King Tiger

1235»

Comments

  • #122
    4 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I think 30 fuel is too large a decrease I think 15-20 would be better.

  • #123
    4 years ago
    ARMYguyARMYguy Posts: 848
    edited June 2016

    If the armor cant be buffed to be in line to allied TD buffs (why i have no idea, only a super fanboy would argue against this) then the health needs to be brought in line with the coh1 KT, over 2 k, so it can at least sustain the bs frontal damage of TD spam for more than 1 second before having to immediately retreat for repairs. As it is, right now , this is what i have to do with my KT, and it is irritating to see cheap plentiful tank force my huge, slow, insanely priced , late game tank off the field with literally zero skill and micro.

  • #124
    4 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @ARMYguy alternative if over buffed you run into the problem of a single expensive unit pushing an entire fleet of armour off with nothing more than attack move (like the ooold KT)
  • #125
    4 years ago
    ARMYguyARMYguy Posts: 848

    yeah but why shouldn't the late game expensive tank be good? a KT in coh1 crushed the allies and forced them to completely retool to win. Can you honestly say the KT in coh2 has any where near the same impact?

  • #126
    4 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    You misunderstand me my friend. Im the OP, I think the KT will need some love, im saying its a delicate balance tho.
  • #127
    4 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Um, why should a single vehicle get to auto win a game Armyguy,only late-game td's can pen a KT, so stop complaining.

  • #128
    4 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    Over 2K HP? Noooooooooooooooooo x 2K. That is waaaaaay too much HP for any single unit. It would take flanking mediums over 12 penetrating hits to kill the bloody thing and as we saw with 1600 HP Churchill, that's just obnoxious and does not punish poor play.

    There's a difference between being good (for cost) and being nigh indestructible.

  • #129
    4 years ago
    HeldentodHeldentod Posts: 1,537

    While 2k is clearly way too op, I think a HP buff isn't that bad of an idea. Armor makes it invincible because you can't tell if you'll be able to do any damage at all ( or keep bouncing) but when it just can take a few more shots, that's different story. Maybe 100 hp? I feel the KT shouldn't be easily pushed off the map.

  • #130
    4 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    @Heldentod said:
    While 2k is clearly way too op, I think a HP buff isn't that bad of an idea. Armor makes it invincible because you can't tell if you'll be able to do any damage at all ( or keep bouncing) but when it just can take a few more shots, that's different story. Maybe 100 hp? I feel the KT shouldn't be easily pushed off the map.

    If armor can't be touched on grounds that dedicated late tier TDs should be allowed to punch it through (a somewhat odd arguement now that TDs already have no serious problem with punching it through with regularity, and now they get a boost, yet the insane 500ish front armor on the heavy Elefant or JT doesn't seem to bother anybody..), then a healthy dose HP increase buff is a good idea.

    Either way, the thing needs more survivability (not immunitity which armor may grant) since its so bloody expensive it instantly becomes a tank magnet and a punch bag the moment it appears on the field and its simply to slow and large target to avoid it. 1600 HP of the old Churchil does not seem to be very off, but probably no more. That granted great (and indeed annoying) survivability for the Churchill, however lets not forget that its a single unit, at the cost of 2+ Churchills. Why bother building this thing at such cost, when the equivalent MP and Fuel spent of other units will have a) greater DPS b) larger overall pool health..?

    The price of the KT pretty much reflects when it had 425 armor (nerfed to 375), on grounds that it could be hardly penetrated.

  • #131
    4 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 409

    @Kurfürst said:

    @Heldentod said:
    While 2k is clearly way too op, I think a HP buff isn't that bad of an idea. Armor makes it invincible because you can't tell if you'll be able to do any damage at all ( or keep bouncing) but when it just can take a few more shots, that's different story. Maybe 100 hp? I feel the KT shouldn't be easily pushed off the map.

    If armor can't be touched on grounds that dedicated late tier TDs should be allowed to punch it through (a somewhat odd arguement now that TDs already have no serious problem with punching it through with regularity, and now they get a boost, yet the insane 500ish front armor on the heavy Elefant or JT doesn't seem to bother anybody..), then a healthy dose HP increase buff is a good idea.

    Either way, the thing needs more survivability (not immunitity which armor may grant) since its so bloody expensive it instantly becomes a tank magnet and a punch bag the moment it appears on the field and its simply to slow and large target to avoid it. 1600 HP of the old Churchil does not seem to be very off, but probably no more. That granted great (and indeed annoying) survivability for the Churchill, however lets not forget that its a single unit, at the cost of 2+ Churchills. Why bother building this thing at such cost, when the equivalent MP and Fuel spent of other units will have a) greater DPS b) larger overall pool health..?

    The price of the KT pretty much reflects when it had 425 armor (nerfed to 375), on grounds that it could be hardly penetrated.

    Not even close. 1 churchill = 540 mp and 180 fuel. Times 2 and that's 1080 mp and 360 fuel. In what way does a KT cost more than 2 churchills when it's clearly less at 720 mp and 310 fuel? Even then, a KT will easily defeat 2 churchills.

    Elephant and JT do not have turrets. They are also dedicated AT weapons and can't murder infantry.

    Why build the KT? Please tell me another vehicle that can kill both tanks and infantry with ease?

    The only thing that is agreed upon by other posters is that KT needs vet change to reward players for proper tank usage and not solo rambo.

  • #132
    4 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    1. The only TD getting a boost of pen is the su-85, which can't reliably pen it at all, it's basically useless against a kt.
    2. The Elephant and Jadgtiger are both doctrinal, specialized units that can't turned their gun without turning the whole tank, making them much more flankable, and neither can hurt infantry, the KT squadwipes with single shots.
    3. The churchill is garbage, I'd trade 3 churchills for a KT, because the KT would beat them, and still be useful to wipe infantry.
    4. Frankly Kurf, I think you're completely off base, the only thing the KT needs right now is a fix to it's vet, which is currently stupid.
  • #133
    4 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    @whitesky00 said:
    Not even close. 1 churchill = 540 mp and 180 fuel. Times 2 and that's 1080 mp and 360 fuel. In what way does a KT cost more than 2 churchills when it's clearly less at 720 mp and 310 fuel? Even then, a KT will easily defeat 2 churchills.

    Elephant and JT do not have turrets. They are also dedicated AT weapons and can't murder infantry.

    Why build the KT? Please tell me another vehicle that can kill both tanks and infantry with ease?

    The only thing that is agreed upon by other posters is that KT needs vet change to reward players for proper tank usage and not solo rambo.

    Frankly its no wonder coming from you and your buddy McMartel, apparently your only contribution to all balance thread is a hardly constructive stonewalling of fixing any Axis unit that's out of place, and opposing any fix to Allied units that ruin gameplay for the Axis, such as emplacement spam,

    As for the Churchill price, you are dead wrong, see the latest pre-patch notes, its price was reduced to just 490 Manpower and 160 Fuel. Clearly the Churchill is oddly placed as an AI punchback tank and its reflected in its price, hence the reduction, hence why its so many players except the two Allied naysayers have problem with the KT's pricing/effectiveness ratio. At this price and speed range, its also very difficult to explain why having at least the same amount of HP as the Churchill is such a bad idea.

    As for a tank thats effective vs both tanks and infantry, you have the Comet at a very discount price for its performance, or the Pershing, the IS-2 that also comes at a bargain price. All of these are far better usable and worth their price much more than the KT, because the KT is much less effective than it was at release due to gradual boosts to TD pens (see M36 that was beefed up, now the SU 85 is beefed up too), and that they reduced its front armor. Now they even reduce its rear armor (shared amongst all heavy tanks). Yet it still has an exorbitant price for all that.

    One has to be a totally biased Allied fanboy to believe thats everything is right with a unit that needs insane amount of fuel to be hoarded to field one late in the game to worth the same costs after several patches ensured that its about twice as easy to counter and penetrate than before. Is the KT still effective? Yes, it is, but its use is very very narrow since with the several patches it became very easily, and it can NEVER escape an armor rush. Even a single, properly handed SU 85 can keep it at check and will vet up very fast by doing so.

    Similar to the Churchill, because its a slow lumbering beast, it needs durability to offset it, IF it does not get an armor boost (probably a bad idea, since it only leads to RNG engagements) OR a significant health boost OR a significant price reduction. Relic needs to decide whether its an ultimate late unit with an ultimate price, or just a large punchbag for Allied TDs to vet up fast. The KT as it is barely worth it, and with the upcoming patch with the pen boosts and side armor nerfs, so that now even mediums can swarm it make it totally worthless instead of just building Panthers as OKW.

  • #134
    4 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Kurf, if you're going to resort to namecalling, I'm not going to debate with you.

  • #135
    4 years ago
    whitesky00whitesky00 Posts: 409

    LOL, there is no side armor in this game...

    I am not wrong because I am looking at the current state of the game.
    Even if you factor in patch changes which aren't final 490 mp x2 + 160 fuel x2 = 980 mp and 320 fuel is still less than 720 mp and 310 fuel of KT. You want the KT to have the same HP as the "old" churchill with 1600 while the new one only has 1400. Why don't you throw the KT gun on top of the churchill to make it fair?

    Your comments are insulting every other person on this thread that agrees with us that a vet change is best.

  • #136
    4 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    A health increase is an option, however as said 1600 is too much because- armour is high, gun is good AND super repairs available to the okw. Its too many things that would grant the KT to be too user friendly and not punishing for bad play. Imo. Im still a fan of vet rework personally
  • #137
    4 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    A health increase is an option, however as said 1600 is too much because- armour is high, gun is good AND super repairs available to the okw. Its too many things that would grant the KT to be too user friendly and not punishing for bad play. Imo. Im still a fan of vet rework personally

    I wouldn't lower the armor below 350 with its current cost, but an idea might be to strip away super repair from Sturms (trucks okay because it's a sidegrade now) and put it up to 1600 HP. That way the damage you do to it lasts and it has to go back and spend some time being fixed up.

  • #138
    4 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I think it's performance and HP is fine, but lowering the cost a big (10-20 fuel) might make it most reasonable.

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.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский