[FBP STEM][ALL] Fuel AT platforms

2

Comments

  • #32
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    The problem is not that PzIV is less cost efficient than allied medium tanks (and it is) the problem is that it is supposed to be the unit that allows the Ostheer to start turning the game from defensive to offensive.

    The reason it fail is that it can be completely shut down by allied TDs or struggle against allied mediums (supported by AT infantry blobs).

  • #33
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017

    @SkysTheLimit ha detto:

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    1) aoe (worst among all mediums except t34, similar to cromwell aka crushwell that has a cheesy way to kill infantry anyway)
    2) penetration (worst among all mediums except t34)
    3) moving accuracy (worst among all mediums)

    1. Crushing is not the main gun. You said its main gun has the worst AOE out of all of them, there are 2 tanks with a worse AOE.
    2. Not by much, and its difference in pen is less than the difference in armor it has over all of the other mediums (and then there's that vet2 bonus). It also doesn't have Panthers and KTs to shoot at every game.
    3. The Sherman is the only stock medium (TDs not included) that has better than a .5 moving accuracy multiplier, so the p4 shares that title with 3 other tanks.

    I think the P4 needs something, but IMO its just overpriced. Maybe it could be a bit more reliable but I don't think it needs much more than a cost decrease.

    1) Cromwell has actually A BETTER AOE damage....regardless of crush mode, point invalidated.
    http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=cromwell_75mm_mp
    2) You tell me crushing is not using main gun, than talk about armor..., regardless of how big is the difference, is there, and armor has nothing to do with main gun (and is only 20 points higher anyway)....point invalidated
    3) WRONG, point invalidated
    http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=cromwell_75mm_mp
    Crushwell has 0.75 moving accuracy, is stock and medium.
    And comet, that technically is a premium medium....

    It doesn't need a cost decrease, it needs an higher penetration, 0.65 moving accuracy for both OKW and OST panzer 4.

    Brits tank except Comet should be nerfed to 0.65 nontheless, 0.75 should be something of USF...brits tanks are actually competitive and powerful, they don't share the paper status of usf at all.

  • #34
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822

    SO
    how about those TD roles?

  • #35
    2 years ago
    @SAY_MY_NAME

    Why do all axis tanks need stuff from allies such as higher moving acc?
    Where does that leave soviets with the same acc penalty as ost?
    And no allied tank or td gets extra hp and armour with vet.

    Fixing of tds into proper roles and making the p4 cost efficient should be enough for this. A powercreep wil only create more problems down the line.
  • #36
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017

    @TheLeveler83 ha detto:
    @SAY_MY_NAME

    Why do all axis tanks need stuff from allies such as higher moving acc?
    Where does that leave soviets with the same acc penalty as ost?
    And no allied tank or td gets extra hp and armour with vet.

    Fixing of tds into proper roles and making the p4 cost efficient should be enough for this. A powercreep wil only create more problems down the line.

    So a 90 fuel t34 should get 0.65 moving accuracy ?
    What about volks getting 6th man ?

    RU strenght isn't powerful tanks.
    OKW strenght isn't team weapons
    OST strenght isn't numerous infantry
    USF strenght isn't powerful armor (but fast and accurate, aka 0.75 moving)
    UKF strenght isn't versatility
    .......

    Of course that implies that t34/ 85 should get 0.65, as it is expensive.
    Maybe sherman lendlease but that has to be tested honestly.

    Why do Brits need high moving accuracy ?
    Cromwell isn't exactly paper and surely is cheap...
    Has higher penetraation than panzer 4

    @Vipper ha detto:
    The problem is not that PzIV is less cost efficient than allied medium tanks (and it is) the problem is that it is supposed to be the unit that allows the Ostheer to start turning the game from defensive to offensive.

    The reason it fail is that it can be completely shut down by allied TDs or struggle against allied mediums (supported by AT infantry blobs).

    Here....couldn't have said it better.
    Panzer 4 is meant to give offensive power both at OKW AND ESPECIALLY AT OST...

    It needs better reliable main gun AI, penetration AND higher moving accuracy.

    LOW Cost efficiency is just the result of disadvantage like not hitting anything on the move compared to sherman and Cromwell, both less expensive, having lower AOE performances....

    No powercreep in adjusting moving accuracy to more reliable values.

  • #37
    2 years ago

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:

    So a 90 fuel t34 should get 0.65 moving accuracy ?

    No but the p4 already has more armour pen and better rof then the t34 plus doctrine support. P4s do not need more advantidges over t34s.

    Of course that implies that t34/ 85 should get 0.65, as it is expensive.
    Maybe sherman lendlease but that has to be tested honestly.

    I think that would be a big problem, who would go for a doctrine without those units? who would ever build a t34/76? The complaning about it only being m4cs or t34/85 would be endless.

    Why do Brits need high moving accuracy ?
    Cromwell isn't exactly paper and surely is cheap...
    Has higher penetraation than panzer 4

    The p4 also has more armour then the cromwell and the cromwell only slightly more then the t34. The cromwell has slightly better pen plus aoe. and the 0.75 moving acc. Just switch price between cromwell and p4. And maybe up the price for the crom if needed because off the 0.75 moving acc. This way its more balanced as a whole then buffing the p4 to cromwell levels.

  • #38
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited August 2017

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    1) Cromwell has actually A BETTER AOE damage....regardless of crush mode, point invalidated.
    http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=cromwell_75mm_mp
    2) You tell me crushing is not using main gun, than talk about armor..., regardless of how big is the difference, is there, and armor has nothing to do with main gun (and is only 20 points higher anyway)....point invalidated
    3) WRONG, point invalidated

    1. You mean better aoe damage multiplier which means almost nothing in this case because the P4 still has a larger 1 -hit kill radius (their Near AOE multilpliers are the same, and the P4 has a larger near AOE than the Cromwell, only the far multipliers differ)
    2. I only brought up armor when we were talking about penetration, and armor has everything in the world to do with that. Having lesser penetration doesn't matter as much if all your counterparts have lower armor than you.
    3. That site has the incorrect value for the Cromwell's moving accuracy (among other cromwell stats, the cost is still the old one too). The GCS patch already reduced the cromwell's moving accuracy from .75 to .5. Check the changelog

    @thedarkarmadillo The p4 feels relevant here since its one of the tanks that has been the most shafted by TDs being buffed to fight the KT. Still think target size tweaking (for all tanks) might be in order.

  • #39
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,641
    edited August 2017

    Lower overall AoE, P4 deals damage where cromwell won't when hit on exact same spot, they deal same damage at the end of Cromwell AoE (misinterpreted stats #1)

    2) Moving accuracy multiplier (Cromwell advantage)

    Read recent patch notes please.

    3) Penetration (Cromwell advantage)

    Armor difference (no advantage, they're at worst equal, but axis overall got more armor on their units)

    4) Deflection damage (Cromwell does it, Panzer 4 doesn't)

    Deflection damage multiplier : 0, that means 0 deflect damage (misinterpreted stats #2)

    5) Reload time (Panzer 4 reload is 0,3 seconds shorter, barely a difference..but)

    .3 is negligible as you've pointed out.

    6) Crush infantry (Crushwell dominates here)

    Read recent patch notes please.

    7) Smoke to avoid at and infantry at (Cromwell gets it regardless of doctrine at vet 1, can fire it wherever and use it to blind at and push, or escape. Panzer 4 got panzer tactician in doctrines, only fired on the tank)

    Instant large smoke cloud on tank vs small smoke cloud after cast time.
    That still goes for P4.

    Cromwell requires exclusive tech for its speed boost, which P4 gets regardless
    P4 gets much better smoke with doctrine vs cromwells inferior with vet.

    They're equal here when taking into account both of these.

  • #40
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    I love the p4, but i dont think its better enough over its countrrparts to be more expensive.

    The allies tanks all have something more going for them, mobility or utility, even the t34/76 has its beautiful hull MG. The p4 feels like a template, because there is nothing unique about it its just a tank with above average armour and thats it...
  • #41
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited August 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The allies tanks all have something more going for them, mobility or utility, even the t34/76 has its beautiful hull MG. The p4 feels like a template, because there is nothing unique about it its just a tank with above average armour and thats it...

    I agree very much there, the vet 2 armor bonus is easily its most unique offering. Veterancy is paid for in your performance with the vehicle (aka the bodies of your enemies) so cost should mostly reflect a units vanilla performance IMO, and the P4 is neck in neck with the T34 in terms of worst vanilla performance.

  • #42
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    The cromwell has slightly better pen plus aoe. and the 0.75 moving acc. Just switch price between cromwell and p4. And maybe up the price for the crom if needed because off the 0.75 moving acc.

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Crushwell has 0.75 moving accuracy, is stock and medium.
    Brits tank except Comet should be nerfed to 0.65

    Cromwell and Comet move accuracy was nerfed to 0.50 with the GCS patch.

  • #43
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 693
    edited August 2017

    Aqua said:

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    The cromwell has slightly better pen plus aoe. and the 0.75 moving acc. Just switch price between cromwell and p4. And maybe up the price for the crom if needed because off the 0.75 moving acc.

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Crushwell has 0.75 moving accuracy, is stock and medium.
    Brits tank except Comet should be nerfed to 0.65

    Cromwell and Comet move accuracy was nerfed to 0.50 with the GCS patch.

    Correct i forgot about that. Thanks for the correction.
    As i see it now there is no real imbalance between the units. just that the p4 lacks flavor or uniqueness. You also have standard tanks not everthing can be unique i guess. Without the current tds its just a solid generalist medium tank, when the tds get their proper roles this should be the case again.

  • #44
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017

    @TheLeveler83 ha detto:

    Aqua said:

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    The cromwell has slightly better pen plus aoe. and the 0.75 moving acc. Just switch price between cromwell and p4. And maybe up the price for the crom if needed because off the 0.75 moving acc.

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Crushwell has 0.75 moving accuracy, is stock and medium.
    Brits tank except Comet should be nerfed to 0.65

    Cromwell and Comet move accuracy was nerfed to 0.50 with the GCS patch.

    Correct i forgot about that. Thanks for the correction.
    As i see it now there is no real imbalance between the units. just that the p4 lacks flavor or uniqueness. You also have standard tanks not everthing can be unique i guess. Without the current tds its just a solid generalist medium tank, when the tds get their proper roles this should be the case again.

    Well, my bad.
    I still think that 0.65, INCLUDED CROMWELL, is fairly more reasonable.

    0.75 should be a USF, Panther and Comet thing....

    Panzer 4 lack
    1) penetration to 130
    2) aoe damage (that is a fact, t34 supplement with mg's, both cromwell and panzer 4 should have aoe values boosted).

    t's tanky, expensive and has blitz.....it only lacks reliability and it got the german engineering flavour.

    "Pride of the Fatherland" cit.

  • #45
    2 years ago

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Well, my bad.
    I still think that 0.65, INCLUDED CROMWELL, is fairly more reasonable.

    0.75 should be a USF, Panther and Comet thing....

    The panthers and comets should not have more then 0.65 imo. Maybe a long range acc buff for the panthers. They have plenty armour and pen to compensate for not having the highest moving acc. Usf should be the one for 0.75 imo.

    Panzer 4 lack
    1) penetration
    2) aoe damage (that is a fact, t34 supplement with mg's, both cromwell and panzer 4 should have aoe values boosted).

    The P4 has armour over the other mediums wich gets higer at vet 2. Its not lacking massivly in the other areas. The p4 is the only medium wich has a great at gun in support with a shot to stunlock vehicles to give the p4 an egde. Its a bit to expensive now i agree on that.
    The p4 is just the only generalist unit in a army of specialized units. That is also why it feels so underwelming i suppose.

  • #46
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017

    @TheLeveler83 ha detto:

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Well, my bad.
    I still think that 0.65, INCLUDED CROMWELL, is fairly more reasonable.

    0.75 should be a USF, Panther and Comet thing....

    The panthers and comets should not have more then 0.65 imo. Maybe a long range acc buff for the panthers. They have plenty armour and pen to compensate for not having the highest moving acc. Usf should be the one for 0.75 imo.

    Panzer 4 lack
    1) penetration
    2) aoe damage (that is a fact, t34 supplement with mg's, both cromwell and panzer 4 should have aoe values boosted).

    The P4 has armour over the other mediums wich gets higer at vet 2. Its not lacking massivly in the other areas. The p4 is the only medium wich has a great at gun in support with a shot to stunlock vehicles to give the p4 an egde. Its a bit to expensive now i agree on that.
    The p4 is just the only generalist unit in a army of specialized units. That is also why it feels so underwelming i suppose.

    No point in teching to get expensive stuff if it is so unreliable.
    Panther and Comet are the pinnacle of Axis and UK teching, they focus on heavy mobility both in the tank hunter and premium generalist role.
    Those things are designed to chase down stuff, be used offensively, like whole usf armor department,
    You really think hat havitng 0.75 rather than 0.65 even in the most basic medium isn't a hige advantage itself ?

    The grenadiers are meant to face rifleman supported by mg42.
    Fact is....grenadiers cost 240 mp for that...
    Another fact is that panzer 4 is more expensive than any other standard medium, and is meant to give OST the offensive, so it's THE FIRST to get 0.65 moving multiplier and a penetration bonus (especially after stug far pen nerf).

    Almost...panzer 4 is underwhelming because a generalist that is bad both in AI (with mediocre aoe) and AT (with mediocre penetration and accuracy) in a game where armor means nothing when a jackson/su76/firefly (2 of those come faster than panzer 4 in live) hit the field.

  • #47
    2 years ago

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    No point in teching to get expensive stuff if it is so unreliable.

    Its still more reliable then the t34/76 in most areas.

    Panther and Comet are the pinnacle of Axis and UK teching, they focus on heavy mobility both in the tank hunter and premium generalist role.
    Those things are designed to chase down stuff, be used offensively, like whole usf armor department,
    You really think hat havitng 0.75 rather than 0.65 even in the most basic medium isn't a hige advantage itself ?

    Yes to huge an advantidge for the most durable tank with highest rof of the stock mediums. You can give a stop order and have full accuracy.

    Another fact is that panzer 4 is more expensive than any other standard medium, and is meant to give OST the offensive, so it's THE FIRST to get 0.65 moving multiplier and a penetration bonus (especially after stug far pen nerf).

    The pen difference is 10 with both the sherman and t34 both of wich have lower armour. No pen increase needed, the pak 40 is still realy good and stug will still be good vs medium armour.
    As for the 0.65 mov acc i think that should only be added in the blitz ability. This ability should be about offense but now its just a quick retreat ability.

    Almost...panzer 4 is underwhelming because a generalist that is bad both in AI (with mediocre aoe) and AT (with mediocre penetration and accuracy) in a game where armor means nothing when a jackson/su76/firefly (2 of those come faster than panzer 4 in live) hit the field.

    This is more about the players then the game imo.

  • #48
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    If i recall proper, the sherman has a 20 pen advantage on the p4 at close with AP
  • #49
    2 years ago
    I just have the base number. The site could be out of date on this. Just like with the moving acc for cromwell.
  • #50
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    edited August 2017

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    I just have the base number. The site could be out of date on this. Just like with the moving acc for cromwell.

    are you using stats.hu? if so the number they give is the mid range pen. its kept mostly up to date which is nice but you can check out coh2-stats for a more indepth, less flashy and frankly.. out of date* site - the sherman AP there sadly still shows when it mirrored the t34/76, but its handy anyways for referencing the penetration profile.

    im not sure of the profile for the cromwell but the sherman and t34 follow (P+20/P/P-20) whereas the p4 runs on (P+10/P/P-10) where P= Pen value given on stats.hu, so if the sherman is rocking 120 at mid, it should have (140/120/100)

    *it works as a fantastic reference if you keep up on the stats and know which vehicles/stats have been changed, its a bit of work, but a handy tool for when stats.hu leaves something important like pen profile out (some tanks have abnormal profiles that have changed sines coh2-stats was updated and are not represented properly in stats.hu, so we need patch notes sometimes too)

    edit: for reference the p4 has (120/110/100) for values

  • #51
    2 years ago
    1. Give Pak40 65 range
    2. Ost-Panther 60 range if stationary, 50 on movement.
    3. Okw-Panther stays at 50 range, no stationary buff.

    Two types of Panther, two types of units.
  • #52
    2 years ago
    @TheLeveler83
    Absolutely no, the reload time float a little, especially for Panther, you can't know when it will fire.

    Durable = armor.
    Already told giving that armor to panther is nonsense.
    Panther is a tank hunter, should have high moving accuracy to chase down tanks and deal with heavies.

    Except that panzer 4 itself cost more than those tanks, I don't see why it should suck, is nonsense.
    The fact that any doctrinal mediums can't be reliably pen by a stock tank and only cost only 15 more fuel while having better armor, at and ai means panzer 4 needs a whole upgrade to at and ai...
    Penetration and ai are just to low for it to be useful, which brings to the stug spam.
    And pounder has same stats of pak, while cromwell is having higher penetration, so your whole argument is a huge skyscraper built on the sand.

    Nonono...blits has it's purpose that is ALSO offensive, to quickly overrun at guns and close in without getting full accuracy.

    The buffing of allied td that made any armor that isn't king tiger armor worhless is A MATTER OF FACT, and hiven that I have more matches as soviet and usf than I have with OST, feel free to cry the l2p song if you feel simple arguments and stats like fuel costs and performances aren't on your side.

    Armor isn't a factor of durability anymore if it isn't over 280..
  • #53
    2 years ago
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > @TheLeveler83 said:
    > I just have the base number. The site could be out of date on this. Just like with the moving acc for cromwell.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > are you using stats.hu? if so the number they give is the mid range pen. its kept mostly up to date which is nice but you can check out coh2-stats for a more indepth, less flashy and frankly.. out of date* site - the sherman AP there sadly still shows when it mirrored the t34/76, but its handy anyways for referencing the penetration profile.
    >
    > im not sure of the profile for the cromwell but the sherman and t34 follow (P+20/P/P-20) whereas the p4 runs on (P+10/P/P-10) where P= Pen value given on stats.hu, so if the sherman is rocking 120 at mid, it should have (140/120/100)
    >
    > *it works as a fantastic reference if you keep up on the stats and know which vehicles/stats have been changed, its a bit of work, but a handy tool for when stats.hu leaves something important like pen profile out (some tanks have abnormal profiles that have changed sines coh2-stats was updated and are not represented properly in stats.hu, so we need patch notes sometimes too)
    >
    > edit: for reference the p4 has (120/110/100) for values

    I use stats.coh2.hu ill check the other site you gave me.
  • #54
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 693
    edited August 2017
    > @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    > @TheLeveler83
    > Absolutely no, the reload time float a little, especially for Panther, you can't know when it will fire.
    >
    > Durable = armor.
    > Already told giving that armor to panther is nonsense.
    > Panther is a tank hunter, should have high moving accuracy to chase down tanks and deal with heavies.

    And the panther should keep the rest of its current stats after that buff? So it should be the bane of mediums and heavies?

    > Except that panzer 4 itself cost more than those tanks, I don't see why it should suck, is nonsense.
    > The fact that any doctrinal mediums can't be reliably pen by a stock tank and only cost only 15 more fuel while having better armor, at and ai means panzer 4 needs a whole upgrade to at and ai...
    > Penetration and ai are just to low for it to be useful, which brings to the stug spam.

    What do you expect a p4 to do? be on par with every callin medium because its a bit more expensive then other non doc mediums?

    > And pounder has same stats of pak, while cromwell is having higher penetration, so your whole argument is a huge skyscraper built on the sand.

    Does the pounder have target weakpoint? No it gets to move faster. The pack also faces lower armoured stock mediums. So wich is more usefull in assisting tanks in combat? The pak is. And who has the skyscraper on the sand here?

    > Nonono...blits has it's purpose that is ALSO offensive, to quickly overrun at guns and close in without getting full accuracy.

    And yet its mostly used to escape since launch.

    > The buffing of allied td that made any armor that isn't king tiger armor worhless is A MATTER OF FACT, and hiven that I have more matches as soviet and usf than I have with OST, feel free to cry the l2p song if you feel simple arguments and stats like fuel costs and performances aren't on your side.
    >
    > Armor isn't a factor of durability anymore if it isn't over 280..

    I did not mean to come off as a l2p doofus my bad.
    Ost needs 165 fuel to get a 125 fuel p4. Usf needs 170/180 fuel to get a 130ish TD and that is without sidetechs and ambulance.
    Ukf need 145 fuel te get a 155 fuel firefly without sidetechs.
    Both usf and ukf will almost always go weapon racks before getting to last tier. If they rush the tds they will be weak on the inf department without the bars brens etc.

    If you as Usf get a (heavy) td out before their p4s. you outplayed them and denied them fuel. As soviets the su76 is effectively in ost t2 so that it comes earlier is no suprise. But it also can be taken out by a well microed 222/luchs and dies to a single teller mine.

    Both ost okw and soviets have 2 tds one medium and one heavy. brits and usf have one heavy td. Ost and okw have for more acces to their heavies then allies do. now if the allied heavy tds are made so they suck vs mediums (wich they are trying to do) it should be a lot better for the p4s. Now ukf and usf will have at guns to deal with mediums. So their mediums being a tiny bit better at fighting others mediums (looking at the cromwell when ukf has no snare) its not such a big problem then imo.
  • #55
    2 years ago

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Armor isn't a factor of durability anymore if it isn't over 280..

    That is not how it works. The chance that a shot penetrates is penetration/armor. As long as armor > penetration, higher armor will increase the chance that a shell bounces, thus increasing survivability. Starting from ~200 armor the armor value will be larger than the penetration value of most (all?) 'heavy' allied TDs at range, hence 280 really is not the value you should list there. If instead you had said 150 vs 100 armor does not matter, that would at least be true against heavy TDs since they will always pen either of those values, however at 150 armor the vehicle will still be more survivable against some other tanks and things like zooks and piats.

  • #56
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,641

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    The buffing of allied td that made any armor that isn't king tiger armor worhless is A MATTER OF FACT, and hiven that I have more matches as soviet and usf than I have with OST, feel free to cry the l2p song if you feel simple arguments and stats like fuel costs and performances aren't on your side.

    Armor isn't a factor of durability anymore if it isn't over 280..

    King Tiger, Tiger, Panther, vet2 ost P4 and OKW P4 are all reasons why allied TD were buffed.
    Allies don't have heavies outside of IS-2, axis do and fields it every game possible.

    There is no allied panther level tank for all allied factions and comet still gets beaten by panther, being generalists, therefore some other unit had to pick up the slack, here is where allies T4 TDs come in.

    You may not agree, you may not understand, but that's what needs to be so late game is not one sided towards axis as it was for years prior.

    Sorry, but you can't nerf all allied factions early game to axis level without buffing their late games to that same axis level as well.

  • #57
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,035

    Well no. King Tiger pretty much alone is why the Allied TDs were buffed, but the reason they were buffed doesn't matter. They've become a one size fits all solution and have left the armor stat pretty much completely irrelevant.

  • #58
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    With the ass of the KT no longer exceeding the front armour of medium tanks flanking is now ACTUALLY an option, theres no need for allied TDs to be SO potent. More than they were, hell yea, but less than now. Before the only way you COULD fight a KT was frontally and that is no longer the case.

    Imo a heavy TF should be ABLE to pen enemy mediums 100% of the time, but either using target tables or reduced ROF make that it inefficient to do so, they should be slanted towards large thick targets, not exceedingly powerful against everything upto and including heavies.
  • #59
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,641

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    With the ass of the KT no longer exceeding the front armour of medium tanks flanking is now ACTUALLY an option, theres no need for allied TDs to be SO potent. More than they were, hell yea, but less than now. Before the only way you COULD fight a KT was frontally and that is no longer the case.

    Assuming KT is never protected by ATGs that is.
    Which isn't a situation happening often in higher skill play, which is why allied TDs are as they are, there is a mandatory requierment for dispatching heavies frontally.

  • #60
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,035
    If only there were some way to dispatch ATGs indirectly. Perhaps with some kind of fire?
  • #61
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    I would say the first step in helping out the flagging p4 is an indirect buff through a revision of the games vehicle target sizes. Currently the higher calibre allied tds are far too capable of picking off even the smallest vehicles at their furthest range, as the target sizes coupled with their already high accuracy virtually leave them as the mechical equivelent of a sniper.

    That would up its survivability massively, as currently units like the jackson or firefly just smash them in an alpha strike and then just follow up with a short chase to finish. That in turn gives them more breathing room to vet, allowing them to take advantage of the one area the p4 has over the other mediums, in terms of vet rewards.

    After that, if required, I would say its just small tweaks like a slight penetration buff, fixing the pintle so it isn't just a visual upgrade that tickles the enemy infantry and maybe a slight reduction on scatter for the main gun as the p4 is notoriosuly crap at aiming.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.