The current state of balance (2.26)

[McCloskey]

It's a golden quote.

[Paavopesusieni]

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.

[Vernah]

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.

[THeTA0123]

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

[Paavopesusieni]

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 ).

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 .

[Eat Uranium]

FH2 armour penetration is based on 500m iirc.

[McCloskey]

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.

[THeTA0123]

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

[Paavopesusieni]

And Sherman HVAP.

[Mazz]

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)

[Topdogger]

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.

[Miklas]

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? 

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.

[Excavus]

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.

[Eat Uranium]

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.

[Kelmola]

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.