Login

russian armor

Is the King Tiger still worth 260 fuel?

PAGES (19)down
7 May 2015, 06:43 AM
#321
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



Feel free to look up the penetration numbers I posted, they aren't wrong.



There is a "banned" sign under his picture. What do you expect from him?
7 May 2015, 18:06 PM
#322
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
Reduce its cost to 230 fuel and 640 mp

same as is2
8 May 2015, 21:30 PM
#323
avatar of Domine

Posts: 500

I think one of the things the KT needs(next to a price reduction) is bit more speed and most of all a higher turret rotation speed!

The turret rotation is a huge problem for the KT. It's supposed to be a flankable vehicle, but the rotation speed makes it possible for vehicles to flank it by simply approaching it from a 45° angle to the turret, and the kt cannot return fire.

Arguably with the price decrease there could be a slight AI nerf.
16 May 2015, 14:41 PM
#324
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post8 May 2015, 21:30 PMDomine
I think one of the things the KT needs(next to a price reduction) is bit more speed and most of all a higher turret rotation speed!

The turret rotation is a huge problem for the KT. It's supposed to be a flankable vehicle, but the rotation speed makes it possible for vehicles to flank it by simply approaching it from a 45° angle to the turret, and the kt cannot return fire.

Arguably with the price decrease there could be a slight AI nerf.


You need to manually rotate your KT so the turrent rotates faster. It's all about micro. The KT is fine speed wise, but not cost wise.
16 May 2015, 20:05 PM
#325
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
The king tiger is fine in all areas, except frontal armor. Don't you idiots see that the king tiger should stay slow and expensive? The whole fucking point was so it had really high frontal armor. Now it was unnecessarily nerfed. The only arguable points for king tiger being OP was that it had a little too much AOE and a little to high rear armor.

Reduce AOE to 3.5-3.0
Reduce rear armor from 225 to 180

Front armor to 425 from 375.
17 May 2015, 09:08 AM
#326
avatar of $nuffy

Posts: 129

KT's are good primarily for parade in an already won battle. I should know, I make one, or at least try to - in every game. If the game is least competitive, as soon as u manage to squeeze one out, you'll get spanked with the sudden T34/85 swarm, E8 swarm, double Jacksons + P47, double IS2's, or if you try to use it aggressively, you'll get a cold shower in the form of multiple SU's, or Zis guns.. It literally makes no sense unless you're steamrolling your opponents as it is. It's suposed to be a premium unit, but as of now, there's nothing really premium about it, except the looks of it.
Frontal armor needs to go back where it was, so at least you're rewarded for right positioning of the tank, and keeping it's flanks secure. And I never understood why unit so expensive doesn't have more versatile upgrades available ? Engine upgrade for fuel ? Zimmerit upgrade to the armor ? Advanced optics for range etc. So what if someone wants to invest a shitload of resources to one beast of a unit ? It's highly risky for morale and economy to lose such bag of gold., and sort of high satisfactory if u manage to turn some tides with it.

but I guess it's better to encourage the meta of making the 5th volks squad equipped with 90ammo shreck ...
17 May 2015, 10:36 AM
#327
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

Reduce its cost to 230 fuel and 640 mp

same as is2


This.
17 May 2015, 11:12 AM
#328
avatar of TheSleep3r

Posts: 670



This.


This would decrease its cost to the cost of Tiger, and I'm sure the Tiger is not as effective as King Tiger.
17 May 2015, 12:16 PM
#329
avatar of G4bb4_G4nd4lf
Donator 33

Posts: 658



This would decrease its cost to the cost of Tiger


It wouldn't because of A) less fuel income and B) you have to tech in order to unlock it.
17 May 2015, 12:45 PM
#330
avatar of Corsin

Posts: 600

I think the KT price would be fine if the OKW income rates were put up to 100% (since with all the nerf hammers, they dont really need the massive income disadvantage anymore)...

KT is overpriced for something that will be hardcountered by a marked target and 2 jacksons since it cant get out of there fast enough and will die in 5 shots from that combination.

Either cheaper or a speed increase or resource rate to 100%.

As it is now... No is the answer to this thread.

Its better to just field a panther and a stukka for almost the same price.
17 May 2015, 16:53 PM
#331
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
No? Putting frontal armor back to before isn't the way? Fucking up entire okw faction by putting resource rate to 100% is? Making it unrealistically fast is? Making it same cost as tiger or is2 is? No. Its not.
17 May 2015, 17:04 PM
#332
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

The cost of the KT versus the Tiger should have no bearing on the discussion. They are units from different factions.

No OKW player has Tigers, no Ostheer player has King Tigers. Not to mention Tigers are doctrinal, and King Tigers are stock units.
17 May 2015, 17:05 PM
#333
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



This would decrease its cost to the cost of Tiger, and I'm sure the Tiger is not as effective as King Tiger.

Damage to 160, AoE to Tiger level and why not.
17 May 2015, 17:06 PM
#334
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
The fucking point is, king tigers shouodn't be able to be more easily pumped out. The very possibility of getting 2 is a stupid idea. Lowering its cost just makes that more likely.
17 May 2015, 17:33 PM
#335
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978

Lowering the cost wouldn´t do the unit any good.

What do I want with two slow behemoths that get instantly defeated by skill planes, Jacksons and mark target?

What it needs is survivability. It´s the most heavily armored tank of the war for Christs sake. Increase health and frontal armor. Decrease the splash damage, so it doesn´t oneshot infantry to compensate. Keeping your frontal armor at the enemy should be rewarded. Flanking used to be one of Cohs strong points.
18 May 2015, 04:44 AM
#336
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

I feel like heavy tanks should get a side armor stat. I wouldn't mind if the KT got its front armor back if I could actually penetrate its 80mm sides/rear

Failing that I could never support it getting its armor back. Unless the OKW player was retarded you weren't killing that thing
18 May 2015, 18:36 PM
#337
avatar of Rocket

Posts: 728

Pff do you know how many 85's or e8's it takes us to actually take that thing out. The way it use to be I would completely suprise it with my e8s lets say 5 of them completely surrounding it and some behind it some how it would still manage to just back its ass up against a building or something like that and boom I end up losing all my tanks because they could not pen the front or sides reliably enough that the at guns are targeting my tanks now and the shrek mobs have arrived and there always shreks somewhere nearby. The result a lot of times was even tho I caught it out of position it could still manage to survive with say only needing like one pen hit left to kill. That thing was auto loss for a heavy USF force in 4v4. Part of the reason they lowered the armor I believe was so the jackson could reliably pen it which it should its mostly the only answer the USF had for it but then they would not reliably pen it and the jackson is so susceptible to other AT. If they put the armor back to where it is then it needs to take much more dmg faster in the ass. Also there are plenty of maps where it is near impossible to properly flank with with mediums.
18 May 2015, 19:03 PM
#338
avatar of gman1211

Posts: 133

I actually recently started playing OKW to try and give myself some prospective on the faction. The King Tiger is fine. Sure, you can't use it hyper aggressively, but you shouldn't have to. The thing is a full house so to speak. It annihilates infantry, one shots squads on a regular basis and its still tough and mobile enough to go head to head with other tanks.

The key is you can't push as far as you would with other tanks, you have to "slow push" with it. Pop out, kill a few infantry squads, put a shot on a tank or two, retreat the Tiger, push up with infantry. It works best when you use it as a tool of attrition. OKW repair speeds allow it to get back into combat faster then any other faction (Exception being soviet when they pick the industry commander).

I think the problem is that all these noob OKW players lost their "I WIN" button. Now you have to use it like every other tank, with proper support and micro.
18 May 2015, 19:11 PM
#339
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



This would decrease its cost to the cost of Tiger, and I'm sure the Tiger is not as effective as King Tiger.


The Tiger can get 50 range, is faster and is a call in. The IS2 can cause huge problems for a KT and it costs the same amount as a Tiger tank.
18 May 2015, 20:04 PM
#340
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484



The Tiger can get 50 range, is faster and is a call in. The IS2 can cause huge problems for a KT and it costs the same amount as a Tiger tank.


1 v 1 KT will eat IS-2, people forget they can rotate the whole tank at the same time as turret.
PAGES (19)down
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

824 users are online: 824 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM