Home Forums General Discussion Balance Discussion A few thoughts on One Hit Kill guns

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • Author
    • #10284

      So without the corny introduction obviously having guns able to knock out enemy tanks in a single hit is pretty awesome. However its sort of inconsistent in what is able to knock out what.

      For example:

      The 85mm

      The Soviet 85mm is able to totally destroy a Panzer IV of any model (meaning Jagdpanzers too, in addition StuG III’s) without having ANY level of veterancy at all. Meaning you can brainlessly rush in your T34/85 without hardly a thought. Even if the enemy has 2x Panzer IV’s and manages to take you out you’re pretty much guaranteed to at least get one which is sort of problematic if you consider the German equivalent; which brings us to our second example.

      The 88mm:

      Because of something to do with tank weights supposedly the shorter 88mm belonging to the Tiger I can’t kill a bog standard Sherman or T34 unless it happens to be an ace who has reached veterancy level 2. And as a result of this “ace” requirement (I could be wrong) I don’t think the regular Tiger (such as that belonging to Freiwilligen) actually CAN one shot them.

      I can see valid reasons for having this such as the fact the Panzer IV is pretty dominant excepting maybe the Sherman 76mm and the 85mm is a welcome relief. But honestly it just feels cheap when they can kill it with NO CHANCE to counter, basically giving the T34/85 impunity against lighter German vehicle models.

      All in all I would do a couple of things:
      A: Make 88mm’s able to one shot regardless of whether they are aces or not.
      B: Make requirements for one shotting medium tanks universal across countries; i.e requiring veterancy 2 for the T34/85 to be able to one shot the Panzer IV, like the Tiger needs to do.
      Hopefully if you understand a word of my incoherent rambling we might be able to put some thunks together and maybe even draw a conclusion or two!

    • #10285

      I AGREE. both 88 and 85, and honestly prob the 90mm too, should need vet 2 too 1 shot the sherman. regardless of ace status or whatever, i think some consistency around the board would be good

    • #10286

      The concistency is in the weight of the vehicles, to compensate this Panzer IVs are cheaper than Shermans, talked to Meatshield about this one and he explained it to me. The T-34-85 is also locked behind far more CP than the Panzer IVs. And if this would go through the unstopable force the Elefant is will oneshot any Sherman and T-34, hell even KV1. Same applies to the dreaded King Tiger.

      • This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by Mystalicious.
      • This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by Mystalicious.
    • #10289

      It would raise alot more issues in balancing if all tanks would be able to oneshot at a certain vet level. vet 2 Firefly could oneshot anything pretty much from a huge range.

    • #10290

      we all know why the panzer 4 is 1 shot and the sherman isnt. we just think its a dumb reason why is all.  too clarify aslong as vet 2 is necessary too 1 shot mediums, is all i want. it wouldnt be OP since it would need vet 2, and the ability too tank a hit means a LOT, and imo is basically priceless. also, we dont mean ALL tanks should 1 shot at vet 2, just the tanks that already show such behavior .its p dumb how the pz 4 doesnt take a 85mm hit, but the sherman takes an 88mm hit (imo), and a lot of people agree with this. if it was standardized soo all mediums could take a hit from 80+ mm guns ASLONG as the vehicle with the 80+ mm gun is not vet 2, it would be a lot more fair across the board. granted, i wouldnt mind some more larger sweeping changes in terms of dmg and pen and hit chaance, but this would be a good small step


    • #10291
      eye of the panther

      As much as I understand and Like the idea, There are two more doctrines that need too be finished first before balance changes can be made.

    • #10292

      The difference in shells is a good explanation. The Soviets did not have the greatest of penetrating shells, but they made up for it in more explosive filler in their shells. Their shells do more damage upon successful penetration, thus is why you usually die to an 85mm rather than an 88. The 88 doesn’t exactly focus on explosive power, and is more about penetration and flatter trajectory, thus resulting in more accuracy over longer distances, and less damage drop off.

      The 88 is great, and so is the 85, but both are still weak and strong in their own areas. A tank can take a 88, its all about shot placement. A good EXPERIENCED crew can expertly fire shells that are capable of penetrating and killing the whole crew, or rendering the tank destroyed.
      85mm’s have more explosive filler in their shells, so they deal more damage, thus they can typically one shot medium tanks. Where they lack is the fact that they have lesser penetration than its 80+ relatives (Tiger, Tiger II, Elefant, etc).

      Its not all about “Size” gentlemen, its about how you use it lol

      • #10293

        yeah but like, thats just the historical reasoning behind it. personally, i think the most realistic interpretations would be that shells have a CHANCE too 1 shot, but also have a chance too NOT do that, sorta like an extremely simplified version of what SD-2 does. if it has too be either 1 shot or NOT 1 shot, though, and be completely binary, im definitely leaning towards NOT one shot so nothing becomes just “obsolete”.

    • #10294

      Yeah, but you are either have to ignore history (not happening), bring in RNG (no thank you), or water down the difference between the various tanks, which removes variety.

      I don’t think the issue is the vehicles themselves. I think its the rate they can be spammed, and the immobility of certain counters. A good pak 40 will eat most of the tanks in this game instantly, and it is the best AT gun in the mod, but it is so slow to move around the map.

      Also, not only is the t-34-85 very good, it is also very spammable, whereas the panzer IV is much harder to field for how much weaker it is. The three allied tank docs (CW guards armored, US 4th armored division, USSR armored guards) need to be knocked down a couple of pegs, and their mass production upgrades should not be as good as they are. (I also believe the german docs with “super tanks” also should be looked at, namely panzerjager and wunder. ) These docs need to be able to be harassed in order to gimp their production, and this should be done to the fuel depot.

      My suggestion: Route the upgrades through the fuel depot:

      • Tank discounts do not touch the fuel cost… in fact maybe they should even increase it
      • Fuel depot takes much longer to build (to punish you if it dies)
      • Fuel depot allows you to use your discount effectively.

      In effect, the tank spam docs will need 2 upgrades to get their tank spam going which does a couple of things:

      • Delays the tank spam even more
      • Allows players to harass a tank doc player, and rewards clever raid micro
      • Can punish the tank doc player by fuel starving them if they don’t have a depot/it got taken out

      One of my greatest criticisms of coh is that it is very hard to harass, and impossible to tech snipe due to base MG’s. I think its part of the reason that partisan/back-line combat docs struggle so much. I would like to see more docs have actual building they need to build on the map to get to their greatest potential, to allow you to harass instead of the massive stalemates and call-in dueling we see now.

    • #10300

      Nick, as for a response to your rebuttal; Without maintaining a certain historical accuracy, and realistic factor in the way of shells, the mod will simply lack in my opinion. The thing that really sets Wikinger a step above the rest, is its armored combat. Although the belief is that there is a disparity in the place of the Panzer IV (75mm) to the T-34-85(85mm), I find this a little ludicrous. The Panzer IV can in fact hold its own against a T-34-85, but its more of a unjust comparison.

      I am not basing it on performance, but rather what has to be done to make a tank capable of where its at; what changes from the last iteration must be done, and what is actually comparable to another tank (I.e. Panzer IV F1 to Stuart, T-70, Valentine, AEC, and M8 due to lower caliber guns, and lighter armor, will cover this section further below). The usual Panzer IV H/J is currently more in line with the T-34/76 (STZ as well) and KV-1, due to the ability to still penetrate a Panzer IV from a distance, and perhaps the ability to bounce a shell at range (On a T-34, I have seen it before, gotta be at max distance, as for penetration, APCR). The T-34-85 is more in line with the Tiger I. I say this due to the fact that the Tiger I is slightly less performing than the Panther, due to lower armor and lower regular penetration at close range. This is where the T-34-85 is now ahead of the Tiger I, due to the availability in numbers. You have 1-3 Tigers, depending on your call in. Most docs only have 1 Tiger, meaning you have 1 Tiger against many T-34-85’s.

      Another reason I compare the T-34-85 to the Tiger more than to the Panzer IV, is because the guns are close in caliber, both being in the 80+ range as you guys wanna say. Its not Germany’s fault they developed a gun that was capable of penetrating more armor, and had better at-range qualities. The soviets developed an 85mm gun that had lower penetration, but also invested more explosive filler into their shells, thus causing more damage post-penetration than the 88mm.

      How these tanks made up for their shortcomings is all different. The T-34/76 made up for it in being cheaper, more reliable, more heavily armored, and faster than the Panzer IV. The T-34-85 trades some mobility for firepower, alongside no increase to armor.

      How the devs equaled things out; T-34/76 can be made for cheap (Or with the right doc, CHEAPER), and can still take on Panzer IV’s (G’s are especially susceptible), while maintaining mobility and offensive capacity (Tank ramming is effective, although you will most likely lose a T-34, it will ensure that the enemy tank is not gonna escape quickly). The T-34/76 can also get the STZ upgrade, which in turn allows it to take most shots from a Panzer IV, and levels the playing field for penetration chances and combat. The T-34-85 has the ability to finally penetrate and destroy most mediums at any distance, and thus doesn’t require an aggressive player, but doesn’t see any armor increases. It still maintains ramming, and even can obtain APCR (Which is wonderful for a soviet gun), allowing it to effective engage other tanks like the Tiger and Panzer IV’s.

      Since it also carries an 85mm, the IS-1 is more in line with the Panther, due to its vastly superior armor, and capable 85mm gun. The main sacrifice here is the penetration to armor ratio. You have wonderful armor, but you lack super high penetration rates.

      Now, for my favorite part with the over beaten theory, and the one I am most known for.
      If the want is to make the 85mm more in line with a place between both the Panzer IV, and the Tiger, then perhaps we need to add a little more prey for the T-34. Its suggested that we incorporate the Panzer IV F1 into tier 2, to give the T-34 and KV-1 something to actually kill with ease. The F1 would need modification, to compete with the T-34 (Both are actually more comparable than with the Panzer IV H/J, due to a similarity in gun penetration and function), mainly in its HEAT department. If the damage remains the same, then the F1 will require a way to fire more than just 1 HEAT shell, otherwise you need 2-3 Panzer IV F1’s to combat a T-34.
      As for complaints on movement to tier 2, I have already addressed this in an actual forum post. I have already received my answer for my ideas there, but I think it might be helpful for those of you who did not read, to see the potential roadmap for armor that may, or may not make it in.

      It also does not seem to be the right time to talk seriously of sweeping balances, as the docs are unfinished, and the balancing is deemed less of a priority, in which it should be. You can’t make proper balance when you don’t have everything incorporated yet.


      Kitty, your idea sounds good, it would allow tank doctrines to become powerful, but would allow behind the line docs to carve their niche in the mod.

      • This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by BWChief. Reason: Felt it should be included
    • #10301

      To be honest, mass based hp pool mechanics is simply not a good thing. I get the idea behind it, but it’s not performing well. Mass can be some indicator of “structural ” strenght, but it’s not as simple as more mass = more thoughness, Much more depend on mass allocation, exposition of crucial components, organisation of crew compartment, used materials, spacial organisation etc. Current mechanics causes many unwanted things, like ridiculously low damage output from light at guns when shooting to heavy vehicles. It causes many troubles with balancing things, when some weapons cannot do realistic damage to heavy vehicles without being too deadly to lighter ones. I think that vehicle hp pool differences should be “flatten”.

      The other thing is that in fact, projectile diameter/amount of explosives is not as important as it may look. (I mean relatively small differences ofcourse) If projectile did penetrate vehicle armour it is pretty much done, much more depends on where it will detonate/what would be hit, than whats the diamater of a projectile.  Ofcourse it is also a factor, but it shoud not be overrated. Moreover damage output should be influenced by RNG. Consistent damage output is not a realistic thing at all.  Because it is impossible to create a realistic structural, and “module”  damage  model  representing hits taken by the vehicle ,RNG is best(or easiest) way to simulate that. More than that, it makes calculation way harder, because u shouldn’t be sure if u need one or two hits to kill something or be killed.

    • #10302

      What I think Nick is more trying to say is it isn’t a question of what the shells were designed to do, our how realistic it is. It simply isn’t fair the Soviet have access to a spammable tank that makes the Panzer IV (the mainstay of Panzergrenadier) instantly obsolete. Nick and I mostly play PvP and we have a lot of people who can attest to saying something along the lines of “well the enemy has 85mm’s, Panzer IV’s and StuG’s useless, get PaK40’s.” A vehicle that is the MBT of an entire doctrine (PzGren) and probably the best “heavier” vehicle for others (SS-Artillery) should not be instantly rendered useless as soon as some guy on the enemy team reaches the arbitrary number of CP’s to unlock the death machine. Everyone else has to put effort in to get it high vet enough to be able to OHK. They should have to get it to vet 2 just like everyone else.

      • This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by Gamecks.
    • #10304

      i can agree. the presence of the T-34-85 on the battlefield didnt cause the german army too abandon the stug or panzer 4 immediately. they still compared very well vs the t-34-85, even if its gun is bigger. in wikinger, however, the fact that your vehicle is at risk of being one shot in an engagement means its too much of a risk too rely on it anymore vs t-34-85s and be cost effective. im not saying the panzer 4 and stug-3 arent a risk at ALL too the t-34-85; the t-34-85 can still miss a shot, regardless how low that chance is, and then the stug just needs too hit another, or 2 stugs can go into camo too ensure they get their shots off first, but overrall its just not worth risking. its like how you dont see mass tank hordes attempting too dog pile king tigers, also known as a “flanking maneuver”- why do that, when a black dragon shot can destroy it in one hit? granted, thats also risking losing some munitions which can be a completely unsustainable loss if you dont have a firm control over the whole map or have lots of muni caches, but its less than losing many tanks. its why i think that long range engagements as a whole could be reworked, so an engagment isnt over in 1 shot (which rarely happened), or so the way the game is doesnt force the player too do unrealistic things.

      • This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by 123nick.
      • #10429

        I think you misunderstand what I’m trying to say. Obviously the T34/85 should fare fairly well against the Panzer IV, as in real life they’re probably roughly equal. (not accounting for things like crew comfort or working gearboxes or having 2 hatches for 5 crew cough cough) It’s an 85mm: it should obviously have the capability to one shot a Panzer IV however it should NOT be able to do this “out of the box” if you will.

        From a standpoint of fairness in order to even think about having a medium tank one shot another medium tank you should need vet 2 or 3 at the very least. This will at least give the poor SOB stuck with the Panzer IV a chance to at least reverse out of harms way and fix up the mangled remains of his poor little Panzer before the Ivan returns.

    • #10306

      I am not going to get involved in this debate too much as there is no perfect solution.

      Just try to remember that this game engine is not a tank simulator, we are already doing far more then most mods when it comes to reflecting tank combat and that is manipulating what is basically a cube cut in half with front and rear values.

      Tanks didn’t have healthbars and any lucky shot could destroy a tank but its a game and it needs fair rules.

      Here are some of the “rules” we use which may help you:

      Hitpoints are based on real mass

      Penetration is based on real world values. There are 3 different pen values per gun (close,mid,long)

      Damage is based on projectile type and HE weight. Different multipliers are used for APCR versus APHE for example

      Damage does have a small RNG variance. Max/Min value

      Damage does increase with veterancy.

      All level 5 Aces one shot on penetration

      Armour is based on thickness and angle combined.

      Vehicle cost is based on a spreadsheet formula of all of the above plus many more variables like DPS, turret rotation, speed etc


      As I said there is no perfect solution where every tank will perform exactly as you expect it to but we do feel this is at least an unbiased and fair way to mod without simply basing it on hearsay and personal opinion.


Viewing 12 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.