it(Like the the current desert tank balances aka allied tanks rape panzers) but the last days i have seen people complaining about the panzers in normandy being so called....underpowerd. And the entire german army in FH2 underpowerd
Not only ingame, but on the forums aswel. A few example's=
1.Tiger is no better then the panther.
2.Panthers shouldnt die one shot from the sides by the 75mm gun and 6pdr
3.17PDR shouldnt penetrate the frontal armor of panthers/tiger
4.German tanks shouldnt die in one shot from allied AT weapons (PZIV and STUG)
5.Faust should one shot shermans
6.G43 should be not limited and more present (Clearly explained in forums that
And more of these things. First i think that they must be joking, but they arent. I see alot of these guys shooting 4 tanks in their life with their Panzer, they die, and they then complain about Panzers being severly underpowerd. No kidding.
So let us make a little poll about it, Are the germans TRULY underpowerd?Is FH2 unbalanced?
I honestly think, that next to the NA balance, FH2 2.26 is one of the best balanced releases. The amount of maps wich are biased to one team have been reduced to 2(Mersa for germans, Aberdeen for allies).
About the people whining about german tanks being underpowerd they forget these things=
1.Shermans could kill PZIVs and STUGS frontally(Ingame this is not)
2.Shermans Easily penetrated the Panthers side armor and resulted in 80% of all cases a kill (Ingame it is 2 shots for the large side armor areas, and 1 shot for the tracks)
3.Not all panzers had shurzen.
4.In Normandy, the tank ratios of allied vs Germans is rarely 2:1 mostly 1.5:1. When In the normandy campaign it was 6:1
5.The player numbers are 32 vs 32. This is normal and it should be, but remeber that the allies had much more manpower, yet the ingame vehicles of the allies are just as strong as they where IRL
RULES=
-When you vote, state a short reason what you think of the balance.
-You can discuss things a bit, but dont start a flamewar and before you say something, make sure that it is based on actual facts not things you hear/see on a documentary (Like STG44's in normandy, most people know they where very rare)
-2 votes per person, as their are multiple choises
My vote is simple= FH2.26 is well balanced to acceptable levels.
Note=No flaming whatsoever, dont break the rules. I will lock the thread the moment this starts, flippy and the other mods can also lock it anytime it starts or remove it if it goes out of hand.
I want a normal discussion here guys. Not an allied bias vs Axis bias thread. I want to see this fanboyism on both sides go down because i seen some crazy people suggesting crazy things and whining when they dont get it (like that one guy on 762 wich wanted the pershing, and called us all fucktards because we said to him it couldnt be used)
Your poll can't be relied upon because you have allowed for self selection bias resulting in a biased sample. IF everyone was forced to participate in the poll and you had PUBLIC results along with the geographical locations of the participants...then it might hold up under close scrutiny.
-
I am not an allied fanboy. I am a balance fanboy. I want things to be even for both teams, not just one. You just call me an allied fanboy because of the German bias meme. of wich you wherent present when it started. Because i like to play on the allied team doesnt mean i am biased. Bias is when you devote yourself to that team and want only the benefits for that team, not the other. This is what you do. You only talked about germany being underpowerd, and Allies being overpowerd.
Calling me like that is just a fact that you cant talk yourself out of it. Keep on talking like that and who knows what happens.
And thats all their/there(sorry flippy, forgot wich one it is) is.
For the desert tanking, with the exception of pzIII/IV top armor and Crusader armor problem, I think everything is still good. I don't mind Sherman/CrusaderIII have superiority and dominate the ground in late desert maps, because that's how they were in history, and I think late desert map tanking haven't been changed too much since 2.0, but for early desert maps, if you say 2pdr is ineffective against pzIII from the front, watch this:
http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMTcwNzY5NjQ0/v.swf
Yes but thats the problem with the current balance.
Crusader mkIII should survive a frontal hit from the PZIII. It has 50mm of armor.
But if you fire 10 shots at a crusader or so, 3 of them fail to do anything or they bounce off. Another tank wich behaves like this is the M13/40
And did i ever, ever doubted the performance of the 2PDR ;D
2.15 was messed up....4-6 shots where needed to kill a PZIII from the sides....
The current system is good. Fronts are immune, but the sides are weak. Just like the PZIII was.
And the video you posted....that guy snipes tanks at the longest possible range with the PZIV ausf F1. He cant be compared to the general public ;D
-
That guy is me, thank you.
And answer the question, plz.
-
That guy is me, thank you.
And answer the question, plz.
oh sorry
what was it again? ;D
Because i cant find it, sorry but i am confused now with all these posts
Your poll can't be relied upon because you have allowed for self selection bias resulting in a biased sample. IF everyone was forced to participate in the poll and you had PUBLIC results along with the geographical locations of the participants...then it might hold up under close scrutiny.
Its a stupid poll of a internetforum, what do you expect
Frankly i did not even understood half the things you wrote ???
-
Do you think the "penetration>armor definitely equals kill" rule, and the 500m(or 1000m) distance penetration should work on BOTH SIDES?
-
You cannot say the gun is fine it can kill tanks with the cupola shot.
I'm not saying the 2 pounder is weak or broken, just that its not good enough to consider the Allies overpowered in early Africa, especially when they have the paper Cruisers.
It is definitely a decent gun, but just as you say top shots should be fixed, just because some tanks die to them doesn't mean the map balance is perfect. On that note, I hit 3 IIIJs in the cupola 2 seperate times, and each was only lit on fire, all they had to do was retreat back under cover and wrench up, and I couldn't cover the distance in the open to get a second shot off without being killing but one of the other PIIIs, get 2 shotted by PzBs, or the PIVF1.
Go play Siege of Tobruk against decent Axis tankers who go hull down/have wrenches in the IIIJ and see how far that 2 Pounder gets you. The only thing that keeps them going in the end is that Matty spawning.
Like I said a hundred times, a map problem, not a vehicle problem.
-
Do you think the "penetration>armor definitely equals kill" rule, and the 500m(or 1000m) distance penetration should work on BOTH SIDES?
I honestly have no opinion on this. I kinda like the current system...
-
Do you think the "penetration>armor definitely equals kill" rule, and the 500m(or 1000m) distance penetration should work on BOTH SIDES?
I honestly have no opinion on this. I kinda like the current system...
On many case the current one is negative about this.
Then your answer is NO?
-
That guy is me, thank you.
And answer the question, plz.
oh sorry
what was it again? ;D
Because i cant find it, sorry but i am confused now with all these posts
Your poll can't be relied upon because you have allowed for self selection bias resulting in a biased sample. IF everyone was forced to participate in the poll and you had PUBLIC results along with the geographical locations of the participants...then it might hold up under close scrutiny.
Its a stupid poll of a internetforum, what do you expect
Frankly i did not even understood half the things you wrote ???
The poll, in it's current form, is self serving due to selection bias. You are using the poll data to help manipulate the perception of a pre-determined endpoint.
In other words...what is the poll data telling us that differs from what the community wants?
As an American, I see a European community that wants a technologically superior Axis.
-
Do you think the "penetration>armor definitely equals kill" rule, and the 500m(or 1000m) distance penetration should work on BOTH SIDES?
I honestly have no opinion on this. I kinda like the current system...
On many case the current one is negative about this.
Then your answer is NO?
Yes and no
You know, what is between it=YO
No really...i dont know ;D
The poll, in it's current form, is self serving due to selection bias. You are using the poll data to help manipulate the perception of a pre-determined endpoint.
In other words...what is the poll data telling us that differs from what the community wants?
As an American, I see a European community that wants a technologically superior Axis.
...ooh you're an american that explains
Only a handfull want a superior axis army. THe grand majority thinks FH2 is balanced, wants to see desert tanking fixed and prefers historical accuracy
-
No no one wants superior axis army they just want superior allied army to be balanced.
-
Do you think the "penetration>armor definitely equals kill" rule, and the 500m(or 1000m) distance penetration should work on BOTH SIDES?
I honestly have no opinion on this. I kinda like the current system...
On many case the current one is negative about this.
Then your answer is NO?
Yes and no
You know, what is between it=YO
No really...i dont know ;D
The poll, in it's current form, is self serving due to selection bias. You are using the poll data to help manipulate the perception of a pre-determined endpoint.
In other words...what is the poll data telling us that differs from what the community wants?
As an American, I see a European community that wants a technologically superior Axis.
...ooh you're an american that explains
Only a handfull want a superior axis army. THe grand majority thinks FH2 is balanced, wants to see desert tanking fixed and prefers historical accuracy
And historically speaking, didn't the Germans have superior technology?
This poll should be conducted over at the Forgotten Hope Tournament forums, should be public and the respondents should declare their location.
The problem is that this poll is biased. In all my time playing FH1 and FH2 religiously...I've yet to see anyone in-game complain about the Axis being underpowered. In fact, it's almost always been the opposite. I see people spam the screen with complaints about Axis being overpowered.
Lastly, was it necessary to provide a little snarky comment about me being an American? I told you because I want to have an honest discussion so that you know where my perspective is coming from.
-
Why should they declare there location?
-
Why should they declare there location?
so when Americans say that Allies are underpowered and Europeans say that Axis is underpowered, we know that there is self bias is possibly being introduced into the polling data.
What do the actual weapons data tell us? When I was an admin in CAL, we used the charts to tell us how we had to achieve mirror balancing so that we could insure skill prevailed.
where are the FH2 charts?
-
Tbh I doubt many Germans would identify with the Wehrmacht as much ;) and as far as I know neither kingtiger nor that other dude are German, and they are the most vocal "defenders" of the German side. Other than that, I guess it would be possible to do charts with weapon damage etc, but it would be a lot of work.
-
Why are you Jawz talking about Europe all the time? You know we got few more countries than Germany here? And most of those countries were AGAINST germany. Saying europeans favour axis, makes just as much sense as saying americans favour axis. >:(
-
Why are you Jawz talking about Europe all the time? You know we got few more countries than Germany here? And most of those countries were AGAINST germany. Saying europeans favour axis, makes just as much sense as saying americans favour axis. >:(
That's a cognitive distortion. I don't post but rarely...and rarely mention EU during those rare posts.
In fact, I just did a search and it brought up 1 other post where I said Europe.
http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/index.php?action=search2
Bottom line, people are voting in the poll as to how they WANT the results to be. That's self selection bias.
-
That's a little bit off-topic, but I'm from neither Europe nor America.
And to Theta, you can still hide your answer, but we will review it in future post ;)
-
Weird, I saw it twice in this thread Jawz ;).
-
Of course every one likes Germans, without them we would still live in the 50s. Americans copied every damn thing from them.
-
Can I ask about future equipment? Like what more of german tanks do we need and don't have atm?
What more uniforms of allies and axis we don't have?
I was just wondering what more do we need to do for Normandy that is holding the progression 2 the next theater of war? Be it Pacific or Ostfront or whatever...
Because tanks, I can't see what else can we put in that hasn't been put-in already. Uniforms are 1 bigger thing that is time consuming but again there are only FJ, Rangers, Airborne, and some other remodellings.
So I can't see what else, leaving mapping out of this, is needed to be done for completing Normandy.
-
Go play Siege of Tobruk against decent Axis tankers who go hull down/have wrenches in the IIIJ and see how far that 2 Pounder gets you. The only thing that keeps them going in the end is that Matty spawning.
Like I said a hundred times, a map problem, not a vehicle problem.
I think you haven't been raped by a dug-in Cruiser tank... maybe you have good air support, though.
(note, PzIIIs are big target practice for 2 pounder guns)
-
Why should they declare there location?
so when Americans say that Allies are underpowered and Europeans say that Axis is underpowered, we know that there is self bias is possibly being introduced into the polling data.
What do the actual weapons data tell us? When I was an admin in CAL, we used the charts to tell us how we had to achieve mirror balancing so that we could insure skill prevailed.
where are the FH2 charts?
Jawz
in this thread, by quite some people, have stated the exact opposite. I have seen during the 2.26 5 people starting a gaint whine and cry about how the axis are underpowerd and the allies are completly overpowerd.
4 of these 5 people had scores of 25-5 And they where whining.
This poll is not about Biasm, it is what about what people think of the current state of the game. The general public is still what mostly plays this game, not FHT
And learn about bias people=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Bias
One type of cognitive bias is confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new information in such a way that confirms one's prior beliefs, even to the extreme of denial, ignoring information that conflicts with one's prior beliefs
-
Why should they declare there location?
so when Americans say that Allies are underpowered and Europeans say that Axis is underpowered, we know that there is self bias is possibly being introduced into the polling data.
What do the actual weapons data tell us? When I was an admin in CAL, we used the charts to tell us how we had to achieve mirror balancing so that we could insure skill prevailed.
where are the FH2 charts?
Jawz
in this thread, by quite some people, have stated the exact opposite. I have seen during the 2.26 5 people starting a gaint whine and cry about how the axis are underpowerd and the allies are completly overpowerd.
4 of these 5 people had scores of 25-5 And they where whining.
This poll is not about Biasm, it is what about what people think of the current state of the game. The general public is still what mostly plays this game, not FHT
And learn about bias people=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Bias
One type of cognitive bias is confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new information in such a way that confirms one's prior beliefs, even to the extreme of denial, ignoring information that conflicts with one's prior beliefs
the general public doesn't play the game to the level that FHT does. FHT plays the game at the highest competition level which is the best test indicator for gameplay imbalances. That's why your poll would be best served there.
Do you think that Valve listens to pubbies or the competitive organizations that cater to the Counter-Strike competition scene where money is involved?
-
Weird, I saw it twice in this thread Jawz ;).
2 times somehow equates to ALL the time????????????????????????????????? Again, you are making a cognitive distortion. If I only had 2 posts, then you'd be correct. Do I only have 2 posts?
-
I'm sorry, but no matter what the tournaments are doing, the mod should be balanced for public play on pure servers. And therefore those players should definitly be the ones that you include in polls.
-
Mh, I still think Panthers should be stronger.
They are killed so easily and are so big, im better off with Stugs.
We should make them a bit more resistant to sherman (76) and hellcats. For balance you could change 1 panther on Totalize, 1 panther on falaise and 1 panther on cobra into a panzer IV.
right now you see more panthers than panzer IVs - wasnt the panzer IV still the workhorse of the german army in 1944? - i dont know the exact numbers in normandy though.
-
Normandy was like 40% panthers, 40% panzers IV and rest a mixture of tanks like tigers, foreign tanks
i think
-
Theta is pretty much correct. Sadly, we don't have any forign tanks to put on the maps >:
And the Panther's advantage was strong frontal armour and an amazing gun, combined with speed and the training of the crews. Its side and rear armour however was very thin.
-
imo the whole whos bias thing is a bit out of hand,
For example, once in BF2 we put in our changelist we had tweaked an assault rifle.
The feedback ranged from "Horrible changes it is ruined" to "OMG this is so much better"
and in the end we didn't actually change a thing with the gun.
-
Zheir is no bias
-
(http://pici.se/pictures/LwxdXNaYd.png)
-
What foreign tanks are you guys talking about?
-
What foreign tanks are you guys talking about?
H35s and H39s mostly.
-
I'm sorry, but no matter what the tournaments are doing, the mod should be balanced for public play on pure servers. And therefore those players should definitly be the ones that you include in polls.
And there is no problem with that but I'd also ask the FHT guys how they feel about the same poll. All you are doing is getting a broader perspective on how the ENTIRE community feels...not just one pubbie segment.
-
It's balanced as well is it should be.
QQers gonna QQ.
-
I'm sorry, but no matter what the tournaments are doing, the mod should be balanced for public play on pure servers. And therefore those players should definitly be the ones that you include in polls.
And there is no problem with that but I'd also ask the FHT guys how they feel about the same poll. All you are doing is getting a broader perspective on how the ENTIRE community feels...not just one pubbie segment.
Playing Devil's advocate here...
Why should we give 2 shits what a proprietary tournament thinks about this mod. If Forgotten Honour shared their stuff it would make sense what you guys think but FHT has their own Development team so they do whatever the hell they want to do anyways. I also find that FHT guys don't play too much public games anyways so why should their input matter more than the people who actually keep servers populated?
IMO, the balance is fine for FH2 apart from major historical errors but those were made to give the Gerrie's a chance anyways. The real problem with FH2 is the learning curve is way too tough for most new players to last longer than a few maps. The patience and ego of the average gamer is not sufficiently high enough for them really integrate into the game.
That's why we only see real player numbers increase when new fronts are introduced that level the playing field for players of all skill levels (albeit, for only a brief period of time).
-
As a less experienced player I tend to agree with Sheik, the learning curve is a killer so would deter a lot of the '8 nano second' attention span generation Y gamers (that may not be a bad thing). Enticing more players should be a priority but it may not just be the learning curve, it may require a bit more marketing. FH2 is the best WW2 game I have ever played and needs to be widely recognized to attract a bigger following.
-
Learning curve for what exactly.
If you are playing infantry it's still a FPS, meaning those with best reflexes and good hand eye coordination wins. So infantry is not that hard to figure out.
If you are playing in a tank, then you should minimaly know about the ammo abilities and the armor weakpoints.
If you are flying you should know that the BF2 physics for flying are crap for a WWII plane.
We off course do have video instructions for explaining this stuff.
What more could be done to improve so that new players can integrate into the mod?
-
Learning curve for what exactly.
If you are playing infantry it's still a FPS, meaning those with best reflexes and good hand eye coordination wins. So infantry is not that hard to figure out.
If you are playing in a tank, then you should minimaly know about the ammo abilities and the armor weakpoints.
If you are flying you should know that the BF2 physics for flying are crap for a WWII plane.
We off course do have video instructions for explaining this stuff.
What more could be done to improve so that new players can integrate into the mod?
What are the armor weak-points and where are the weapons charts? Withholding this info means that FH2 will never grow beyond a little clique, a little exclusive club. So if you don't share the info...the mod will never grow.
Something like this would be helpful...
http://wiki.bf2s.com/weapons/comparison
-
Nobody is gonna read trough that
-
Plus, it wouldn't really be that beneficial. All you need to know is that front armor of a tank is heavier than it's sides and rear, which is relatively obvious. Anything further than that, such as specific weak point like the Grant's door, is useful but are hardly required to play.
Learning what your tank can accomplish is simply best done through experience. Who's going to read through armor penetration tables before playing a game just so the first time they get in a vehicle they know what they can hurt.
-
That won't work, those "weak point" keep changing in every single patch.
And I'm not going to tell any newbie to do things like cupola shooting.... :-\
-
Learning curve for what exactly.
If you are playing infantry it's still a FPS, meaning those with best reflexes and good hand eye coordination wins. So infantry is not that hard to figure out.
If you are playing in a tank, then you should minimaly know about the ammo abilities and the armor weakpoints.
If you are flying you should know that the BF2 physics for flying are crap for a WWII plane.
We off course do have video instructions for explaining this stuff.
What more could be done to improve so that new players can integrate into the mod?
What are the armor weak-points and where are the weapons charts? Withholding this info means that FH2 will never grow beyond a little clique, a little exclusive club. So if you don't share the info...the mod will never grow.
Something like this would be helpful...
http://wiki.bf2s.com/weapons/comparison
http://fhpubforum.warumdarum.de/index.php?topic=10825.0
-
That won't work, those "weak point" keep changing in every single patch.
And I'm not going to tell any newbie to do things like cupola shooting.... :-\
yea that they removed one sweet spot from the valentine... the weak points just keep changing to make a useful reference for noobs.
actually, a "map guide" would be useful to let players read how to play a map/where are the vehicles/static defences/where are the pick-up kits... etc etc, this would definitely help newbies to know more about FH and not quitting furiously with "where is the sniper rifle?"/"No tanks/planes/subs?" spammed in chat.
-
If he doesn't have the patience 2 search for stuff he better go play CoD. If he wants 2 know where the sniper rifle is, as his 1st question, then he better go play vBF2.
-
What learning curve are you talking about? There is one single thing that can be mystery for newbie and that is how to use artillery. Everything else should be quite familiar from other games.
-
My friend who never played FH2, picked this game up in about....2 hours. There isn't much to learn in terms of infantry combat except you can't run in the open and have juggernaut on making u uber invincible.
Sure simple questions like "How do you aim in the tank, how can tey aim with no crosshair!" (LOL he thought you didn't even aim with the scope, but with just the over head view hahahaha, so he'd use the tracer rounds to try and lock onto tanks LOL). But, that takes about....2 seconds to learn.
The problem for people not playnig, was Africa sorry to say. Not everyone likes tank combat, and the Battlefield series are about the 3 elements, air, vehicles and infantry. Africa didn't offer that. Normandy came out and sure people joined but well, there's new games out and content is pretty slow to push out. People want to see the (yes cheesy maps you could say), of omaha, battle of the buldge, the familiar grounds. There's nothing else to it except that.
Weapon charts and weak spots? I have never, for any game, felt the need for a weapons chart. People never use manuals, they jump in and plais, and spam the chat with "LOLZ MAN HOW DO I WINZ?" If people asked for a weak spot of a tank, they shouldn't get, "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION, RAWR IM SCARY AND LEET."
So ya, imo, people want the familliar, holly wood WW2 maps. As cliche as it is, it'd add alot of interest and players. People want to storm the beaches, and if you get people going "WoW these other maps are F'n SWEET" then hurray indeed. Hell I started FH1 in 0.7, saw Omaha and my jaw dropped because it was massive in scale and epic. That's what people want, epicness.
-
What learning curve are you talking about? There is one single thing that can be mystery for newbie and that is how to use artillery. Everything else should be quite familiar from other games.
It aint that BIG of a mystery. Try using it and sitting on it for some time and u'll be using it. However lots of players want to use it effectively and still don't wanna fokk around with learning it. To me the arty was simple from the start.
Now, i can be the direct fire support guy with the mortar 4 exmp.
-
My friend who never played FH2, picked this game up in about....2 hours. There isn't much to learn in terms of infantry combat except you can't run in the open and have juggernaut on making u uber invincible.
Sure simple questions like "How do you aim in the tank, how can tey aim with no crosshair!" (LOL he thought you didn't even aim with the scope, but with just the over head view hahahaha, so he'd use the tracer rounds to try and lock onto tanks LOL). But, that takes about....2 seconds to learn.
The problem for people not playnig, was Africa sorry to say. Not everyone likes tank combat, and the Battlefield series are about the 3 elements, air, vehicles and infantry. Africa didn't offer that. Normandy came out and sure people joined but well, there's new games out and content is pretty slow to push out. People want to see the (yes cheesy maps you could say), of omaha, battle of the buldge, the familiar grounds. There's nothing else to it except that.
Weapon charts and weak spots? I have never, for any game, felt the need for a weapons chart. People never use manuals, they jump in and plais, and spam the chat with "LOLZ MAN HOW DO I WINZ?" If people asked for a weak spot of a tank, they shouldn't get, "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION, RAWR IM SCARY AND LEET."
So ya, imo, people want the familliar, holly wood WW2 maps. As cliche as it is, it'd add alot of interest and players. People want to storm the beaches, and if you get people going "WoW these other maps are F'n SWEET" then hurray indeed. Hell I started FH1 in 0.7, saw Omaha and my jaw dropped because it was massive in scale and epic. That's what people want, epicness.
Jesus H. Christ....I'm not asking for weapons charts to learn how to play...I'm asking for them to see if there are imbalances in the weapons.
-
There is still some bullshit around that has to be balanced ... some minutes ago i hit a churchill with my panther in the turret and it was still intact ... then it 1 shotted my panther ... a goddamn infantry support tank ... those are moments where you just think thats bullcrap - i had my front facing the churchill btw ... but its so horribly easy ti hit the sides - its ridicolous, if they could at least add the angles -.-
-
My friend who never played FH2, picked this game up in about....2 hours. There isn't much to learn in terms of infantry combat except you can't run in the open and have juggernaut on making u uber invincible.
Sure simple questions like "How do you aim in the tank, how can tey aim with no crosshair!" (LOL he thought you didn't even aim with the scope, but with just the over head view hahahaha, so he'd use the tracer rounds to try and lock onto tanks LOL). But, that takes about....2 seconds to learn.
The problem for people not playnig, was Africa sorry to say. Not everyone likes tank combat, and the Battlefield series are about the 3 elements, air, vehicles and infantry. Africa didn't offer that. Normandy came out and sure people joined but well, there's new games out and content is pretty slow to push out. People want to see the (yes cheesy maps you could say), of omaha, battle of the buldge, the familiar grounds. There's nothing else to it except that.
Weapon charts and weak spots? I have never, for any game, felt the need for a weapons chart. People never use manuals, they jump in and plais, and spam the chat with "LOLZ MAN HOW DO I WINZ?" If people asked for a weak spot of a tank, they shouldn't get, "USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION, RAWR IM SCARY AND LEET."
So ya, imo, people want the familliar, holly wood WW2 maps. As cliche as it is, it'd add alot of interest and players. People want to storm the beaches, and if you get people going "WoW these other maps are F'n SWEET" then hurray indeed. Hell I started FH1 in 0.7, saw Omaha and my jaw dropped because it was massive in scale and epic. That's what people want, epicness.
Jesus H. Christ....I'm not asking for weapons charts to learn how to play...I'm asking for them to see if there are imbalances in the weapons.
IMo your request is perfectly reasonable and should have been honoured upon request.
-
There is still some bullshit around that has to be balanced ... some minutes ago i hit a churchill with my panther in the turret and it was still intact ... then it 1 shotted my panther ... a goddamn infantry support tank ... those are moments where you just think thats bullcrap - i had my front facing the churchill btw ... but its so horribly easy ti hit the sides - its ridicolous, if they could at least add the angles -.-
You got to know the 124mm penetration of panther gun(regular AP) doesn't one shot the Churchill with 102mm armor at most, while allied's gun is mostly "penetrates = kill".
Something should be done, either enhance the axis guns' power or reduce the allied guns', the current settings have poor consistency. As I said, if "penetrates = kill", it should work on both sides. Apparently in many case of current version this rule work exclusively for one side.
-
Its not that the guns per side don't have equal kill values, its that the Panther's gun penetrates fine but the armor of the Churchill mitigates enough HP damage (the Churchill has 1000) to stop the 1 shot. Its the same for every gun that is in that situation, and a reasonable effect at that.
The 2 pounder will no longer 1 shot a PIVF2 or early PIII to the side when you pass about 70 in-game meters, or just over 1/3 of a grid.
The 6 pounder APDS penetrates the front hull of the Panther but doesn't one shot it to the front, nor does it to the Tiger.
The 76mm HVAP round has a decent probability to not 1 shot a Panther to the front when not at close range, had this happen to me at least 11 times in the last WaW battle, where the Allies fought 6 unedited Panther As with 3 unedited Hellcats (and other tanks) on a map with 2.5 grids of view distance.
So it does happen to both sides in a pretty equal amount, your just only reiterating the one example to support your argument.
Also butcher, the Panther has 8 rounds of PzG40, which will one shot the Churchill provided you don't glance (simply bad luck, no coding to cause it) or miss. Load that when you expect to fight a Churchill, and that won't happen anymore.
-
There is still some bullshit around that has to be balanced ... some minutes ago i hit a churchill with my panther in the turret and it was still intact ... then it 1 shotted my panther ... a goddamn infantry support tank ... those are moments where you just think thats bullcrap - i had my front facing the churchill btw ... but its so horribly easy ti hit the sides - its ridicolous, if they could at least add the angles -.-
Churchills are one of the easiest prey for Panthers. Just go for the sides with the PzG and they are dead. It's not that hard. You can even exploit the game engine to do that.
-
The 76mm HVAP round has a decent probability to not 1 shot a Panther to the front when not at close range
So it does happen to both sides in a pretty equal amount, your just only reiterating the one example to support your argument.
Also butcher, the Panther has 8 rounds of PzG40, which will one shot the Churchill
M18 and Sherman76's HVAP have a chance to not 1 shot a Panther to the front, I know that, it may left the panther 1 or 2 bar of health, but it's in very very long distance, in this distance, pzIVH with pzg40, hitting the Sherman76's front hull, damage only 50% of its health(while the in the Panther case its only 1 or 2 bar of health left).
And why the Panther must use pzg40 to deal with churchill? Its pzg40 has 174mm of penetration at 500m, it's prepared for things like Sherman Jumbo or IS-2, panther with regular AP already have 124mm penetration at 500m, even at distance of 1000m it can easily penetrate the thickest part of Churchill. I'm not asking to change it but while allied fan boy said things like panther would be one shot because "penetrates=kill", ask for one shot a Churchill with regular AP is totally warrant.
Reiterating 1 example? OK, I'll give you more:
M4A1 turret, Sherman76 frontal hull, is coded as 76mm thick, the pzIVH with regular AP, have penetration of 114mm at 500m, can't one shot those part in point blank range, in fact even a Pak40 can one shot it. I think most people know Pak40 eats pzIVH's 80mm frontal hull at whatever range, and then it have difficulty to deal with 76mm of allied steel in point blank range, isn't that weird?(Pak40 also can't one shot Sherman's 51mm side turret).
PzIIIJ/L with pzg40 has 72mm of penetration at 500m, yet it can just slightly damage the 60mm frontal hull of desert Sherman or Valentine, also it can't one shot a Sherman from the side although the side hull or turret is no more than 51mm, the Sherman side may have weak spot, but the whole side hull and turret should be one shot according to that rule, same thing happen to Matilda side, it's only 65mm. How about one shot a Matilda with PzIIIJ/L if it hit the track? Just as one shot a Panther by Sherman75 if it hit the track.
I totally agree that Panther should be one shot by M18 or Sherman76 because its HVAP penetrates 155mm at 500m, and the Panther glacis plate is coded as 83/sin(35)=145mm in FH2, but that's only if the things I mentioned above is implemented as well.
-
Enough with the "this gun penetrates blah blah blah so this is a one shot blah blah blah".
Kingtiger, please open your mind and start considering that IRL a shell penetrating the armor doesn't imply that the hit tank is dead and burning.
Depending on the part hit it might destroy it completely yes, but it can also disable something, maybe kill a crew member or even make a hole and no other harm.
So the only thing that is guaranteed with a penetration vs armor comparison is that some damage will be dealt, nothing else.
Sorry to say that, but your discourse about german guns with über penetration that have to blow everything is just bullshit. And you're becoming boring ... :-X
P.S: And a tip about the Churchill. All Churchills from MkVI or VII were uparmored to 152mm in front, and they were introduced during Normandy fights ... ::)
-
Kingtiger, please open your mind and start considering that IRL a shell penetrating the armor doesn't imply that the hit tank is dead and burning.
Depending on the part hit it might destroy it completely yes, but it can also disable something, maybe kill a crew member or even make a hole and no other harm.
So the only thing that is guaranteed with a penetration vs armor comparison is that some damage will be dealt, nothing else.
That's exactly my point, but those who think "Oh, I penetrates a Panther so I should get a one shot kill as reward" won't agree on this. So I just follow their logic:"penetrates=kill", to ask for things like one shot a Churchill, one shot a Matilda bla bla bla....and see if they would agree.
btw, it's churchill iv right now...
-
That's exactly my point, but those who think "Oh, I penetrates a Panther so I should get a one shot kill as reward" won't agree on this.
Well, on that particular point they are right. If this is a close range hit on the sides. And that's definitively how things work right now, so what's the point about complaining ?
edit:
BTW, since this is a topic about balance, I would like to highlight something else, the antitank rifle power.
I've noticed that those weapons now allow to kill any truck/car with only one shot, and it's nearly the same for armored transports.
And this is something that should be changed to me.
1°) For balance reason:
- This is a real problem in Hyacinth since all trucks become useless for Brits (or huge Christmas presents on wheels for Italians)
- More generally it turns armored transports and trucks into useless coffins on Desert maps
2°) For historical accuracy reasons:
- Antitank rifles are basicly regular rifles on steroïds, they do not make a much bigger hole
- Antitank rifles were known for often penetrating armor without doing significant damage (there are examples of PzIV with dozens of AT rifles holes on Eastern front, without much harm)
So I think any vehicle should withstand at least 3 antitank rifle shots. The "bonus" of the AT rifle is to penetrate armor targets, not to nuke soft ones. ;)
-
Well, on that particular point they are right. If this is a close range hit on the sides.
Then at close range Churchill, Matilda..won't survive too, but now they survive in point blank range, while the Panther don't have such luck even in Totalize or Cobra, unless their enemy fire from outside the fog. The BF2 engine allow the factor:distance to calculate damage, so there may be some improvment in the future?
And I agree that the AT rifle is a little bit annoying when you're in halftracks.
-
I understand what your saying, and your answer entirely lies in the vehicle HP of those tanks. Whether or not they will change that I have no idea.
Also, the 75mm L/48 with PzG40 (PaK and IVH/StuG) should kill the Sherman 76 at any range to the front just fine, the regular ammo is what doesn't (have tested it often for WaW). I agree that's weird, but hey, the IV also has 8 round of special ammo it shouldn't so I won't argue the semantics there :D.
-
Enough with the "this gun penetrates blah blah blah so this is a one shot blah blah blah".
Kingtiger, please open your mind and start considering that IRL a shell penetrating the armor doesn't imply that the hit tank is dead and burning.
Depending on the part hit it might destroy it completely yes, but it can also disable something, maybe kill a crew member or even make a hole and no other harm.
So the only thing that is guaranteed with a penetration vs armor comparison is that some damage will be dealt, nothing else.
Sorry to say that, but your discourse about german guns with über penetration that have to blow everything is just bullshit. And you're becoming boring ... :-X
P.S: And a tip about the Churchill. All Churchills from MkVI or VII were uparmored to 152mm in front, and they were introduced during Normandy fights ... ::)
Strat's right. The majority of churchills where heavy MK VII and their support versions VIII
Always with this whining. They lose once head to head vs an allied tank, and its instant ALLIED BIAS IMBALANCED GERMANS UNDERPOWERD
-
If they are coded as current IVs, they don't have those bonuses in-game, so that argument doesn't make much sense in terms of FH2 Churchills, since they are ALL IVs.
That's like saying the Pershing is already a good counter to King Tigers in FH2, yet not having a Pershing.
-
Yes but in terms of historical accuracy, MK VII should have been used. MK IV's where used mostly at the day of the invasion, but after them all of them where recalled to be made into MKVII's
-
"Always with this whining."
Good, ask for one shot a Panther is reasonable suggestion, ask for one shot Churchill, Matilda, desert Sherman in a same way is called whining.
And what we have now is Churchill IV, talking about VII,VIII is like saying replace a pzIVF1 to F2 in Tobruk.
-
No. Because it is in place. They where used for the first time in normandy, just as many other stuff like the achilles
-
I think the whole tankcombat should be reworkt, it's just ridiculous that you can penetrate the side and top(cupola) from the front.In a real combat situation the shells would only scratch the Tank.
So why not give all tanks more sidearmor and make them much more weak to the rear and enginedeck?
Without a engine that can handle the angle of a hit it's impossible to recreate "real" Tankcombat.
-
My point was more to say that people complaining about German tanks ineffectiveness should be thankful to not have a Churchill MkVII instead of the Mk IV in front of them, because it could have been the case.
There's no problem with having a Mk IV in Totalize, since there were at least some on the field.
But people should try to get their heads out of the German cupola and realize there were also tough tanks on the Allies side.
And talking about "one shot this, one shot that" is a non sens with a Churchill or a Matilda, that were really tough for their times. As an opposite the Panther was a very good tank, but it still had vulnerabilities.
SchwererGustav -> This solution would just turn the game into "vanilla" Battlefield. There are tanks for which the strong point is to be as much armored in front and in rear. ;)
-
Really, I don't see too much difference between Churchill IV and VII/VIII. Now when you got into Tiger/Panther, you already need to load some pzg40 to deal with the current Chruchill IV.
-
Panther can one shot churchills. Seriously everything that is allied must die 1S1K for you?
And PZG40 shouldnt even be in normandy. Eastfront was its primary customer for that.
and mkVII has 154mm of frontal armor.Panther tank's standard gun penetrates 114mm of armor.
Dint you self started the whole "penetration shouldnt mean kill" discussion? well the churchill lives up to it. Surely 104mm of armor can stop that
-
"Armour 16 to 102 mm (In the MK VII front armour 152 mm)" - Wiki quote
So please. 1/2 times that I managed 2 get the Churchill out of the base from Totalize I got into an engagement with a Panther. He spotted me after i shot him once, retalieted with a shot, my armor went down to 40% and I shot him another time and blew him up. Ofc, a FW190 came and blew me open with a bomb since I had 2 escape. If we have a King Tiger along side a Tiger 1 I say put the Churchill VII or even VIII or IX. I don't care. I demand a heavier tank for the allies. On 10 Shermans, IIRC, there was at least 1 Churchill.
P.S. Anyone up for a map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bluecoat, link 2 operation Overlord as well
-
Seriously everything that is allied must die 1S1K for you?
My answer is no.
Same question for you, change the word "allied" to "axis".
Panther tank's standard gun penetrates 114mm of armor.
114mm at 1000m? That's quiet simple, if 102mm of armor stops the shell, Panther glacis plate stops HVAP too. It's either Panther's regular AP one shot Churchill, HVAP one shot Panther or not a one shot kill on both case, I mean those things need to be implemented in PAIRS, to keep the consistency.
-
Thats what you think. In your opinion all german tanks are weak, all allied tanks are to strong
Black and white
FH2 is gray dude.
"Armour 16 to 102 mm (In the MK VII front armour 152 mm)" - Wiki quote
So please. 1/2 times that I managed 2 get the Churchill out of the base from Totalize I got into an engagement with a Panther. He spotted me after i shot him once, retalieted with a shot, my armor went down to 40% and I shot him another time and blew him up. Ofc, a FW190 came and blew me open with a bomb since I had 2 escape. If we have a King Tiger along side a Tiger 1 I say put the Churchill VII or even VIII or IX. I don't care. I demand a heavier tank for the allies. On 10 Shermans, IIRC, there was at least 1 Churchill.
P.S. Anyone up for a map? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bluecoat, link 2 operation Overlord as well
Well. Keep one thing in mind
All Churchill tanks after the MKV where fitted with a 75mm gun standard. And i recall a case where a british Churchill crew got court-martialed because they fitted a 6PDR instead of the 75mm.
Many of the crews where very pissed about this. They finnaly had a tank wich could withstand german tank guns, and they finnaly had a gun wich had decent Ammo supply on all ammo types, and was capable of shooting german tanks at normal ranges...
And then the high command says=The 6PDR is to logistical intense, we gonna use the US 75mm
-
And PZG40 shouldnt even be in normandy. Eastfront was its primary customer for that.
And why? because it wasnt needed there ... pure overkill, yet panzer IVs lack the power to beat shermans reliably :P
-
Someone was whining at hslan, that only in hslan germans are harder to kill. German bias at hslan?
-
Someone was whining at hslan, that only in hslan germans are harder to kill. German bias at hslan?
;D ;D ;D
-
OH noes! They uncoverd the HOAX of FH2
-
Thats what you think. In your opinion all german tanks are weak, all allied tanks are to strong
Don't you think in the opposite way? Shit axis armor, lame faust............
And now should I say what you think is allied should keep one shot the Panther while their Churchill, Matilda,Valentine or Sherman can stop shell which are capable to penetrate.
Someone was whining at hslan, that only in hslan germans are harder to kill. German bias at hslan?
You mean the excavs guys? Yeah, when they gather on one side, it's some kind of bias....they should split up ;D
-
Don't forget the Vickers. The Vickers should kill a Tiger II with one single burst on the frontal armor.
Never underestimate a Vickers ! >:(
-
And dont forget the crusader MKIII AA! it should pwn all german tanks imo
-
How would it be like Vanila you are talking BS..."This solution would just turn the game into "vanilla" Battlefield. There are tanks for which the strong point is to be as much armored in front and in rear." wow i didn't know that... ::)
What i mean is don't count the side hits as 90° angle, when it is most only 5° angle... and you can talk about every damn armour and cannon stats it won't work because of the engine limitation it's a mod you know somtimes you have to work around.
-
Thats what you think. In your opinion all german tanks are weak, all allied tanks are to strong
Don't you think in the opposite way? Shit axis armor, lame faust............
And now should I say what you think is allied should keep one shot the Panther while their Churchill, Matilda,Valentine or Sherman can stop shell which are capable to penetrate.
Someone was whining at hslan, that only in hslan germans are harder to kill. German bias at hslan?
You mean the excavs guys? Yeah, when they gather on one side, it's some kind of bias....they should split up ;D
Get eyes and learn to shoot. That way you beat any allied tank without problems. No matter which allied tank I counter with german tank in NORMANDY, I kill it with one shot. Allied tank doesn't kill me with one shot, unless it's a sherman firefly. Yesterday I took like 6 hits to my Panther, front mostly, two on sides. 5 hits made me go down to 40%, yes, correct, 40%. One was side shot by Cromwell. Then Firefly managed to get on my side when I was shooting other sherman and I blew up. I killed 6 enemy tanks in that situation.
-
Please don't lie. Cromwell destroys Panther with one shot to sides and front as long as you don't shoot the frontal hull. Just saying :).
-
Please don't lie. Cromwell destroys Panther with one shot to sides and front as long as you don't shoot the frontal hull. Just saying :).
nah, it dropped me down to 40%. Perhaps it hit my turret, but it hit to the side (since I was side towards him). but it SHOULD penetrate the side armour because IRL it did. Like said, if you don't have front towards enemy who has spotted you first, you are dead. That was Panther's situation IRL and it is in game. No whine.
-
Please don't lie. Cromwell destroys Panther with one shot to sides and front as long as you don't shoot the frontal hull. Just saying :).
nah, it dropped me down to 40%. Perhaps it hit my turret, but it hit to the side (since I was side towards him). but it SHOULD penetrate the side armour because IRL it did. Like said, if you don't have front towards enemy who has spotted you first, you are dead. That was Panther's situation IRL and it is in game. No whine.
She is right. Accept it. When the panther was developed, german developers and generals said they need to re-work the design a bit because the panthers side armor was to thin. Hitler did not want to hear that, he just wanted the panther.
If the panthers side armor was just 10mm thicker, it would have really made a diffrence on the battlefield.
Now the panther had a side armor wich could be penetrated by the Sherman at 1.5km range
-
Please don't lie. Cromwell destroys Panther with one shot to sides and front as long as you don't shoot the frontal hull. Just saying :).
nah, it dropped me down to 40%. Perhaps it hit my turret, but it hit to the side (since I was side towards him). but it SHOULD penetrate the side armour because IRL it did. Like said, if you don't have front towards enemy who has spotted you first, you are dead. That was Panther's situation IRL and it is in game. No whine.
I fail to notice where I whined, just saying you are talking bullshit about only losing 60% health when you got hit by Cromwell. I have no problem shooting Panthers with Cromwell, its a damn Panther killer.
@Theta I also fail to understand what I haven't accepted. Your post has nothing to do what I said, once again you are putting words in my mouth that I haven't said.
-
Well ye......high speed........shit side armor..........Bad combination
-
Please don't lie. Cromwell destroys Panther with one shot to sides and front as long as you don't shoot the frontal hull. Just saying :).
nah, it dropped me down to 40%. Perhaps it hit my turret, but it hit to the side (since I was side towards him). but it SHOULD penetrate the side armour because IRL it did. Like said, if you don't have front towards enemy who has spotted you first, you are dead. That was Panther's situation IRL and it is in game. No whine.
I fail to notice where I whined--
Whine is the path to the dark side.
Whine leads to anger. Anger leads to rage. Rage leads to moderating... I sense much whine in you, young one.
-
Are you sure your senses are clear? The amount of force whining holds up in its self is bigger than you moderators can ever understand.
-
Really what are you guys bitching about now? 2 days ago I had to shoot a panther 4 times with my 17 pounder to blow it up. The only problem in-game with both sides, is the over abundance of High Penetration ammunition! It makes heavier tanks useless. The other problems are also being addressed like the shitty allied planes. Besides in-game you can turn your tank turret with the same speed as a rifle! Making the Panther sides take more than 1-2 hits is stupid since the damn thing would kill you in half a second!
I love FH2 and I love all factions in FH2. I have no bias and besides some small clinks FH2 IS FINE!
-
Get eyes and learn to shoot.
Yesterday I took like 6 hits to my Panther, front mostly, two on sides. 5 hits made me go down to 40%, yes, correct, 40%. One was side shot by Cromwell.
1 side hit by cromwell on the Panther would kill it unless you hit the Schruzen area(but not every Panther have Schruzen right?), 2 side hit is enough to blow it up in any case. I don't know what do you mean by "5 hit made me go down to 40%". 100 shot from short barrel cromwell to Panther's front hull would do no damage at all, then should you say "oh my panther took 100 hits and it didn't even damage, what a axis bias!"? Talking cases like that I'll give you examples like Sherman explode after 3 pak40 shots, or Sherman didn't explode but only on fire after getting hit by a Tiger/Panther AP, yeah, I encounter these cases before, now should I use it as an example of "Sherman over armored"?
I remember you said things like pzIV get hit by 7 shot of 2 pdr and had no damage bla bla bla, exagerrating things like that won't give you point.
Talking about the aiming problem, I bet I aim better than you, I used to kill Matilda by pzIVF1 with one shot, and I had no problems dealing with Sherman or Churchill by pzIVH. But here we're talking about if certain shell hit certain area of a tank, will do what kind of damage, there's nothing to do with aiming, if you aimed well, you can one shot a Panther to the front by short 75mm guns, yet is it fair to say "wow, panther's front is so weak"?
To that shoot Panther 4 times with 17pdr case, I want you to make sure if you load some HE/smoke first. 4 AP of 17pdr to blow up a Panther only happen in one condition: long range, high angle(10 or 20 degree), and you hit the glacis plate 4 times. You know what, that kind of shot can only scratch your enemy's paint in real battle, even after 40 shots.
-
.....Well this conversation dragged on about 15 more pages then it probably should've.
-
Get eyes and learn to shoot.
Yesterday I took like 6 hits to my Panther, front mostly, two on sides. 5 hits made me go down to 40%, yes, correct, 40%. One was side shot by Cromwell.
1 side hit by cromwell on the Panther would kill it unless you hit the Schruzen area(but not every Panther have Schruzen right?), 2 side hit is enough to blow it up in any case. I don't know what do you mean by "5 hit made me go down to 40%". 100 shot from short barrel cromwell to Panther's front hull would do no damage at all, then should you say "oh my panther took 100 hits and it didn't even damage, what a axis bias!"? Talking cases like that I'll give you examples like Sherman explode after 3 pak40 shots, or Sherman didn't explode but only on fire after getting hit by a Tiger/Panther AP, yeah, I encounter these cases before, now should I use it as an example of "Sherman over armored"?
I remember you said things like pzIV get hit by 7 shot of 2 pdr and had no damage bla bla bla, exagerrating things like that won't give you point.
Talking about the aiming problem, I bet I aim better than you, I used to kill Matilda by pzIVF1 with one shot, and I had no problems dealing with Sherman or Churchill by pzIVH. But here we're talking about if certain shell hit certain area of a tank, will do what kind of damage, there's nothing to do with aiming, if you aimed well, you can one shot a Panther to the front by short 75mm guns, yet is it fair to say "wow, panther's front is so weak"?
To that shoot Panther 4 times with 17pdr case, I want you to make sure if you load some HE/smoke first. 4 AP of 17pdr to blow up a Panther only happen in one condition: long range, high angle(10 or 20 degree), and you hit the glacis plate 4 times. You know what, that kind of shot can only scratch your enemy's paint in real battle, even after 40 shots.
Yes and it was possible to shoot panther from front with 75mm, I've shown the pic. 75mm gun doesn't have any special ammo, just AP, remember that. 76mm HVAP is taken care of, so don't whine about that.
How you can shoot panther from front:
(http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1989/pantherg.jpg)
-
No, you don't understand anything Ciupita.
The Panther (with a capital P) is the PRIDE of the REICH ! It can't be scratched by a puny Sherman, that can't be ! This is the Glorious tank that will crush our ennemies forever under the command of our beloved Führer ! :P
.....Well this conversation dragged on about 15 more pages then it probably should've.
And I forsee it carrying on for at least 50 other pages, since Kingtiger has a special "Allies Bias" edition of FH. ;D
-
They just dont understand that german tanks wherent uberwtfpwnall.
Normandy=Allied tank losses 4400. German tank losses 2200. Enough said
-
And I forsee it carrying on for at least 50 other pages, since Kingtiger has a special "Allies Bias" edition of FH. ;D
Seriously, there is a difference between whining about German tanks being too weak and pointing out inconsistency when it comes to armour penetrations. Kingtiger is doing the latter, not the former.
Nobody have really answered his questions about the consistency except Theta but his answer was Yes and No.
-
They just dont understand that german tanks wherent uberwtfpwnall.
Normandy=Allied tank losses 4400. German tank losses 2200. Enough said
I agree that German tanks indeed were not uberwtfpwnall but drawing any conclusions from just the number of losses is futile.
There are hundreds of factors that determine this outcome. Individual tank capabilities is one of these but it can't be used on it own.
-
"The crew is the steel,the tank is just metal"
-
And I forsee it carrying on for at least 50 other pages, since Kingtiger has a special "Allies Bias" edition of FH. ;D
Seriously, there is a difference between whining about German tanks being too weak and pointing out inconsistency when it comes to armour penetrations. Kingtiger is doing the latter, not the former.
Nobody have really answered his questions about the consistency except Theta but his answer was Yes and No.
Both. Because he always start a new subject wich is always about something so called weak on german panzers and something OP on the allies.
-
They just dont understand that german tanks wherent uberwtfpwnall.
Normandy=Allied tank losses 4400. German tank losses 2200. Enough said
nobody said german tanks were like that. and just quoting 2 numbers is quite senceless ... how many of these tanks got blown up by other tanks, how many got killed by aircraft, at-guns, handheld at? - and especially how many got blown up by their own crew on the german side?
and i wouldnt trust these numbers unless i have a source - according to some russian sources of ww2 the russians for example destroyed 1500 tigers at kursk... (although 1350 were made)
and still i read in a history book that i trust that the whole tank losses were about 4:1 on the whole western front and about 5:1 in the east ... but i cant find it so according to my argumentation about sources before you cant trust me :P - and you have to consider what these tanks got killed by.
-
For that question, there's no answer such as "yes and no", what does "yes and no" mean? For me, "yes and no" only means you're fear to say no but unwilling to say yes.
I won't say things like "Oh Churchill survive Panther shells so 2pdr should implement the 1000m distance penetration as well", but consistency should at least keep amoung vehicles appear on the same theatre right? Like in Normandy, if 1000m distance penetration is used, all guns in Normandy should use that distance. So as other cases.
-
They just dont understand that german tanks wherent uberwtfpwnall.
Normandy=Allied tank losses 4400. German tank losses 2200. Enough said
nobody said german tanks were like that. and just quoting 2 numbers is quite senceless ... how many of these tanks got blown up by other tanks, how many got killed by aircraft, at-guns, handheld at? - and especially how many got blown up by their own crew on the german side?
and i wouldnt trust these numbers unless i have a source - according to some russian sources of ww2 the russians for example destroyed 1500 tigers at kursk... (although 1350 were made)
and still i read in a history book that i trust that the whole tank losses were about 4:1 on the whole western front and about 5:1 in the east ... but i cant find it so according to my argumentation about sources before you cant trust me :P - and you have to consider what these tanks got killed by.
From R. J. Jarymowycz's Tank Tactics, German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):
Gunfire..............................43.8% (both from tanks, tank destroyers and anti tank guns)
Self destruction..................20.7% (crew abandons a vehicle and destroys it to prevent capture)
Abandonment.....................18.3% (crew abandons the vehicle intact)
Air Attack............................7.5% (destroyed by rockets or bombs)
Hollow-charge Rounds............4.4% (PIAT/Bazooka)
Mechanical..........................4.0% (crew abandons a vehicle 'intact' following mechanical failure)
Mines/Miscellaneous..............0.9%
In brackets is my interpretation. I've also reordered it.
-
I think the whole tankcombat should be reworkt, it's just ridiculous that you can penetrate the side and top(cupola) from the front.In a real combat situation the shells would only scratch the Tank.
So why not give all tanks more sidearmor and make them much more weak to the rear and enginedeck?
Without a engine that can handle the angle of a hit it's impossible to recreate "real" Tankcombat.
I heard that BF2 supports some kind of angled armour. If that is coded in it would solve the problem to a certain degree.
-
I think the whole tankcombat should be reworkt, it's just ridiculous that you can penetrate the side and top(cupola) from the front.In a real combat situation the shells would only scratch the Tank.
So why not give all tanks more sidearmor and make them much more weak to the rear and enginedeck?
Without a engine that can handle the angle of a hit it's impossible to recreate "real" Tankcombat.
I heard that BF2 supports some kind of angled armour. If that is coded in it would solve the problem to a certain degree.
I do feel the angle factor is already working...1 degree shot don't take as much damage as vertical shot in many cases I encountered.
-
I think the whole tankcombat should be reworkt, it's just ridiculous that you can penetrate the side and top(cupola) from the front.In a real combat situation the shells would only scratch the Tank.
So why not give all tanks more sidearmor and make them much more weak to the rear and enginedeck?
Without a engine that can handle the angle of a hit it's impossible to recreate "real" Tankcombat.
I heard that BF2 supports some kind of angled armour. If that is coded in it would solve the problem to a certain degree.
I do feel the angle factor is already working...1 degree shot don't take as much damage as vertical shot in many cases I encountered.
But is it working good enough? for example the top armour problems.
-
I think the whole tankcombat should be reworkt, it's just ridiculous that you can penetrate the side and top(cupola) from the front.In a real combat situation the shells would only scratch the Tank.
So why not give all tanks more sidearmor and make them much more weak to the rear and enginedeck?
Without a engine that can handle the angle of a hit it's impossible to recreate "real" Tankcombat.
I heard that BF2 supports some kind of angled armour. If that is coded in it would solve the problem to a certain degree.
I do feel the angle factor is already working...1 degree shot don't take as much damage as vertical shot in many cases I encountered.
But is it working good enough? for example the top armour problems.
Not good enough, never happened in top armor case
-
No, you don't understand anything Ciupita.
The Panther (with a capital P) is the PRIDE of the REICH ! It can't be scratched by a puny Sherman, that can't be ! This is the Glorious tank that will crush our enemies forever under the command of our beloved Führer ! :P
.....Well this conversation dragged on about 15 more pages then it probably should've.
And I forsee it carrying on for at least 50 other pages, since Kingtiger has a special "Allies Bias" edition of FH. ;D
Emmm The Sherman, especially the Firefly and also the Churchill were the PRIDE of the Americans and Allies. Actually I more like the Allied tanks than the German "boxes". The only boxed tank in the allied ranks is the Cromwell. And it's STILL cool looking AND fast.
Really some community members should really drop their love and protection towards the Axis forces. If they were so ŰBER they would have won the war and conquered the whole Europe. Not even Napoleon Bonaparte could do that.
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
Russia.
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
Russia.
They could have won in russia, or atleast captured moscow. Hitler was retarded and sent his armour to the south instead of straight for the capital. And the yugoslav campaign hindered Barbarossa
-
Sgt.Radman -> In case you didn't get it, I was ironic. ;D
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
Russia.
^this
Hitler.
He was a man perfect to bring germany back from ruins.
He was the worst man to lead germany to war.
Why did he went to war? What if he just said=ok lets get along. What if germany never went to war...
Instead of us discussing about the war, why not discuss why Hitler even went to war...
-
Sgt.Radman -> In case you didn't get it, I was ironic. ;D
Ye I got that. I was just examining the whole situation. And applying common facts 2 history thus coming out with a conclusion about what was or what is.
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
Russia.
^this
Hitler.
He was a man perfect to bring germany back from ruins.
He was the worst man to lead germany to war.
Why did he went to war? What if he just said=ok lets get along. What if germany never went to war...
Instead of us discussing about the war, why not discuss why Hitler even went to war...
Hitler was political genius (don't take this wrong. He was master of controlling masses and speaking) but one of the worst war leaders in the world. If he would have stayed in his politics, germany could have won the war. Or maybe he could have avoided the war with western allies.
-
War is far more than tank battle. Hitler never had enough resources to conquer Russia, he may got a chance if he conquer the whole western Europe first in 1940.
But does Hitler have some relation to the "current state of balance"? ???
-
Btw, I don't always speak for axis armor, if you find any example in favor of the alllied and also shows the "inconsistency", I'll support you.
-
Can my vote be switched over from 'German army is underpowered' to 'Historical accuracy>Balance'?
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
Russia.
Attack to Soviet Union was delayed, Hitler was stupid and split up his forces, oilfields should have been priority but Stalingrad had "Stalin" in its name so Hitler wanted it. You know Axis would have won Russia alone any day without Hitler. Allies even made up assassination plan for killing Hitler but never executed it as they figured out that war will be won faster with him in charge. Also Hitler was fighting on many fronts, simply stupid.
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
Russia.
Attack to Soviet Union was delayed, Hitler was stupid and split up his forces, oilfields should have been priority but Stalingrad had "Stalin" in its name so Hitler wanted it. You know Axis would have won Russia alone any day without Hitler. Allies even made up assassination plan for killing Hitler but never executed it as they figured out that war will be won faster with him in charge. Also Hitler was fighting on many fronts, simply stupid.
If he DID conquer it the name would maybe be changed to Hitlerburg?
-
War is far more than tank battle. Hitler never had enough resources to conquer Russia, he may got a chance if he conquer the whole western Europe first in 1940.
But does Hitler have some relation to the "current state of balance"? ???
well ye. What if he used the forces he used for Operation barbarossa to invade Great britain?
Or for the NA theathre?
Victory...
No hitler was dumb, sended his summer equipped german forces into the harsh lands of russia..and lost the war.
You are correct.WW2 wassent a tank battle alone. Germany was only ahead of Tank development, but they sucked in the otherimportant aspects=Infantery equipment, Artillery(Both field as AA), naval warfare and the most important part of any army=Logistics
-
Hitler was simply dumb when it came to the leading of an army :
- not allowing the 6th army to retreat from stalingrad
- rushing the new panther tanks to kursk before the early problems have been solved
- to have these new tanks at kursk he delayed the attack so that the russians could prepare their defences well
- not allowing the stg44 to be used earlier (it was developed without his knowledge in 1943)
- not allowing the me262 to be used as an interceptor (which it obviously was), instead it became the "blitzbomber" a job where its advantages became useless
i could go on but those are the things that come to my mind now :P
-
I think we got the idea he was stupid ;)
Defeating the Brits should've been his first objective...
Also he thought that the war would be over in a matter of months or at max a year!
So the industry wasn't mobilized. All sorts of schetches were disregarded as unneccesary because the war would be over soon...
-
War is far more than tank battle. Hitler never had enough resources to conquer Russia, he may got a chance if he conquer the whole western Europe first in 1940.
But does Hitler have some relation to the "current state of balance"? ???
well ye. What if he used the forces he used for Operation barbarossa to invade Great britain?
Or for the NA theathre?
Victory...
No hitler was dumb, sended his summer equipped german forces into the harsh lands of russia..and lost the war.
You are correct.WW2 wassent a tank battle alone. Germany was only ahead of Tank development, but they sucked in the otherimportant aspects=Infantery equipment, Artillery(Both field as AA), naval warfare and the most important part of any army=Logistics
well ww2 wasnt a tank battle alone, but to say the whole german army sucked at infantry equipment is simply false:
compared to what? the garand? only the americans had semi auto rifles as a standard infantry weapon. the german tactics in 1944 revolved around the mg42 and mg 34 to be the centre of infantry fights ... i personally would prefer to have a kar98k supported by a mg42 than having only garands and bars.
The russians and brits also used bolt action rifles and the enfield and kar98k are considered the best bolt action rifles ever made.
Another example are the grenades: the stiehlhandgranate could be carried with you easier and could be thrown further than those pineapple grenades - another invention would be the stg44 wich although not a standard rifle revolutionated infantry warfare.
germans sucked at artillery and aa? yeah tell that the 88mm ...
you are right on the logistics though... but if you fight on 3 fronts what do you expect?
if you like it or not a shitload of tactics and weapons used today is copied from german stuff from ww2 (rockets, jet planes, assault rifles, tactics, even the so called fritz helmet in the us army).
the other armies excelled at certain aspects too.
i dont say yeah german army wtfpwns ... but saying tehy SUCKED at every other part than tank combat is simply ignorant.
-
You know Axis had really good chances of conquering the whole Europe there just was this one stupid guy who couldn't think more than 3 years ahead.
Hitler wasn't the only reason for Germany being defeated you know ::)
If it wasn't for Hitler, Nazi Germany wouldn't have even got as far as Poland. Also, to be fair, do you not think that other countries would have also developed and become stronger in those '3 years' you talk about. Nazi Germany was not the only country developing advanced technology, most of which was only rushed into service in the years such as 44/45 because of their terrible situation in the war. I think you should make more balanced statements.
-
One more of these "You know Germans were actually shit and allied were much more advanced". Bullshit I say, its only lack of resources and manpower that Axis had. If it would only have been tactics, technology, training, survivability world would look different now. Axis were better in many things get over it, allied were good in other things like huge resources in homeland and stuff.
-
One more of these "You know Germans were actually shit and allied were much more advanced". Bullshit I say, its only lack of resources and manpower that Axis had. If it would only have been tactics, technology, training, survivability world would look different now. Axis were better in many things get over it, allied were good in other things like huge resources in homeland and stuff.
Excuse me but I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. I would like you to find the part of my statement which supports your "quote". I'm not "bigging up" the Allies I'm merely saying the Germans weren't light years ahead like you seem to make out and that the Allies were no fools.
If, like you said, Germany had waited "3 years" before starting the war then it's not as though the Allies wouldn't have developed as well so I actually think the conquest of Europe and the USSR would have got HARDER not easier, especially if you consider that up until the middle of the war Germany didn't possess the technological advantages that you admire so much.
Sometimes it seems that as soon as you criticise the Germans you are automatically an Allied 'fan boy' and the same in reverse. It's ridiculous how many people seem to cling to one side, it's quite immature.
-
While I could happily dive into the debate whether Germany should have waited until 1945 or specify all the myriad ways how Schickelgruber Jr. and his coked-up second-in-command messed things up wonderfully...
...I still don't get it what this has to do with the state of balance in FH2 v2.26?
(I think the wait would have been more beneficial to Germany than to the Allies, who had, after all, thought to have won "peace in our time". The Kriegsmarine, according to Plan Z, would have been ready only in 1945, Luftwaffe was still mostly under construction in 1939, Pz I was never supposed to see combat, etc.)
-
Bla Bla Bla...
Didn't mean to be too harsh or offensive. I am sorry if it sounded too much like that.
-
Bla Bla Bla...
Didn't mean to be too harsh or offensive. I am sorry if it sounded too much like that.
Chadoi is actually goddam right. Every godforsaken post you make you make it sound like the germans where almighty and thewin in everything. Their are dozens of posts where you litterly say=Allies are crap. Germans are superior/awesome/ftw/epic
I wonder who the real fanboy is. Nobody here on this forum ever talked about the allied army the way you constant talk over the germans.
You say one thing bad about the germans=your an allied fanboy, allied biased and all of the other crap.
-
Well, German Army Leadership was really good. I mean people like Mannstein who made the Plans to invade France, after Hitler ordered it. In fact those plans worked in Poland, Netherlands and Belgium, made possible by good commanding in the field, even with rather bad equipment.
It was not until Hitler started to change the original Operation Barbarossa plans in August 1941, diverting troops to the south and stopping army group center because of Leningrad that things went really wrong. Judging by far Germans came in 1941 I think the plans for Barbarossa could have worked.
After Hitler himself became the "Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres" at 19. Dezember 1941 German plans were mostly changed to "hold till the last men" until the end.
-
While I could happily dive into the debate whether Germany should have waited until 1945 or specify all the myriad ways how Schickelgruber Jr. and his coked-up second-in-command messed things up wonderfully...
...I still don't get it what this has to do with the state of balance in FH2 v2.26?
I think that the poll says it all about the balance. Cause i think we've finished talking about balance issues and started a new post-era about the things that don't matter no more. All that is being discussed here is about things that were. Fullstop.
-
yep and thats why i am gonna close down the thread. It has been enough.
We all had some good discussions and agreements around the public
A few=
-Shermans and HVAP
-Desert tanking balance
-FW dominance in Normandy
-Fixing of ROF and or damage of US planes and their .fifties
-Historical accuracy is a higher requirment then balance sometimes for many people
-Some map issue's
And overall, the majority thinks FH2 2.26 is well balanced overall with requirment of tweaking on some items.
So to the devs=A job well done! Have a good one! You did a fine job on this mod and the awesomeness increases with every release.
Some time after the 2.3 release, i might make one for that version..................but...im gonna ask permission first to Thorondor warbear