BWChief

I feel this would be an interesting take on reformed Panzerjägers, I’d honestly like to see the “sticky smoke” and VTF, those would be cool to see, and help with detecting and destroying armor.

So from my understanding, from having helped do testing for the US armor, the reason for the recon call in being so..”weak” is because of the fact that its grabbed at T1, and because they didn’t want something really powerful. Its all easy to throw away vehicles, plus they have the ability to capture points; Cheaper LV’s to replace those losses, and you can make up for the fuel costs by capping points. It also seems to be mostly MG’s since .50’s were deemed “sufficient” for early LV work.

To break it down further; Greyhound plus .30 cal jeep was designed for 222 destruction, incase you wanted to sacrifice the MG power for a cannon. M20 and .30 cal HT was the armored MG combo, incase you wanted a .50 to ward off/attack early LV’s, and a .30 cal HT so it didn’t die to rifle fire. Lastly double .50 jeeps incase you wanted to maximize fire rate, at the cost of armor; You now have 2 .50’s, at the cost of all armor.

As for Abrams call ins, they were designed as “Set up task force plans” and are given to you as such. You still get a Pershing, so Ace just has a guaranteed penetration ability, with the ability to reach max vet. M20 armored car..I really had no idea what they were for, I couldn’t get them close enough for AT work, plus vehicle crews are rather fragile (Guess I have an idea for that, but thats for another time). Double Sherman jumbo’s…the bane of all thats holy in terms of infantry and small emplacements; sling HE, AP, or WP shells at all you desire while anything below a Tiger and Panther bounce off harmlessly. And anti-emplacement, with the design to destroy almost all good emplacements; 105 sherman to blow up wooden bunkers, Flamer to clear out defenses, or burn down bunkers/bases, and engineers to give you a more cost effective way to blow up concrete, with a bomb strike as a more costly version to nuke any target you desire (thought it was worth pointing out the airstrike as another concrete buster, since there were complaints on concrete busting).

As for the loss of airstrikes, it was decided to do such to give you an incentive to keep them alive. Once Abrams loses his task force, high command decides to put those resources to better use on another battlefield (at least, this is how I understood it)

Lets start in a straight line down the list
1. Soviet infantry
Soviet infantry are mainly conscripts due to a lack of material and information on Soviet infantry formations, units, and their training. Conscripted soldiers were used en-mass, as the Soviets sustained heavy losses in their defense against the Germans, and in their offenses into German territory. Conscripts are generally not well trained, and as such, their lack of training and skill is shown.
Sources on the varying Russian infantry units, and their training would be helpful if you’d like to help improve the selection of infantry.

2. PTRS
The PTRS used to be a powerful anti light-vehicle weapon, generally taking about 2 shots for a Kübelwagen and roughly 3-4 for a SdKfz. 222. It received a nerf after some complaints were lodged about its “extreme power” and they received a heavy damage penalty, but instead received a boost in crits on vehicles. I won’t deny that they seem woefully underpowered, for anti-tank rifles, they take a oddly lengthy time on smaller things than tanks. Infantry with PTRS’s were given basic AT grenades, as the PTRS is currently set up to slow down, or snare a vehicle for AT grenades. PTRS teams have FREE-TO-USE AT grenades to compensate for the lack of punch their 14.5mm AT rifles have. I can’t help but agree that they are quite underwhelming, but we will have to live with them for the time being, till a change is made.

3.KV-1’s, and T-34’s
I understand the frustration with this, and would inclined to agree. The values are a little low for a F-34 or ZiS-5 gun. It is up to the devs to change it, should they desire. I see no harm in raising the penetration to 83mm, as the penetration would then be more effective against Panzer IV’s, StuG’s, and the like. You would still need 2 T-34’s for every 1 Panzer IV though, as the reload rates are quite..slow. The reload is not going to change though, as thats the average reload of a T-34/76.

4. Guards doctrine
Guards doctrine has some of the best infantry in the soviet unit line up. Stormgroup could probably receive a level of Vet with the unlocking of their advanced equipment, but they are by far some of the best infantry the soviets have. Full PPSH load out, Guardsmen HP and stats (greater than conscripts), Combat officer who can suppression break them, and himself, and powerful support options (Mainly your air support). KV-1 and KV-8 are locked since the doctrine has 75mm Shermans to support infantry, which do better than T-34’s against other tanks, and infantry (increased fire rate due to reload speed, and overall increased accuracy while on the move due to stabilizer) and KV-1’s, while not a direct upgrade in terms of Anti-tank work, are an upgrade in terms of infantry support tanks; Shrapnel shell, increased armor, and heavy crush for obstacles. The KV-8 really needs to have a CP lock, as that moving piece of fire-spewing-hell can destroy a lot of hopes, dreams, and acreage with its flamethrower. Sure, its 45mm gun sucks, and won’t do a lot to tanks, but its really meant for LV’s; its not an anti-tank piece, its an anti-infantry based tank.
It has been contested about the infantry upgrades not carrying over, but I don’t think they can transfer over, as you can get a load of options, and have varying upgrades the can’t carry over (PTRS mainly). You get full SVT’s now, as that was a change done to alleviate the munitions sink a little.

Guards Rifle AT Tank hunters(4 man squad)
– Capped at 1
– loadout is x 2 MP-40, x2 bazookas, grenade and smoke grenade
– Captured Panzerfaust 60 (requires “extra equip” tech tree unlock)
– Can upgrade “Veteran Sergeant”
– Gives extra squad member with STG-44
– Gives squad a 3rd bazooka
– Cost is 80 mun
This is why its capped at one; You have a better AT team, that can now effectively engage armor with their ranged weapons. They have 2 MP40’s, which helps them out up close against infantry, smokes to help them move up, or cover a section of LOS to provide cover, their Panzerfaust 60 can penetration the heaviest of tanks, and the veteran sergeant upgrade allows them to one tap most T3 tanks. The Bazookas are close to the best AT weapon, as they travel relatively quick, and deal a good amount of damage (not to mention its a HEAT weapon, so it loses no penetration over distance, and does a decent amount of damage). Soviet Guards are a direct upgrade to the conscripts, and with the DP or rifle grenades, aren’t hard to obtain, unless you are constantly sending them into battle without fully recovering from before.

The chances of the soviets getting a total overhaul is quite small, as they are one of the more recently completed factions. The doctrine has its own shortcomings, but that is part of the design. You get some of the most (inaccurate, and costly) devastating rocket artillery (short of a massive Katy rack build spree by Partisans) to be fielded by a faction (barring the Calliope, but thats pretty damned accurate).

Arty getting a dump is possible, but most likely won’t, as the cool down timer keeps you waiting and carefully playing a juggling game of resources, to ensure you don’t waste all your munitions destroying the land with a barrage of artillery fire.

Partisans have quite fragile and poor infantry for a reason; You have Advanced Evasive Action. You can literally camouflage and move with good speed, and your infantry gets quite strong upgrades: Partisans get the ZB LMG, the “Original Bren”, which makes them quite deadly, and they can easily screw up any infantry unit with that lazer beam of an LMG. Your Red army Partisans are well set, with their loadout being not as oppressive as when they came out (They had to be nerfed, and have their AT option swapped around, and the PPSH’s tech locked, since it turned into an infantry melt fest when they uncamo’d infront of infantry).

Honestly, in comparison to the British, the Brits need the rework rather than the Soviets. The British faction is one of the oldest factions to be done in the mod, and could use an update to bring them up to speed with the newer factions (Soviets and Wehrmacht).

• This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by BWChief.

Little has been shown as to why its “Powerful”

I can make the exact same set up, for less MP. It takes 1100 MP to call in the 2 StuG’s, and the Luchs
It takes less than to make all of them with the cost reduction.
Sure you don’t start with an Ace, a Vet, and a commander Luchs, but for the muni, you can give them the basics, and get them started

AT rifle nade could use some touch ups, perhaps making it like the Narwa AT nade, and giving it the chance to miss, or even a decreased range, thats up for future discussion on what the devs are willing to change.

Splittering grenades need to be moved to the call in infantry, as they tend to be under used because they come with nothing special. The only infantry I would tend to keep from the infantry call in, would probably be the Italians, as they are far better armed, and have a Panzerfaust. Festung Grenadiers should probably get dropped down to a regular M24, or a egg grenade, and given something else to bolster them, as they are a main line producible infantry unit. It doesn’t need to be something extreme like an MG-42, or MG-34, but it can just be something to augment their ability to fight. It should be something that makes them better, but should make them easily dismissed for something better (Gebirgs, Deckungsgruppe, Kriegsmarines, Italians, etc).

PanzerJäger does have quite a few AT options, and I think I have a pretty controversial idea for making it less Jäger spam heavy; Increase the MP-income cost on the Jäger squad. I have found out how nice it is to actually dismiss my Jägers, and pull Volkssturm into my army. They are relatively cheap to both produce, and reinforce, as compared to Jägers.  It is extremely cost effective, and Siemenstadt are quite powerful when you have them, and Otto. Will Jägers outperform them at max vet? Yes, they will demolish infantry at any range at max vet, and can be unstoppable. So lets make it a little less advantageous to keep Jägers on the field for the whole game; Choose between semi-elite infantry, or cost efficient infantry en-masse.

As for the abundant AT options, I like Mysta’s idea of giving Volkssturm Panzerfaust 30’s; Decreased range and penetration (180mm vs 200mm for a panzerfaust 60), for the cheap and affordable infantry. Will they demolish tanks up close? Yes, God yes, but will they be able to steamroll higher quality infantry while steam rolling these tanks? No, because no matter what, you can pretty much crush Volks with US riflemen, or British Infantry sections. Your weapon upgrades guarantee you a leg up above Volks, who only get a single, or few SMGs, STGs, an LMG, or shotguns. Siemenstadt tend to get better weapons, I usually see more rare weapons on them; Panzerschrecks, LMG’s, etc.

its also far more cost effective in the long run as now the MP income isn’t being crippled by semi-elite infantry, and you can push more potential MP into casemates, or into a Jagdtiger.

I see no other historical, and factual way to decrease the price of the Panzer IV’s, while maintaining your list; The Panzer IV Ausf. J was a retrograde design, chosen to simplify production. The Turret’s electric motor was removed for ease of production, and due to the fact that war time materials were becoming more scarce towards the end. After December of 1944, they removed a return roller, and had the tell-tale 3 return rollers for a Panzer IV Ausf. J.
The J’s were the only Panzer IV’s to field mesh skirts, as it was more cost efficient in the terms of steel required to produce these skirts. Although the mesh skirts required a bit of time to be produced, they were cheaper.

To maintain some historical accuracy, you could up the vet level, but you are now combining the extreme accuracy of the Panzer IV’s, the combined arms buff for them, and extra damage and accuracy due to that extra vet level. Yes, they may be fragile, but they are still very powerful; they are capable of taking on nearly all the allied tanks with their APCR (Jumbos and Churchhills may be the exception).

I feel that perhaps, they are fine as is? The J has decreased turret speed, but they have a significant price decrease from their H counterpart. Alongside the buff for extreme range and accuracy, they are quite deadly when engaging at a distance. We would have to see how they perform though.

First, lemme just address a few things, starting in order as they are presented:

1. Its subtle yes, but the fact that its a UNIQUE Tiger (Wittman, I can understand, but Hans? He has Barrel detail, which is a dead giveaway), and that it is closely following infantry, or maintaining a good overwatch distance, should be your first indicator.

2. Unlimited time and no cost; You make it sound as if its completely unrestricted, and quickly accessible. Hans and Wittman both have extremely long cool downs, and are both expensive for a single Tiger tank. You pay 850 Manpower for Colmar, who is a Tiger I, but its alright cause Germany (The country that actually MADE them!) has two for 1000MP minimum?
Colmar is significantly limited, as the French only captured 1 Tiger. This is shown as its only able to be called in ONCE!

A reoccurring theme I find, is that people expect things to cost exactly the same, regardless of faction. My question to this is: How many MG-42’s did Britain manufacture for Commando units? How many MP-40’s did they produce for those elite units? How many GERMAN guns did the BRITISH make during the war?

It costs more for CAPTURED equipment, because its a far more rare commodity than the equipment your faction produced in real life; MP-40’s and MG-42’s cost more for Commandos than Suppressed Stens and a Vickers MG, because the supply of Stens and the Vickers, were more available to the British than the supply of MG-42’s and MP-40’s, because Britian made Stens and Vickers machine guns.

It should cost Germans more to get PPSH’s, and captured gear (And it does), because they didn’t produce it, but instead had to capture it.

So if Hans or Wittman’s buff is so broken due to cost (Which is a great amount of Manpower) , then Colmar must cost exceedingly more than either of the two, due to it being a captured tank (says the same for any captured tanks or equipment).

3. The range is sufficient, as you have far more room to work inside of. If its too large, then suppression breaking buffs need to be reduced to owned territories, as they are capable of being used anywhere, at the click of a button. You can assault any point with Rangers, and pop “Rangers lead the way” anywhere you want. It has no cost, and only has a cooldown for ability use.

Now, the argument of ” Insert-Tiger-Ace” has no cooldown ” will arise, and I am here to point out how God-awfully long their cooldown is when they get destroyed. You have a relatively quick infantry ability, then you have the hundreds of seconds cooldown of a destroyed Tiger. So I have no idea where this “No cooldown” thing came from; Its got a cooldown, you just gotta destroy it to make the ability limited.

The aura is unlimited so long as units are within range, and the tank is still alive. This is because other tank Aces get aura’s too. You don’t want to have to constantly use an ability to keep your units accurate with the M20 command car, do you? Especially one that costs precious munitions.

I may also bring up the fact that Allied doctrines can sustain abilities like such, due to their ability to have Depots. Germany gets no Depot buildables, they get no increase to fuel capacity, munition capacity. So they get only regular buildable points, which give the same as allied points. I will also point out that SS (OKW) cannot build points, and instead must rely on trucks that only benefit the person who placed them, not the whole team. At least Depot’s increase your teammates fuel income, a OKW truck does nothing for your team.

Lastly, since its a point worth rebutting; You don’t need an indicator, you merely need to recognize that the enemy has a Tiger beside it, and what units have Aura’s; Know your enemy.

Thats all.

As for Meatshield’s response, I can agree to this somewhat; only if the panther has something equal of value to run against it.

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.

https://wikingeretow.com/wikingerforum/topic/introduction-of-the-f1-into-tier-2-and-other-suggestive-ideas/

EXTRA EDIT:
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 4 years, 6 months ago by BWChief. Reason: Felt it should be included