Login

russian armor

Proposal - Slowing down the heavies.

13 Mar 2015, 09:37 AM
#41
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 09:34 AMNeo
I think heavies should be slowed down in terms of when they arrive in the game, rather than physically.

KT is actually very balanced because you have to tech and it comes either very late or as a consequence of extreme map dominance. You cannot "hold out" for a KT.

This is not true for Soviet/OST heavy tanks with whole doctrines designed around avoiding teching beyond T2 (Mechanized Assault and Shock Rifle being prime examples).

I think the long term solution to this issue is to tie all call-ins to tech, thereby extending the midgame and forcing players to actually transition from medium tanks to late-game super heavies rather than skipping the mediums altogether.


I agree with p much everything in this post.

Ironically if the Elefant was in t4 like it was during beta, it would come in later than it does now!
13 Mar 2015, 09:38 AM
#42
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

No, he said heavy tanks needs to be slower, and tanks like IS-2 or Tiger would need greater raw reduction then KT as KT is already pretty slow and doesn't need to be much slower then it is.

While his numbers may be off, its the principle idea that is important here, you are focusing so much on the randomly thrown number that you are completely missing the point of the proposal.

Reading comprehension.

KT have its own balance problems, but speed(when not using combat blitz) isn't one.
13 Mar 2015, 09:41 AM
#43
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

I would prefer an inordinate popcap cost. If Tiger cost something like 42 popcap, people wouldn't be able to spam it. Same for IS-2/KT/Jagd/Ele of course.

These units make it too easy to hold out for a second one, maybe less so for KT and Jagdtiger but its still there.

And KT is not balanced for team games because OKW has a fuel cache income it absolutely should not recieve, and then it can have a Luftwaffe Supply support teammate.
13 Mar 2015, 09:47 AM
#44
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 09:38 AMKatitof
No, he said heavy tanks needs to be slower, and tanks like IS-2 or Tiger would need greater raw reduction then KT as KT is already pretty slow and doesn't need to be much slower then it is.

While his numbers may be off, its the principle idea that is important here, you are focusing so much on the randomly thrown number that you are completely missing the point of the proposal.

Reading comprehension.


That's the problem, heavy tanks are already slower than medium tanks. And slowing them down more is just going to result in infantry based AT walking all over heavy tanks because they can't bloody move fast enough.

You think dealing with Elefants and Jadg's is painful now? How about IS2's that can't move out of the line of fire before a second shot is taken, or how about Tigers that are dead the minute a Jackson spots it because the Jackson is several speed levels higher and has greater range.

Heavy tanks need a change, but it's not turning them into land ships.

And KT is not balanced for team games because OKW has a fuel cache income it absolutely should not recieve, and then it can have a Luftwaffe Supply support teammate.


The fuel income it gets from the caches is reduced, so it's entire consistent with the rest of OKW's income philosophy, but you are correct on the Luftwaffe Supply doctrine.
Neo
13 Mar 2015, 11:22 AM
#45
avatar of Neo

Posts: 471

And KT is not balanced for team games because OKW has a fuel cache income it absolutely should not recieve, and then it can have a Luftwaffe Supply support teammate.


This is a problem with Luftwaffe Supply, not the KT.
13 Mar 2015, 11:32 AM
#46
avatar of armatak

Posts: 170

I think it's fine as it is. The only difference is that they need to nerf handheld AT especially shreks on Volks.

The problem comes from the fact mediums cannot effectively flank OKW heavies to block/ram shoot in the back because volksblobs can effectively one shoot a lot of medium tanks. Another solution would be to make medium tanks still drive relatively fast even with damaged engine.
13 Mar 2015, 11:37 AM
#47
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 11:22 AMNeo


This is a problem with Luftwaffe Supply, not the KT.


Yes. As such, reduce their gains from supply, make them gain nothing from caches, change the salvage mechanic to scale with the vehicle size in return, and then nerf KT along with all the heavies by giving it an increased popcap.

Edit: To be exact, it's a problem with how OKW interacts with Luftwaffe Supply. The doctrine itself is completely fine.
13 Mar 2015, 11:38 AM
#48
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 11:32 AMarmatak
I think it's fine as it is. The only difference is that they need to nerf handheld AT especially shreks on Volks.

The problem comes from the fact mediums cannot effectively flank OKW heavies to block/ram shoot in the back because volksblobs can effectively one shoot a lot of medium tanks. Another solution would be to make medium tanks still drive relatively fast even with damaged engine.

That was pretty evident in last days Lennys game.
Lenny had SU-85 and 3 T34/76, he faces 2 shreck volks, 1 puppchen and 1 KT.
He managed to chase off volks and kill puppchen if I remember good, but KT wrecked every single piece of armor he had without ever going below 50%, that includes tanks blocking its reverse and shooting on its arse.

While that wasn't speed problem, but more of volks and KT being impervious from all sides to SU non doctrinal armor in this particular case, the general speed of heavies still prevents any flanking attempts when heavies are on the move and scoring engine damage on them is challenging to say the least.
13 Mar 2015, 11:46 AM
#49
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 09:34 AMNeo
KT is actually very balanced because you have to tech and it comes either very late or as a consequence of extreme map dominance. You cannot "hold out" for a KT.
Not so true for 3s and 4s, which is why I would favour actual in-game stat fixes.

(In b4 "team games lol". Games can be and have been balanced for team play first. If only Relic understood on which side their bread is buttered...)
13 Mar 2015, 11:59 AM
#50
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 09:34 AMNeo
I think heavies should be slowed down in terms of when they arrive in the game, rather than physically.

100% Agree

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 09:34 AMNeo

KT is actually very balanced because you have to tech and it comes either very late or as a consequence of extreme map dominance. You cannot "hold out" for a KT.

True, but i think it is a little too strong. If you do not have IS2, T34/85 with marked target you are generally F*****. Usf seems to require opponent to overextend to kill. I see many players prepare for KT and just loose due to bad luck or bad rng. I once had a game where 3 at guns fired a total of 9 shots at a KT without him moving and I did about 30% damage max.

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 09:34 AMNeo

This is not true for Soviet/OST heavy tanks with whole doctrines designed around avoiding teching beyond T2 (Mechanized Assault and Shock Rifle being prime examples).


The problem is when one opponent goes for heavies then the other player almost has to follow suit or the chances of winning are reduced. There really is no downside to going for heavy tank. Many better players will experiment with mediums/at guns/ at skill planes but most people want the easy win so will take the path of least resistance.

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 09:34 AMNeo

I think the long term solution to this issue is to tie all call-ins to tech, thereby extending the midgame and forcing players to actually transition from medium tanks to late-game super heavies rather than skipping the mediums altogether.


I would like to see some kind of downside for heavies. Teching should be required but if they still want to largely skip mediums then ok, but work it in a way that going multiple mediums has its own advantages. Tiger Ace is a good example of a heavy having some kind of downside ( note i am not saying Ace is totally balanced ).

Blitz is a real design failure, and really should be associated with allies as they should be flanking factions. Axis should have smoke as vet1 ability instead.

The rear armour on heavies should be reduced to reward flanking and punish someone who overextends, but also to punish poor micro. If someone doesn't micro a heavy properly to the extent that the heavy tank has it arse facing their opponent then the deserve some punishment.

Whatever changes are made should be done in the hope of opening up the game to various playstyles because as things stand atm it is a very linear game, which when you consider how many units and commanders are available is surprising..........
Neo
13 Mar 2015, 12:23 PM
#51
avatar of Neo

Posts: 471

Not so true for 3s and 4s, which is why I would favour actual in-game stat fixes.

(In b4 "team games lol". Games can be and have been balanced for team play first. If only Relic understood on which side their bread is buttered...)


Yeah, I only play 1s and 2s nowadays so can't really speak about KT in team games. I would think by the time he gets a KT you should have ISUs/IS2s, no?



The problem is when one opponent goes for heavies then the other player almost has to follow suit or the chances of winning are reduced. There really is no downside to going for heavy tank. Many better players will experiment with mediums/at guns/ at skill planes but most people want the easy win so will take the path of least resistance.


Exactly. The downside to holding out for heavies should be a long window of opportunity to completely push your opponent off the map with medium armour but right now that window is literally 2-3 minutes and not enough time to do real damage.

Unless you are absolutely dominating the map, going T3 as Soviet or Ostheer is just throwing the game away.
13 Mar 2015, 12:26 PM
#52
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 12:23 PMNeo


Yeah, I only play 1s and 2s nowadays so can't really speak about KT in team games. I would think by the time he gets a KT you should have ISUs/IS2s, no?



It's hard to get IS2 around 16min while KT, if rushed can hi the field around 16-19min.
13 Mar 2015, 12:57 PM
#53
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



It's hard to get IS2 around 16min while KT, if rushed can hi the field around 16-19min.

OKW+luftwaffe supply=14min KTs reliably :guyokay:
13 Mar 2015, 13:22 PM
#54
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Mar 2015, 12:57 PMKatitof

OKW+luftwaffe supply=14min KTs reliably :guyokay:


i have to confirm.

opponent gets first t34 out....faces KT :foreveralone:

fun times
13 Mar 2015, 13:46 PM
#55
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



i have to confirm.

opponent gets first t34 out....faces KT :foreveralone:

fun times


I think it's because of late war access to tons of fuel so let's not be that harsh.
OKW is about late war when Reisch had hundrens factories, tons of steel and unlimited fuel so no wonder why KT can hit the field at the same time when T34. Soviets war machine did not have so much fuel or steel to produce tanks so fast :foreveralone: :snfPeter:
13 Mar 2015, 14:11 PM
#56
avatar of Brick Top

Posts: 1162

I think the Kappa patch fix is a better way to approach it. Make calling a heavy WITHOUT tier 3 or 4 cost more.

On the other hand, in vcoh KT was like a 88 and bunker combined, and super slow. You deployed it to one point on map and slowly applied pressure with it. Redeploying it to other flank was a big oppertation. So if heavies more replicated that somehow, it might be nice.
13 Mar 2015, 14:36 PM
#57
avatar of After Effect

Posts: 67

This is an interesting point. Medium tanks are built because they are cheaper and come out sooner than heavy tanks, but in what 1v1 has the mobility of a medium tank ever given it an advantage over a heavy? I think a speed/acceleration change for heavies is a good way to make the tank dynamic more interesting without breaking other balance issues.
13 Mar 2015, 14:57 PM
#58
avatar of 5trategos

Posts: 449

Yes to the lower speed on heavies. In the past I had also suggested that heavies should be more vulnerable to engine dmg than other vehicles. I think that could work too.

Overall, I think the point is there needs to be more of a counter-play to heavies. Increasing their cost or requiring more tech can mitigate the problem but ultimately won't make for more interesting gameplay as long as heavies are just better versions of other units.

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

789 users are online: 789 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM