No? A rework is definetely needed
#The solution to tank meta / reworks - add tank destroyers
kindred vault
astral prairie
white fiber
The issue with Tank Destroyers (TDs) is not all were lightly armored and casemates (turretless closed tanks) were usually decently armored such as the SU-152 and JadgPanther. America didn't use casemates and opted for mobility. Perhaps the Marder 3 and SU-76 but again, americans have primarily only turreted TDs. It gets messier if you try looking at production dates.
The idea alone isn't bad but to make an even playing field is pretty hard when it was a giant arms race.
royal smelt
What is the real difference between a heavy and a tank destroyer here?
If the destroyer has less armor and there’s no firing-range limit, a heavy’s AP shell should still one-shot it from the front. You also can’t rely on concealment, AT guns can’t even stay hidden in bushes due to render distance, so “ambush” isn’t a practical counter. In most cases this becomes a straight duel: heavy vs. destroyer, both clearly visible, and the heavy wins...
btw, a tank rework was needed and still is. I would like to see "infantry tools matter" more... example, bazooka can disable a turret on a frontal hit OR reliably de-track a tank on a spot
pallid sequoia
Simply modifying statistics cannot be considered a redesign of the armor system. I't a fake rework.
I would like more realism, faster and more dangerous tanks, but at the same time more vulnerable and with more anti-tank weapons for the infantry to damage or destroy . Fewer use of demolition charges and add more anti-tank weapons, as grenades, magnetic mines, more anti-tank guns....
You can add as many new tanks as you want, including tank destroyers. But I have to say that with the small number of tanks at the same time on a map, a tank destroyer doesn't really have much reason to exist. But my eyes would like to see the M10 Wolverine or the Stug on some maps.
And adding self-propelled artillery will be a big mistake to this game. it will break the game, you'll see.
modest barn
We do not need more tanks when the tanks we have currently don’t work
sick geyser
I tend to agree with @frosty hawk here. If you want to shake-up the tank meta and improve authenticity at the same time - TD's are a good way to do it. Here is what my initial approach would be:
-
Rework tank fuel costs completely, with an emphasis on increasing the range of fuel costs. Right now fuel costs vary from 100 - 600 and many vehicles have very similar fuel costs that don't make much sense. Personally I would combine this with removing the resource node system from the game or substantially reworking it, but the idea is to diversify the costs of vehicles (e.g. make mediums more expensive and heavies more expensive so that other vehicle classes can sit between lights and mediums or heavies and mediums).
-
Remove heavy tanks from the USA (they basically didn't use them in WW2 until the Pershing)
-
Give the USA the M10 wolverine and Easy 8 Sherman instead, where the M10 wolverine is armoured like a light tank but is highly mobile and has a heavy gun, and the Easy 8 sherman is a slightly slower version of the current sherman with a heavy gun.
-
Adjust/rework AT-guns: I like the idea of splitting AT-guns into "light" and "heavy" variants. Where a light AT-gun functions basically like the current ones but can't pen the front of heavy tanks, and a heavy one costs 100 supps, turns slower, reloads slower but can pen heavy armour. (Example light german AT-gun is the Pak-40, and heavy would be the Pak-42).
-
Make the Tiger/Panther more expensive (or just stick with the limit of 2)
-
Give the Germans Stugs (could give both the TD version and the SPG version). The long-barrelled Stug would be slightly cheaper than a PIV and have the same armour layout as the PIV but have a fixed gun. Could eventually give the Germans something like a Jagdpanzer IV which is more expensive than a PIV but cheaper than a Tiger, with medium front armour and a heavy gun.