Since the Soviets are still using captured Pak 40 in the Berlin campaign (which is historically true in some degree), I’d suggest that the Pak 40 is replaced with BS-3 or ZiS-3 as a proper replacement to add uniqueness to the faction now that every other emplacement already had the same treatment.
76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3)
The ZiS-3 is not a declared AT gun. Its armor penetration is inferior to the Pak 40.
The BS-3 is obviously not in the same category as the Pak 40 due to its caliber alone. This is much closer in performance to the Pak 43.
Closest to the Pak 40 is the ZiS-2. Especially if they were all firing APCRs. Which I think should be expected from an AT gun in the game.
Yes, Soviets need something to counter the Jagdpanther.
Why what’s wrong with the Jagdpanther?
It´s the only german tank the Soviet starter tank can´t kill from the front (german bias)
P.S. I have no idea if this is true
It has the same sloped frontal armor as the Panther and IS-2 and SU-100 cannot pierce through it.
Piercing the lower plate will only destroy transmission and the cannon mantle is also very armored.
This game is somewhat asymmetrically balanced. Sure one is more powerful than the other but they both would fulfill the same role as a heavy AT gun. Even then, Berlin and late war tanks in general are practically glass cannons in the first place. In the long run it doesn’t really make that much of a difference whether the AT gun does this amount of damage or that. Most of the time you one shot and get one shotted
I think Heavy Mortars would be a more fitting construct
We have to posses nebelwerfer in this game! Its must chave just as KV-2;]
Hmm… Really? Well, such a problem has never occurred in the history of Enlsited. An impenetrable tank from the front… I’ve never seen anything like it, maybe only the Jumb… no, there and then the MG port, easy pen. Does this mystical jagdpanther beast have an MG port? Worth a try. However, I heard from a wise master about an ancient technique that might help:
Maybe it works not only with KV-1.
Good joke. But usually I crush this thrash with a mortar.
100mm gun would (SHOULD!) “overkill” every German tank - like the German 88mm’s do to Soviet tanks - so seems the least that could be done for balance!
I doubt that the asymmetric balance exists. But with good arguments you can convince me about any paranormal phenomenon, be it bigfoot, lizard people or asymmetrical balance in the enlisted.
Asymmetric balance is a convenient argument. Like the “skill issue”. An argument, that can be used in all situations, debates and weather conditions. Of course, as soon as you’re not in the lead, it becomes a problem.
Here is a recent example. We need something effective immediately because it is not easy to destroy the Jagdpanther. In this case, there can be no question that this is an asymmetric balance. This is a problem.
Try replace the jagdpanther with a jumbo, your head will be torn off on the forum for daring to set it as a problem, because there is the MG, there is the periscope, bomb, flank, etc.
Of course, I admit, all of these are solutions, except that this is true for almost all tanks. The problem with asymmetric balance is that it is almost impossible to draw the line between what is and what is not. There is, for example: the bazooka. It’s really problematic. But is this now part of the asymmetric balance? Of course, it is a historical fact that the bazooka’s penetration is as much as it is, but the Americans could have also received a panzerfaust, like the Soviet Berlin. A convenient solution. In Berlin, the factions had to receive anti-tank weapons of the same strength, but not in Normandy? Or wasn’t it part of the asymmetric balance? In Stalingrad, was it absolutely necessary to capture ppsh in addition to the mkb? But was the 20-round beretta good for years in Moscow?
I think it is clear from so many examples that the asymmetric balance is nothing more than an urban legend. The fact that the developers are working on a new system that will throw people into battle based on some kind of equipment balance is not an argument in favor of it either. Then either the asymmetric one did not work, or it never existed, and they simply did not manage to create a balance until now. But I said, if you can come up with a theory supported by arguments about the existence of an asymmetric balance in any campaign, I’d be happy to hear it, but I haven’t read that from anyone in the last two years.
I’ve been figure-gaming for 540 years - asymmetric balance is done simply in those games - you pay points for better gear - you might play a 1500 point game where a Tiger 1 costs 250 points and a Sherman 75 100, sometimes with additional restraints - eg heavy tanks have to be accompanied by 2 lighter tanks as well as costing more (WRG 1925-1950 wargaming rules).
It’s not difficult!
Yes.
It could certainly be solved in many ways. But that’s not where we’re headed. And if the developers don’t want something like that, then it’s a shame to force it on the part of the forum. I note that I have never once heard from an official that the asymmetric balance concept exists. If anyone does, I would appreciate it if could share with me when this happened. A good example of how they don’t want something like this, which is close to the basic topic, is the AA rework. They could have kept the Flakvierling 38 for the axis, less work, then there you go players, here is an asymmetric balance. Instead, they replaced it with something that is much closer to the equipment of the other two factions. That’s why I don’t think it’s likely or acceptable that someone would get a much stronger device when there is a similar alternative.
The forum won’t force anything on them!! lol
That isn’t asymmetric balance.
Asymmetric balance would be “OK Germany, you keep the best AA in the game, Allies - you can have (something else different to make up for losing the best AA)”
Soviets needed higher calibers because their guns were underpowered compared to the German guns of the same caliber
Simplistic nonsense.
Calibre and barrel length, along with projectile design, have a complicated relationship with things like penetration, explosive content, barrel life, weapon weight and mobility, and materials availability.
All sides made mediocre guns and very high powered guns - the Soviet 76 mm M1936, for example was a high powered 76mm gun captured in hundreds by the Axis and repurposed in various towed and SP AT roles because it was every bit as good as any Axis weapon.
Soviet 57mm guns (ZIS-2/57mm M1943) had much better AT performance than any comparable Axis gun, the 45mm M1942 with 66 calibre barrel had comparable performance AT wise to the PAk 38.
