Perk Price of the M4A3/76 too low?

[Boozeman]

Looking closer at the K/D stats of the current tanks in AH, it shows that in the last tour and the current one, the M4A3/76 alone gets almost as many kills as all other tanks combined. As a perk tank, this strikes me odd. My only explanation is that the M4A3/76 can re-earn the spent perks per sortie easily ( even if killed) so it's usage cannot thin out over time.

I think this does imbalance the tank game significantly, when the second deadliest tank is also the most prominent on the battlefield. I think a perk price slightly higher than that of the T34/85 is justified.

What do you guys think?   

[Lusche]

My only explanation is that the M4A3/76 can re-earn the spent perks per sortie easily ( even if killed) so it's usage cannot thin out over time.

That's correct. One or two kills and you are good most of the time. Even if you die, one perk isn't much considering how many perks a single WW sortie can generate by shooting down a few 110's.

[Tec]

The T34/85 is the superior tank.  So I say no.

[Lusche]

The T34/85 is the superior tank.  So I say no.

Not in the context of the MA battlefield. On average, the M4's almost 2x higher ROF of the is a huge advantage. The M4(76) has as K/D of ~1.4-1.5 vs the T-34/85 not without reason.

[waystin2]

I favor a higher perk for the M4A3/76. 

[SmokinLoon]

Isnt it odd that a tank that most WWII "historians" shrug their shoulders at and consider an average tank in terms of performance, or better yet gets passed over for a number of other more glamorous tanks including the T34x in the better/best discussions is pretty much ruling the battlefield or is at worst the most productive tank in AH???

In AH, the M4A3W 76mm should be stepped up a bit in perk cost, imo.  PLUS, I am surprised it has the same exact reload rate as the M4A3 75mm gun, the ammo for the 76mm gun is substantially heavier and longer.  I dont have the exact weights or measurements handy but I will get them.  I think that should be modeled and currently it isnt.  No, I dont think it will make much difference, but right now the rapid reload and the good penetration of the 76mm gun make it top dog amongst all AH tanks but the Tigers. 

[Lusche]

Isnt it odd that a tank that most WWII "historians" shrug their shoulders at and consider an average tank in terms of performance, or better yet gets passed over for a number of other more glamorous tanks including the T34x in the better/best discussions is pretty much ruling the battlefield or is at worst the most productive tank in AH???

I think they are talking about the (75) most of the time. Which has about the success in AH one would expect from the countless "it takes 5 Sherman to kill 1..." stories

[321BAR]

I think they are talking about the (75) most of the time. Which has about the success in AH one would expect from the countless "it takes 5 Sherman to kill 1..." stories

ahh the second day it was in the game, me and 3 others faced off with a tiger. i was the one to kill the tiger and the other 3 died

[Spikes]

Isnt it odd that a tank that most WWII "historians" shrug their shoulders at and consider an average tank in terms of performance, or better yet gets passed over for a number of other more glamorous tanks including the T34x in the better/best discussions is pretty much ruling the battlefield or is at worst the most productive tank in AH???

In AH, the M4A3W 76mm should be stepped up a bit in perk cost, imo.  PLUS, I am surprised it has the same exact reload rate as the M4A3 75mm gun, the ammo for the 76mm gun is substantially heavier and longer.  I dont have the exact weights or measurements handy but I will get them.  I think that should be modeled and currently it isnt.  No, I dont think it will make much difference, but right now the rapid reload and the good penetration of the 76mm gun make it top dog amongst all AH tanks but the Tigers. 

I'd take a 76 over a Tiger any day...my perk vs his 30!

[E25280]

PLUS, I am surprised it has the same exact reload rate as the M4A3 75mm gun, the ammo for the 76mm gun is substantially heavier and longer.  I dont have the exact weights or measurements handy but I will get them.  I think that should be modeled and currently it isnt.  No, I dont think it will make much difference, but right now the rapid reload and the good penetration of the 76mm gun make it top dog amongst all AH tanks but the Tigers. 

There was a discussion on this very topic a while back.  The "problem" is that the published data of the two guns indicate they both have a maximum fire rate of 20 rounds per minute iirc.  While intuitively the larger, heavier round would slow down the fire rate (especially in the case of sustained firing), the published data given in that thread didn't support that intuition.

Looked at in the opposite direction, a lighter round wouldn't necessarily increase the rate of fire, because of physical and mechanical limitations.  There is only so fast a normal person can slap a shell into the breech after the gun recoils and opens, regardless of the weight of the shell.  So the proper question is whether the larger, heavier shell is large and heavy enough to force a loader to slow down.  The published data seems to indicate it is not, at least not in a short period of time (say when pulling ready rounds).

But if someone finds an authoritative source that conclusively indicates the ROF in game is too fast, I am sure it would be adjusted.

And as to the OP, I agree the perk on the 76 seems on the light side.  It should be at least equal to the T-34/85 IMO.

[Lusche]

And as to the OP, I agree the perk on the 76 seems on the light side.  It should be at least equal to the T-34/85 IMO.

It is.

[SmokinLoon]

There was a discussion on this very topic a while back.  The "problem" is that the published data of the two guns indicate they both have a maximum fire rate of 20 rounds per minute iirc.  While intuitively the larger, heavier round would slow down the fire rate (especially in the case of sustained firing), the published data given in that thread didn't support that intuition.

Looked at in the opposite direction, a lighter round wouldn't necessarily increase the rate of fire, because of physical and mechanical limitations.  There is only so fast a normal person can slap a shell into the breech after the gun recoils and opens, regardless of the weight of the shell.  So the proper question is whether the larger, heavier shell is large and heavy enough to force a loader to slow down.  The published data seems to indicate it is not, at least not in a short period of time (say when pulling ready rounds).

But if someone finds an authoritative source that conclusively indicates the ROF in game is too fast, I am sure it would be adjusted.

And as to the OP, I agree the perk on the 76 seems on the light side.  It should be at least equal to the T-34/85 IMO.

I'd be more apt to accept that argument if HTC would be consistent across the board when picking and choosing what authoritative data to use when and where to their liking (yes, 'tis their sim/game etc etc etc).  Something like the reload rates of the 75mm vs the 76mm should be easy enough to accept without some in depth explanation or printed data.  There is at least 1 guy here in these forums that has real experience in loading a tank gun ("m1a1").  He will vouch that there are different reload times for the different rounds due to the weight and length, or location within the storage magazine.  The difference between the 75mm and 76m may not be much, but it is something.     

[E25280]

It is.

Silly me, I thought the T-34/85 was a 5 perk vs. 1 on the M4 76.