That is what vet is supposed to do - the problem with cheap units is that vet is also cheap. They need a small price increase and a unit cap. Sorry if this breaks you strat.

I'm pretty sure that each level of vet isn't supposed to give you an absolute 7.5% increase in chance to hit at any range while moving.

You might want to pay a bit more attention next time. A cursory glance would have told you that I'm advocating for a vet nerf, a better effort would have led you here: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3532

Which is what I'm talking about.

Again, though, people can just move to other light units like the Panhard car mentioned earlier, forget the in-game designation.

It's quite possible that this will end up with a harder nut to crack, overall.

The problem isn't Marders. The problem is that NATO has so few alternatives. The reason why people are doing this is because the rest of the catalog is mediocre.

If a tank destroyer is the queen of the battlefield for NATO, that shows that the game has a number of realism issues.

But what do I know? Perhaps that makes sense given that the PACT has so many options as far as light tank massing. A massable tank destroyer is an excellent and appropriate counter.


Why get snarky? It's just a game.

As you say in that thread, the base accuracy when moving is 5% and for any unit each level of vet adds 7.5% to accuracy stats - which takes you to 42.5% (you estimated it at 30% in the other thread).

These stats have always been known afaik?

We shouldnt be nerfing vet to fix things like this - it is the base stat which needs fixing. Any unstablised gun should have 0% chance of hitting target at range when moving.

First off, there are 4 levels of veterency. Not 5. So no, you will not get to 42.5 percent. You will get to around 35% usually. The 30% statistic is the boost vet gives you at lvl 4.

Secondly, I will restate the problem again because you don't seem to be getting it.

The chance to hit increase that vet gives is COMPLETELY ABSOLUTE. The base chance of the gun to hit does not matter. Each level of vet gives +7.5% chance to hit under every circumstance except when the unit's morale changes.

Your proposed nerf to the base state wouldn't change anything. I could still use vet to get at least a 30% base chance to hit with any unit in the game, at any range, while moving.

Not sure I can be more clear than that. If you still think vet is ok and doesn't need to be changed, then you're just insane.

I think the point is that veterancy act as a stabiliser, so yes the stabilising value of veterancy should be nerfed. You cannot magically create a stabiliser just because your crew is highly experienced. So veterancy should give no accuracy bonus while moving. I don't think that the accuracy should be at zero when moving with an unstabilised tank with no veterancy, but it should be very poor because it could only be with a lucky shot. Perhaps 1 to 2,5%? The point is to make stabilisers very important to fire in the move. High end tanks and units would because instantly much better and useful as moving gun battery while weaker tanks would move from ambush locations to ambush locations. I'm sure there will be a significant increase in tactical finesse in the game.

OK bentguru, I'm sure that you're upset by this but no need to take it out on me.

What I meant is that any unit with a non stabilised gun should never hit anything when moving, weather they be at full or zero vet. In fact I'd rather units which have no gun stabilisation be made to automatically stop when firing.

Then we're in agreement. Sorry if I sound annoyed, I am, I just don't see the point in playing the game with this bug present.

It would be interesting to find comparison videos of shots with and without stabilizers.

There are many factors that would go into this. Ground roughness is certainly one of them and is something that could easily be modeled-- going over swamp or scrub would have a far greater effect on accuracy than driving down a road.

It does strike me that long distance shots would be very difficult without a stabilizer but perhaps there are allowances that a well trained crew would be able to make.

This does also seem like a nitpick-- though it does make sense to try to make the game realistic, since so many things are missing (like hulldown, fixed wing aircraft, too many other things to name) it seems sort of futile to try to do that, and perhaps better to try to enjoy the game and play to win as it stands?

How the hell do you model crew veterancy with a number anyway?

There's no point. Now that I know how this mechanic works there is absolutely no possible way I will lose to anybody who doesn't exploit it. And nothing short of increasing the price of everything to at least 40 is going to stop me.

There are litterally no other factors that go into this. 5% chance to hit is hard coded as the lowest possible value. And the vet bonuses simply stack on top of it.