[All] Future Tank Balance

#1
3 years ago

So many people have stated that they believe the next patch should focus around the first steps in balancing the medium and heavy tanks, I thought it best to open a new thread to discuss the main changes that have been identified as key to evening out the current issues in gameplay.

From what I gather its mainly the following:

In terms of mediums it either needs to be a series of nerfs to the SU-76, Stug, Cromwell and Sherman, or buffs to the P4 and maybe the t-34. It really depends on whether people want to see similar work to what has been proposed for the infantry, mainly in the form of tuning WFA down to EFA balance levels.

The Ostwind, the Sherman 105mm, Greyhound, the KV-1 and the stock churchill all need proper buffs.

The Brumbar needs something in either durability or more reliable damage, the Panther needs ROF and moving accuracy.

The Comet needs some serious nerfs, as does the firefly in relation to the tank commander upgrade.

The Tiger 1 and IS-2 need some adjustments, especially if in the future all call-ins will be tied to tech.

That's mainly a summary, feel free to disagree or add other problems that need adressing.

«1

Comments

  • #2
    3 years ago
    I agree with most off it. But if the stug and su76 are toned down and the panther buffed in rof and accuracy. I personaly think the panther will shut down or severly hamper medium tank play and force more tds. And the comet will also get its share of nerfs.

    Something will need to give on the panther. Rof and acc are its problems but in other areas it already has great stats. My opinion is remove and replace the armour hp bonus with rof and or acc in wich ever order.

    This is if su76 comet etc get nerfs.

    Just my first 2 cents
  • #3
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited March 2017

    The problem is bit bigger than it original seems.

    Imo tanks should specific roles and tactic to be used similar to infantry.

    One should have roles like:
    Main battle tanks, good at most think excel at none.

    Flanker tank, TDs fast medium armor all around good penetration at close fast turret rotation.

    Infantry support tanks, slow heavily armored tank with abilities to help supporting infantry and abilities like gun smoke.

    Medium TDs, decent accuracy low penetration far high ROF suited to counter medium tanks.

    Heavy TD, low accuracy far, good penetration medium ROF.

    Assault gun, close indirect fire support.

    Heavy assault guns, high frontal armor and indirect fire support.

    Super heavy tanks

    Super heavy TDs.

    Abilities and vet bonuses should be custom made to feet the role of the vehicle.

  • #4
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited March 2017

    Came up with a list of my ideas for tanks over the course of a day, some of these are minor tweaks, others are more invasive changes. I tried to do a little more explaining for the more invasive changes/more widely used units. If a unit was changed in today's patch, I didn't mention it to let current changes play out. Hopefully the formatting makes this wall of text not entirely unreadable:

    Soviets

    (Trend: Bye bye secure mode, hello useful vet 1)

    T34/76: Replace unlocking secure mode at vet 1 with a 10% buff to accel/decel, and 10% buff to vehicle rotation. Reduce the vet 3 bonuses in the same category to make it a total buff 25% across all vet (used to be just 20%) This makes the 34/76 a little better at its main role(s): rushing/ramming.
    T34/85: Replace unlocking secure mode at vet 1 with unlocking the Tracking ability (already on su76/85) Nothing crazy, but gives it a useful vet 1 ability.
    SU85: Remove tracking ability at vet 1, replace with focused sight (so now you need vet 1 to unlock it)
    SU76: Add 15 munitions cost to barrage. Increase default reload time, increase default accel/deccel (now it'll have to GTFO more often, but be slightly better at doing that)
    KV1: Replace unlocking secure mode at vet 1 with a smokescreen ability to help it survive without making it too good.
    M4C Sherman: Replace unlocking secure mode at vet 1 with unlocking the Tracking ability (already on su76/85)
    IS2: Replace unlocking secure mode at vet 1 with unlocking "Fire Everything!" ability. 30 seconds, slight buff to reload time, slight nerf to overall movement speed/accuracy or both (just trying to be creative unlike Relic)
    KV2: Replace unlocking secure mode at vet 1 with a 30 muni barrage ability that fires 3 shells at 70 range (same as turret-mode auto-fire range) and fires 5 shells when in turret mode. Reload time between shots during barrage ability is 6 seconds as opposed to usual 11+.
    ISU152: Buff AP shell penetration to 220/240/260 (Far/mid/near) Fix terrain collision for concrete piercing round (the one ability that shouldn't have terrain issues...)

    Ostheer

    (Trend: Tweaking lots of different stats a little bit)

    Panzer IV: Decrease fuel cost from 125 to 115.
    Panther: Increase far accuracy from .03 to .04, near from .05 to .06, increase moving accuracy multiplier from .5 to .65. (same as OKW version) Remove vet 2 HP buff (no need for both armor and HP buff), give a 20% reload speed buff. Reduce vet 3 reload speed bonus to 20% (instead of just 30% at vet 3 it will have 20%+20%=40%) Goal here is to improve Panther's unreliable offense (by default and with vet), and remove unnecessary buffs to defense.
    Brumbarr: Decrease reload time from 8.38 to 8, buff AOE far from 3.75 to 3.8, AOE near from 1.25 to 1.3.
    Ostwind: Increase acceleration from 2.1 to 2.4, increase AOE far distance from 1.5 to 1.6. Reduce cost from 100 fuel to 90, increase manpower cost from 280 to 300.
    Tiger: Increase acceleration from 1.5 to 1.7, increase deccel from 1.8 to 2.2. Decrease target size from 26 to 25 (26 is the same as the KT and IS2, both of which have 75 more armor among other superior traits)

    USF

    (Trend: A potpurri of changes, making US a little more reliant on non-vehicle sources of AT)

    M26 Pershing: Reduce moving accuracy multiplier from .75 to .6 (brings it closer to other heavies, stays a little better due to being more reliant on movement for survivability) Reduce vet 1 bonuses to accel/deccel to 20% (from 30%), reduce vet 3 reload speed bonus to 40% (from 50%), reduce fuel cost to 220 (from 230)
    M4 Sherman: Reduce AP penetration by 10 at all ranges to bring it in line with other mediums. It was over-buffed when it struggled to pen KTs rear armor (which was cut in half in a later update) Reduce moving accuracy multiplier to .5 to bring in line with other mediums.
    M36 Jackson: Reduce moving accuracy modifier from .75 to .6. (example of effect: A jackson will now have a 53% chance of hitting Panzer 4 while moving, as opposed to a 66% chance) For the duration of HVAP rounds, moving accuracy increases back to .75, increase cost from 30muni to 40muni.
    105mm Bulldozer: Add 50% deflection damage (currently zero, with only 35 penetration) allowing it do 80 damage on most shots to armor (long reload time and lob justify it doing SOMEthing). Buff AOE far distance from 3.38 to 3.6, near from 1.13 to 1.25
    M10 Wolverine Remove the ability to crush.
    M8 Greyhound: Make armored skirts come by default, re-evaluate canister shot ability (infantry clumping has gone through multiple patches since it was nerfed)

    OKW

    (Trend: Minor reductions in cost for tanks that are already plenty good, just a little pricey)

    Hetzer: Decrease CP requirement from 8 to 6.
    JP4: Decrease mp cost from 400 to 370, decrease fuel cost from 135 to 125.
    KT: Reduce fuel cost from 310 to 300.
    Panzer IV: Reduce fuel cost to 130 from 150, reduce default armor to 210 (from 236). At vet 2 it gets buffed back to current default.
    SturmTiger: Increase fuel cost from 160 to 180 (The only thing they have that I think is too cheap. It costed 160 much when the OKW were earning 66% fuel. Too easy to field in resource inflated team games for what it can do)

    UKF

    (Trend: Reducing the crazy stimulants being put in the tea of British Tank Crew members)

    Firefly: Limit choice to Tulip Rockets OR Tank Commander, buying both is no longer an option. Reduce moving accuracy multiplier from .75 to .6 Reduce damage bonus at vet 3 to 40 (from 80), and return moving accuracy bonus to .75 at vet 3.
    Comet: Reduce moving accuracy multiplier from .75 to .5. Remove unlocking Willy Pete shell at vet 1, normal smoke shell now unlocks at vet 1. Vet 1 also now grants a +.1 to moving accuracy (making it .6 total). Reduce maximum movement speed from 6.9 to 6.6 (same as panther), increase target size from 22 to 23, reduce armor from 290 to 280, reduce cost by 10 fuel.
    Cromwell: Reduce maximum movement speed from 7 to 6.8. Reduce moving accuracy modifier from .75 to .5, reduce penetration by 10 at all ranges to bring in line with other mediums.
    Churchill: These only apply to stock Churchill, Croc is fine as is. Increase armor to 260 from 240 (IMO its old self was too survivable but over-nerfed), reduce penetration by 20 at all ranges to limit offensive use against tanks with its now slightly beefier status. Vet 1 now also gives +10% max movement speed and rotation speed. Vet 3 bonuses in same category are reduced slightly making total +25% and +30% (used to be +20% and +25%)

    Everyone

    Hold. Fire.
    Tie call-ins into tech, but adjust individual costs rather than performance to even out the burden of tech costs being introduced to them. There's too much math there for me to include that in this list though.

  • #5
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006

    For me, the biggest problem ist that Axis, or at the least Wehr, should have the advantage in the tank game, seeing how their infantry cant really hold up to the might of the allied freedom fighters. Yet, currently most of their tanks are crap. Noneof them has really good AI, even one that should, like the Ostwind or the Brummbär are mostly eclipsed in AI performance by Shermans or even T-34/76s. Speaking of AI, I never understood why the heck Allied vehicles need better AI despite generally fighting squads with fewer members and less effective HPs. Similar things apply to the Panther when it comes to AT.

    And yet, thanks to Allied TDs making axis tank play really hard up to impossible and allied supermen making infantry play hard either infantry or tanks should get a lot of attention. Something has to give.

  • #6
    3 years ago

    @Hingie said:
    I never understood why the heck Allied vehicles need better AI despite generally fighting squads with fewer members and less effective HPs. Similar things apply to the Panther when it comes to AT.

    And yet, thanks to Allied TDs making axis tank play really hard up to impossible and allied supermen making infantry play hard either infantry or tanks should get a lot of attention. Something has to give.

    i always wonderd why axis got higher pen and damage with at against (at the time) paper armour of allied tanks. and that allied tanks had better ai when fighting smaller squads.

    same with that allied late game whas so dreadfull, and axis did not have a comparable dreadfull early game but had a real chance to get to late game where the game auto ended for allies in a lot of cases.

    And yet, thanks to Allied TDs making axis tank play really hard up to impossible and allied supermen making infantry play hard either infantry or tanks should get a lot of attention. Something has to give.

    the supermen are giving already, penals riflemen guards are all giving when patch hits. now just volks and sections left.
    and if the kt gives something like not being so easely available (esp in bigger games) then the allied td dont need the kt as benchmark. that and soviets need a wunderwaffen back like b4 and ml 20 because if they didnt get 2 click wiped and actualy hit stuff they could help the soviets vs the big units.

  • #7
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited March 2017

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    and if the kt gives something like not being so easely available (esp in bigger games) then the allied td dont need the kt as benchmark. that and soviets need a wunderwaffen back like b4 and ml 20 because if they didnt get 2 click wiped and actualy hit stuff they could help the soviets vs the big units.

    Yeah in 2v2s you're more likely to see a KT than not in my experience, so it's kind of necessary for allies to have some kind of threat to it. The old days of it being a stock game-ender were ridiculous, and I think we can work around some of the symptoms it caused. The moving accuracy multipliers of Brit and US tanks is a good place to start IMO, as is the target sizes of a few others. It seems to be the best way to reduce TD performance against ALL without reducing it against the KT.

    For example, anyone want to explain why the Comet has a smaller target size than the Sherman? (22 vs 23) Seems odd, given the comparative power of the two vehicles.

  • #8
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    @hingie i agree, way back i posted a thread about how silly the doubling advantage/disadvantage was. A smaller squad facing larger AOE is now double disadvantaged, similarily lower armour facing higher pen also widens the gap...

    Anyways i personally thing all tanks should go the way of the t34- imcrease MG power to noticable levels amd leave the main gun mostly for tanks. This puts axis armour at an advantage over brit and soviet tanks by having more AI potential that isnt reliant on the main gun, would help consistency across the board for tanks fighting infantry and push more towards combined arms instead infantry death swarms, on all sides.

    (Also this thread is very broad. Might be worth refining it because theres a million different things that could go on under that banner and may turn messy)
  • #9
    3 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271

    Yeah I think @thedarkarmadillo is right. Only thing that kept me from deleting that giant wall was not wanting to part with it after putting it together in bits and pieces across the day, but I'm not sure how productive it really is to discuss balance on such a scale. We all hope it could get done in big waves, but alas, here we are almost 4 years after launch...

  • #10
    3 years ago
    mrdjjag81mrdjjag81 Posts: 294
    edited March 2017

    One thing i get so tired of is those elite players in team games that complain about Comets and try to counter it with blobing at guns or medium tanks (stugs, p4). If you want to counter it, use Panthers, pak43 or tiger or something liket hat. I played so many teamgames that they just running around with at guns, stugs or schrekblobs and start cry once they realise its not a worthy tactic. What they blame? The Comet ofcourse..

    Now i dont say it could need some adjustments, but its same with other tanks that gets undeserved nerfs becouse they dont counter it right. Just saying..

  • #12
    3 years ago
    Xutryn_X7Xutryn_X7 Posts: 204

    Ostheer panzer iv needs pen buff.Tiger AI need's a little buff,comet should be nerfed in AI department.The other stuff for me seems ok

  • #13
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006

    @TheLeveler83 said:
    i always wonderd why axis got higher pen and damage with at against (at the time) paper armour of allied tanks. and that allied tanks had better ai when fighting smaller squads.

    Easy. Because Axis tanks were once in a forlorn time designed to be better than Allied ones, especially Wehr tanks should be the strong suit of the faction. Hence they were better.

    @thedarkarmadillo I could hardly agree more. Damn those pesky elitist scum players who dont clearly outplay the Comet owner. They shouldve won early game with their Poor-man's-Versions of Tommies while getting shelled from a Sandbag Fortrss. Aint the Comets fault they were too incompetent to push off the best defensive faction in the game defending a few points.

  • #14
    3 years ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited March 2017

    @mrdjjag81 said:
    One thing i get so tired of is those elite players in team games that complain about Comets and try to counter it with blobing at guns or medium tanks (stugs, p4). If you want to counter it, use Panthers, pak43 or tiger or something liket hat. I played so many teamgames that they just running around with at guns, stugs or schrekblobs and start cry once they realise its not a worthy tactic. What they blame? The Comet ofcourse..

    Now i dont say it could need some adjustments, but its same with other tanks that gets undeserved nerfs becouse they dont counter it right. Just saying..

    As a ostheer player, I almost never get panthers even vs a Comet. Double stug or stug + pak and shcrecks are fine vs a Comet. As the Stug user, you have certain restrictions when trying to counter a Comet that you'd otherwise not have if using a panther. But that's fine for me. If you have the skill, double stugs are better than a panther. Sure, for OKW, it would be easier to get a panther, and for OKW, I'd recommend a panther, but Ost panther is initially more expensive (due to tech costs) and yet inferior to the OKW panther. It's simply not cost efficient to get an Ost panther just to counter a comet. You must be playing against noobs if they are trying to counter a comet with a single pak or stug since you'd need at least 2 of those.

    I'm speaking from a 1v1 experience.

  • #15
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951
    edited March 2017

    I would love to see a change to the TD meta. With the rear armor nerfs to heavies (and hopefully call-ins requiring tech), a heavy should encourage a combined arms approach to deal with, but in the current meta just leads to spamming StuGs or Jacksons at it until its dead.

    I'm just not sure how to do this without boning the USF/Soviets when flanking isn't viable.

  • #16
    3 years ago
    mrdjjag81mrdjjag81 Posts: 294

    As a ostheer player, I almost never get panthers even vs a Comet. Double stug or stug + pak and shcrecks are fine vs a Comet. As the Stug user, you have certain restrictions when trying to counter a Comet that you'd otherwise not have if using a panther. But that's fine for me. If you have the skill, double stugs are better than a panther. Sure, for OKW, it would be easier to get a panther, and for OKW, I'd recommend a panther, but Ost panther is initially more expensive (due to tech costs) and yet inferior to the OKW panther. It's simply not cost efficient to get an Ost panther just to counter a comet. You must be playing against noobs if they are trying to counter a comet with a single pak or stug since you'd need at least 2 of those.

    I'm speaking from a 1v1 experience.

    I hear ya, depend on playstyle then. In the sinario i played in it was random team for me against some clan taged 3-stars players. Was the only brit in the team with 2 comets. 2 of the ostern player had like 4 at guns each along with stugs and p4, still they blamed the comets for theyer loss. What i mean is not that comet may overperform that badly like most of the people think, its them along with the crazy offmaps british have i would say. For excemple, the strifing suport, arty cover, "bateri counter" all decrew ats pretty easy and damage medium tanks pretty badly on its own.

    However, this was'nt just just att his particulare engagement, pretty comon in 2vs2 also. All tought more selldom there.

  • #17
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    3 star players are not "elite" players. Comet is OP thou.

  • #18
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,824
    I agree with @_Aqua_ here.
    I think a small reduction in pen wouldnt be too hurtful, the things that the TDs would become less reliable vs should warrant a change of tactic, vs just moar firepower!
    Wouldnt mind some target table help however, things like arty should be more effective (maybe bounce crits? More pen? Damage modifier?)
    Basicly more tactics in this here "tactical rts"
  • #19
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    Aqua said:
    I'm just not sure how to do this without boning the USF/Soviets when flanking isn't viable.

    Well - for USF you have Rifleman smoke, which everyone seems to have forgotten is a slow and for Soviets you have Penal satchels - which assuming the target is a big slow thing, would work quite well.

    I think the USF would be fine and I'll let a new Soviet meta develop before I comment but I'm pretty sure those would be your super heavy solutions.

  • #20
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    Something else that's tangentially related, vehicle pathing. The amount of armor lost to ballerina Jacksons, Pumas attached to giant invisible rubber bands or Brens that absolutely need to reverse themselves into combat is ridiculous. I don't know if that kind of stuff, tank phase-tech and so on can be fixed, but can we at least make territory flags intangible?

  • #21
    3 years ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 572
    edited March 2017

    @Lazarus said:

    Aqua said:
    I'm just not sure how to do this without boning the USF/Soviets when flanking isn't viable.

    Well - for USF you have Rifleman smoke, which everyone seems to have forgotten is a slow and for Soviets you have Penal satchels - which assuming the target is a big slow thing, would work quite well.

    I think the USF would be fine and I'll let a new Soviet meta develop before I comment but I'm pretty sure those would be your super heavy solutions.

    Well, if smoke and flanking worked in most cases, should people just smoke and flank comets? Seems like ''smoking and flanking'' is always the answer.

    Also, let's get rid of the call-ins that require no tech.

  • #22
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096
    @company14u2 as soon as the Comet stops having a turret yeah you can smoke and flank.

    When your target is a massive, slow, turretless vehicle that cant hurt infantry - yes using your infantry smoke and flanking is the answer.
  • #23
    3 years ago

    The are a lot of threads about tanks recently. I'll use this one to vent my frustration of the call in meta that was forgotten about in WBP and should be nearer the top for future changes to tank balance imo. The M10 tank destroyer cheese spam. If Stug E get's the nerf bat, so to should this unit. That ridiculous crushing...

    But in regards to what people have said in all the tank threads recently be it comets, TD's, mediums I have seen a lot of good points, ideas and philosophies. I hope some of these get noticed.

  • #24
    3 years ago

    @Lazarus said:
    @company14u2 as soon as the Comet stops having a turret yeah you can smoke and flank.

    When your target is a massive, slow, turretless vehicle that cant hurt infantry - yes using your infantry smoke and flanking is the answer.

    ''Smoke and flanking'' is a lazy answer that is not always going to work. I am not going to suggest to someone to''smoke and flank'' brit sim city. There are some situations where smoking and flanking will not work.

  • #25
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    @company14u2 said:

    @Lazarus said:
    @company14u2 as soon as the Comet stops having a turret yeah you can smoke and flank.

    When your target is a massive, slow, turretless vehicle that cant hurt infantry - yes using your infantry smoke and flanking is the answer.

    ''Smoke and flanking'' is a lazy answer that is not always going to work. I am not going to suggest to someone to''smoke and flank'' brit sim city. There are some situations where smoking and flanking will not work.

    You are correct - there are SOME situations where smoke and flank doesn't work. That's not this though. The JagdTiger and Elefant are all smoke and flank units. They're slow, they have no turret, they don't hurt infantry. How are they going to stop you from smoking them? Why is flanking not going to work on them? Every single "counter point" you've tried to bring up have been units that I would never suggest smoking or flanking. I don't think smoke and flank is always the answer. It is in this specific situation though.

  • #26
    3 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    @company14u2 That's because a Bofors can't be flanked given the fact it has no flank. It fires 360° and has a good rotation speed. And attack ground. So no, smoke and flank won't work vs. A city given that there is no flank that could be exploited.
  • #27
    3 years ago

    @Lazarus said:

    @company14u2 said:

    @Lazarus said:
    @company14u2 as soon as the Comet stops having a turret yeah you can smoke and flank.

    When your target is a massive, slow, turretless vehicle that cant hurt infantry - yes using your infantry smoke and flanking is the answer.

    ''Smoke and flanking'' is a lazy answer that is not always going to work. I am not going to suggest to someone to''smoke and flank'' brit sim city. There are some situations where smoking and flanking will not work.

    You are correct - there are SOME situations where smoke and flank doesn't work. That's not this though. The JagdTiger and Elefant are all smoke and flank units. They're slow, they have no turret, they don't hurt infantry. How are they going to stop you from smoking them? Why is flanking not going to work on them? Every single "counter point" you've tried to bring up have been units that I would never suggest smoking or flanking. I don't think smoke and flank is always the answer. It is in this specific situation though.

    If you get behind a elephant with a sherman, it will take you, at the very least, 38 seconds to kill it. I did this test on a immobile elephant and i spawned the sherman directly behind it. The jagtiger takes even longer to kill. There is also spotting scopes that will spot your flanking attempts. You will need sight of the enemy defenses, unless you yolo smoke into a jagtiger supported by at and lose your tanks. It will you take a lot of penetrating shots to down a elephant with zooks. It only takes one mg or brumbar to stop you from landing those shots. Elephants of mine do not get flanked by infantry, unless they spawned partisans from a building. The only thing i worry about is fast moving comets supported by arty cover. Hopefully, you will have a teammate with ju-87 to call on top of you when brits try their arty cover comet strategy.

  • #28
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096
    Spotting scopes dont see through smoke so I dont see how they enter in to it. MGs are also invalidated by smoke so they also shouldnt be a problem. Yes if theyve invested in a Brummbar and an Elefant (400 fuel) you will likely need more than a single medium and infantry to counter it. Thats not a shocker, thats balance.

    As for team synergies of JU-87S covering Elefants - thats a team game and USF no longer needs to counter the Elefant alone so no dice there either.

    If your elefants arent getting flanked whoop dee doo, try reminding your USF opponents that their smoke is a vehicle slow and that they should use it.
  • #29
    3 years ago

    @Lazarus said:
    Spotting scopes dont see through smoke so I dont see how they enter in to it. MGs are also invalidated by smoke so they also shouldnt be a problem. Yes if theyve invested in a Brummbar and an Elefant (400 fuel) you will likely need more than a single medium and infantry to counter it. Thats not a shocker, thats balance.

    As for team synergies of JU-87S covering Elefants - thats a team game and USF no longer needs to counter the Elefant alone so no dice there either.

    If your elefants arent getting flanked whoop dee doo, try reminding your USF opponents that their smoke is a vehicle slow and that they should use it

    My elephants will not get flanked. :)
    And... were we not talking about team games? Elephants are not used in 1v1?
    If there is one thing i could tell USF players that try to flank my elephant, i would say, ''use arty cover next time.''
    That is really good strategic advice for teams who wish to climb the top of the allied latter. Obviously, you need to be better than the other allied teams to climb, but commander selection has a HUGE impact towards your win rate. If you are stuck in a lower spot on the ladder, it means other axis/allied players are better than you. I hope the community will nerf all cheese, instead of being selective.

  • #30
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Uhh no-one I've never seen or encountered any super-heavy tds in 1's, they aren't viable. A stopgap investment for a tiger is plausible and works well as an alternative to t4, but the elephant is far too high an investment in solely at, especially when 1v1 maps aren't the open corridors that most 2v2 upwards maps are. As for the JT, most would pick a KT as its far more reliable.

    @company14u2 As for handling the super-heavies, you would advocate abusing a broken ability like arty cover as "strategic advice"? Rather than just using arty, smoke, out maneuvering/mobility and infantry that USF specialize in, something brits are more than capable of, in lieu of actual strategy, players should stick to fighting them through commander selection with cheese in the form of LM, Calliope etc? Great.

  • #31
    3 years ago

    Team games are a cheese fest. If you play ''ethical'', you are going to encounter strategies that you will not have an answer to (this is the problem with the commander system). If you do, however, want to play this way in team games, I suggest using paras, rangers, armor company, mechanized and rifle company. It will be tough though, and your teammates may not like that. If you want to win at any cost, stick to tactical support (Usf) and have your British ally pick tactical support also.
    I use cheese with axis as well. I love lightning war and Jaeger armor with Ostheer, and I love elite armor, special ops, and breakthrough doctrines with Okw.

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.