Login

russian armor

Heavy Tank CP

19 Nov 2019, 20:51 PM
#101
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Nov 2019, 20:24 PMLago
The JPIV 'counters' tank destroyers with its Vet 1 and Vet 2 bonuses: Vet 1 gives it cloak so it always gets the first shot off, and Vet 2 lets it take another hit.

Those are both big advantages in a slugging match.

It does, I never question the ability of JP to zone Allied TDs (getting a kill is another story), is simply pointed out that is has a similar cost/pop while most counter are cheaper.

Simply nerf the unit in anyway seen fit and reduce cost to 300-350MP 100-120 FU. Then it will be inline with other counters.

The unit got a higher tech cost while remaining at the same price and also got nerfed (probably justified), the units performance does not justify it being more expansive than SU-85.
19 Nov 2019, 20:58 PM
#102
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Nov 2019, 20:35 PMKatitof
I'd say add 20-30 fuel to ALL heavies and the problem will solve itself.

Heavies are still viable stat wise, but they are no longer no-brainer choice over 2 meds.


That sounds sensible.

I think you could get away with up to 50 FU tbh. Heavies are pretty brutal in their current state.
19 Nov 2019, 23:13 PM
#103
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Now that the is-2 has been buffed to be reliable I don't think there is any reason for its armour to be so high. It would still be a beast with mid 300s of armour
MMX
20 Nov 2019, 07:12 AM
#104
avatar of MMX

Posts: 999 | Subs: 1

raising the fuel cost, as suggested before, seems the most logical choice for me, too. this would also neatly avoid the dilemma of a cp-increase delaying heavies too much in team games as compared to 1v1s.
21 Nov 2019, 07:40 AM
#105
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Just increase the fuel cost. Fighting for fuel is a tactical reward, so it make sense.

Imo allies do still build their t3t4 tanks. I don't think heavies need much change.

If anything 60TD should be considered to 55TD. For axis their t4 is inefficient, and t3 is easy meat for 60td, hence the less variety in axis build.
21 Nov 2019, 15:50 PM
#106
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Nov 2019, 07:12 AMMMX
raising the fuel cost, as suggested before, seems the most logical choice for me, too. this would also neatly avoid the dilemma of a cp-increase delaying heavies too much in team games as compared to 1v1s.


I like this as well. If a super heavy is like 300 fuel you’d have to stall a hell of a lot more than now and losing it would be a deathblow.

Alternatively, what about raising the MP cost? What if the Tiger costs 1000mp and 230 fuel? You’d have to bank a lot of manpower to get that thing on the field and if your opponent bleeds you enough you’ll never be able to afford it.
22 Nov 2019, 17:09 PM
#107
avatar of 13greed47

Posts: 54



I like this as well. If a super heavy is like 300 fuel you’d have to stall a hell of a lot more than now and losing it would be a deathblow.

Alternatively, what about raising the MP cost? What if the Tiger costs 1000mp and 230 fuel? You’d have to bank a lot of manpower to get that thing on the field and if your opponent bleeds you enough you’ll never be able to afford it.




maybe a less drastic option for me would be cd start when the tank is destroy and it could be longer 2-3 mins
22 Nov 2019, 17:27 PM
#108
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3





maybe a less drastic option for me would be cd start when the tank is destroy and it could be longer 2-3 mins


I’d take it a step further and make heavies a 1-time call in if I could.
22 Nov 2019, 17:31 PM
#109
avatar of Farlion

Posts: 379 | Subs: 1

I'll say it again, Heavies are just a symptom of the problem, not the root of it.

The real problem is that mediums are too easily shut down by TD or Pak spam. For Axis, the additional problem is that the Tiger is the only reliable counter to the IS2 because the Panther is useless.
22 Nov 2019, 17:54 PM
#110
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 785

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2019, 17:31 PMFarlion
I'll say it again, Heavies are just a symptom of the problem, not the root of it.

The real problem is that mediums are too easily shut down by TD or Pak spam. For Axis, the additional problem is that the Tiger is the only reliable counter to the IS2 because the Panther is useless.


Wouldn't nerfing the counters to heavy tanks just make heavy tanks even more dominant? I tend to think TDs and ATGs are in the oppressive state they are now principally because they have to be able to counter heavy tanks.
22 Nov 2019, 18:00 PM
#111
avatar of YeltsinDeathBrigades

Posts: 110

Heavy tanks are now in perfectly balanced spot, leave them alone.
22 Nov 2019, 18:13 PM
#112
avatar of Farlion

Posts: 379 | Subs: 1



Wouldn't nerfing the counters to heavy tanks just make heavy tanks even more dominant? I tend to think TDs and ATGs are in the oppressive state they are now principally because they have to be able to counter heavy tanks.


It would definitely require a major rebalance of a lot of units which I think is unlikely to hapepn at this point.

23 Nov 2019, 02:36 AM
#113
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I think it's a bit of both. TDs are oppressive to deal with heavy armour, but their effeciency isn't limited to heavy armour meaning they shut down mediums too making heavies nearly necessary. A good TD rework could bring balance across the board I think
23 Nov 2019, 06:29 AM
#114
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Like i asked. Reduce the range.

60TD to 55TD
70TD to 60TD

ATG remains at 60.
Except OKW, Jp4 at 60, Rak at 55 remains, for variety, and since JP4 is so expensive with weak pen.

At least, maps are less zoned out. Allow freer combined arms tactics. Certain units like Brumbar may become useful without even touching it!
23 Nov 2019, 07:50 AM
#115
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2019, 06:29 AMmrgame2
Like i asked. Reduce the range.

60TD to 55TD
70TD to 60TD

ATG remains at 60.
Except OKW, Jp4 at 60, Rak at 55 remains, for variety, and since JP4 is so expensive with weak pen.

At least, maps are less zoned out. Allow freer combined arms tactics. Certain units like Brumbar may become useful without even touching it!


No
23 Nov 2019, 09:28 AM
#116
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Why no? 55 is still outta return fire range.
60 is overboard and lazy.

When i play Jackson, i shoot a p4 from way out and the poor axis guy seem so confused.
23 Nov 2019, 10:15 AM
#117
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Nov 2019, 09:28 AMmrgame2
Why no? 55 is still outta return fire range.
60 is overboard and lazy.

When i play Jackson, i shoot a p4 from way out and the poor axis guy seem so confused.

I suppose you're confused a lot when ATGs are shooting at you too.
23 Nov 2019, 10:22 AM
#118
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Thats the point, at guns are less mobile than 60td, so it balances out. AT guns and super heavies td should be 60. Not the Jackson, su85, firefly
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

771 users are online: 771 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
20 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49667
Welcome our newest member, Chmura
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM