Limit Heavy Tanks
Posts: 2779
I still think some callin needs tech or require to pay a high price.
Posts: 813 | Subs: 1
Tech would be a good "gate" and solve some of the problems with having fuel for multiple heavies once the CP requirement is filled. It would to some extent prevent spam.
Posts: 879
I think both factions should have some sort of teching cost for them though, this will promote more interesting play. There is precedent for this in COH - PE's Panther call-in required a number of different techs researched and final research at headquarters.
The requirements should differ by faction, if Sov tanks become too powerful at AT in the Western armies patch, then they might not need to differ by much.
But right now, as boring as it is, Sov T3 and T4 are only barely viable with this teching cost.
Posts: 2819
Infantry - some tanks and some inf - only tanks
COH2 shouldn't change in a tankbattle in late game. Ok i'm exaggerating, but limiting 1 tiger at the field / player makes it so much more interesting..
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Nevertheless i don´t see a problem to limiting heavy call-ins to just 1 per player.
Posts: 254
Posts: 2819
imo there was a reason there was restrictions in vcoh. The tanks are supposed to supplement your army. And besides it breaks immersion for me to be up against 3 tigers rather than a mix of armor.
idd, they should be a suplement
That's whats missing.
Posts: 449
However there should be a viable counter to heavy tank play and currently there isn't much of one.
The ideal army composition now is 3 Tiger + pioneers for repairs or 3 IS2s + engies. There's something wrong with that picture.
Posts: 627
Posts: 12
Posts: 1571
Posts: 1702
imo there was a reason there was restrictions in vcoh. The tanks are supposed to supplement your army. And besides it breaks immersion for me to be up against 3 tigers rather than a mix of armor.
What? 3 tigers breaks immersion? I'm sorry but that's how tigers , and pretty much all heavy tanks were used. They were rarely mixed with other tanks. Tigers pretty much always operated in groups of 2-3. Nobody is stupid enough to send 1 tiger tank on their own.
Posts: 150
Need Phase 3 researched for germans, don't need T4 building though.
And need T3 or T4 building for soviets.
And if it's still not enough, maybe increase cost and/or add more CP needed.
Posts: 64
What? 3 tigers breaks immersion? I'm sorry but that's how tigers , and pretty much all heavy tanks were used. They were rarely mixed with other tanks. Tigers pretty much always operated in groups of 2-3. Nobody is stupid enough to send 1 tiger tank on their own.
During the Battle of Bastogne a group of 17 tigers advanced through American lines... 17.
Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1
During the Battle of Bastogne a group of 17 tigers advanced through American lines... 17.
Good luck countering that..
Posts: 64
Good luck countering that..
The tanks rolled over the trenches the airborne were dug into allowing them to kill the infantry after the tanks passed. The American tank destroyers were mistaken as German armor due to the snow and fog so they followed the Tigers allowing them to tear their rear armor apart.
My information may be a bit sketchy, been awhile since I read the book - The Battered Bastards of Bastogne
Posts: 1162
I do think increasing the CP on heavies would be good though, it would put a lot of people off stalling that long. It would be better if they were called after some tecking.
I actually prefer to teck in a lot of situations, say soviets, fast T3, get out an impact vehicle, this will accelerate CPs, then you can call a heavy (works nice with ISU, 1 M5 and 1 T34).
T34/85 spam with Guards motor is not as good now CPs were moved later. Its hard to stall that long.
Posts: 254
What? 3 tigers breaks immersion? I'm sorry but that's how tigers , and pretty much all heavy tanks were used. They were rarely mixed with other tanks. Tigers pretty much always operated in groups of 2-3. Nobody is stupid enough to send 1 tiger tank on their own.
you are right, albeit not that likely that hq would requesition 3 tiger tanks to a 100man rifle company trying to seize a village/area.
its about this small group of soldier's not an entire armored division.
Posts: 2561
Posts: 647
I don't think that there should be a limit on heavy tanks. Instead they should just limit how much better heavy tanks are then mediums. If going for multiple smaller tanks is just as effective as calling in the smaller stuff in a different way its fine. multiple tigers should be slow and vunerable from the rear. It would courage combined arms to have meduim tanks support the heavier ones because they can react to flanks better.
this,
because of the inherently high damage that most tanks do, it gives an impression that heavy tanks need to do more to justify its great cost. but when heavy tanks are given damage so high, they can 2-3 shot mediums while taking little in return.
the idea of heavy tanks is that it should not have insane upfront firepower, but it is able to engage all targets effectively and provide very good sustained firepower and damage soak when used properly. it should not be the end all of tank combat and rape every other tank in game.
all anti tank damage should be limited to 80dmg and 120dmg for dedicated tank destroyers and heaviest of tanks(paks, ZiS, elefants, tigers). 160dmg to is2 because it has a slow rate of fire. leave 240dmg to the pak emplacement. also reduce hp on elefants, tigers to equalize with is2, and panthers down to 720
and bring back the concept of rear armour. all guns and infantry AT, barring small arms, should have 100% penetration to rear armour.
these 2 changes should allow medium tanks to be more viable in tank combat, where they can actually escape from sustained tank fire and not get destroyed by alpha strikes from heavy tanks due to reduced lethality. rear armour working as intended would give swarms of medium tanks a fighting chance if they can get shots on rear armour.
Livestreams
79 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.653231.739+13
- 2.839223.790+2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.592234.717-1
- 5.278108.720+29
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.645.928+5
- 8.922406.694+1
- 9.1120623.643+1
- 10.265138.658+2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
0 post in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Maiex38098
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM