Login

russian armor

Is the King Tiger still worth 260 fuel?

PAGES (19)down
27 Apr 2015, 12:50 PM
#281
avatar of Losira420

Posts: 44

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Apr 2015, 23:42 PMZyllen


Wonderful argument . you really are the epitome of a skilled debater.. daspoulos already provided solid arguments why the kt needs to buffed and i will ad another one: fuel penalty. It means the ow units need to be flat out better then the other faction variants to compete. this is not true by a long shot.

from my 1vs1 experience with the okw its now a piss poor faction in 1vs1. And the greatest issue of the okw being to powerful in team games is still not addressed: namely the ostheer providing fuel caches

He is telling you KT was an I win button I don't expect anything better from him. Yes on his tier maybe because lack of micromanagement and missing of timings. This nerf just shows that relic sucumbs to the "OMG THIS OP" crying comunity rather than really fixing the problems in the game. Multiple times I made my point about KT being expensive, requires all trucks, teching, arrives late into the game and before him enemy can have 2 IS-2s by callin = no teching which own the map for 5-10 minutes. Fail logic of low tier Allies.
27 Apr 2015, 12:58 PM
#282
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

For all these comparisons to the IS2. We know relic is aware of the call in dominated meta. So this kt change might make perfect sense once the IS2 requires teching as well.

But KT is still a beast, especially on smaller maps. Maybe not as your first unit but once you have a Jagdpanzer on support with it it is brutal.
Blitz change was good, jackson change was good, maybe slighgty overdone and armor could be put to 400. BUT KT still murders infantry and that is the biggest problem wiht OKW. shrecks and raketen can deal with su85s and jacksons
27 Apr 2015, 13:05 PM
#283
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


He is telling you KT was an I win button I don't expect anything better from him. Yes on his tier maybe because lack of micromanagement and missing of timings. This nerf just shows that relic sucumbs to the "OMG THIS OP" crying comunity rather than really fixing the problems in the game. Multiple times I made my point about KT being expensive, requires all trucks, teching, arrives late into the game and before him enemy can have 2 IS-2s by callin = no teching which own the map for 5-10 minutes. Fail logic of low tier Allies.


I suppose you were zealously defending old TA the same way you defend old KT here, right?
"high cost justifies a-move IWIN button that hardcounters its hardcounters", correct?

If high cost justifies over the top performance, then I want old KV-2 and ISU with universal ammo back.
27 Apr 2015, 13:18 PM
#284
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2015, 07:32 AMKatitof

It doesn't forces you to single doctrine every game.
It have more HP then IS-2.
It have more penetration then IS-2(you could say its about the same, but how often do you ram heavy tanks into each other instead of keeping them at max range?).
It have 50% more AT DPS and incomparably better AI.
Its MG suppresses.
Its realistic armor value is still bigger then that of IS-2 because axis have AT with greater penetration overall.
That teching is cheapest in game and provides utility for cost that can't be compared to any other army that's how good it is.

Its pretty well worth its cost.
Had IS-2 or Tiger not require a doctrine choice I can see how they would be more expensive.
Had there be limit to 1 11+CP unit the discussion wouldn't even exist.


Would have been a fair assessment if the okw actually had the same amount of fuel. it doesnt.

And the bolded part is wrong. the allies have some of the highest dps units in the game and the axis heavy armour is going to face more dps from su85's and jacksons. one of the reason why the is2 is so awfully good against the okw is that they can bring very little dps to bear against it safe for the panther.
27 Apr 2015, 13:18 PM
#285
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

For all these comparisons to the IS2. We know relic is aware of the call in dominated meta. So this kt change might make perfect sense once the IS2 requires teching as well.

But KT is still a beast, especially on smaller maps. Maybe not as your first unit but once you have a Jagdpanzer on support with it it is brutal.
Blitz change was good, jackson change was good, maybe slighgty overdone and armor could be put to 400. BUT KT still murders infantry and that is the biggest problem wiht OKW. shrecks and raketen can deal with su85s and jacksons


Nobody is saying the KT is shit, what the issue is the KT isn't nearly as good as a combined arms army using the massive fuel investment it takes to get a KT. If I want to deal with enemy infantry I have a plentiful amount of options.

Panthers with Pak43 support, and a Sturmtiger will get you far more bang for your buck that a KT will. Similarly a Jadgtiger with support is a much wiser investment as well, it's also a call in.

The reason the IS2 and call in meta is broken is you don't need to make that investment choice since you get to skip teching.
27 Apr 2015, 13:28 PM
#286
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2015, 13:18 PMZyllen


Would have been a fair assessment if the okw actually had the same amount of fuel. it doesnt.

And the bolded part is wrong. the allies have some of the highest dps units in the game and the axis heavy armour is going to face more dps from su85's and jacksons. one of the reason why the is2 is so awfully good against the okw is that they can bring very little dps to bear against it safe for the panther.


AT DPS is highly dependent on the penetration of the weapon and armor of the target.
This is why PTRS isn't the ultimate AT weapon despite having best theoretical DPS.

This is also why Puma is awesome AT and SU-76 is garbage on tracks despite having comparable AT profile.

Yes, jackson is now great, but its DPS is only slightly better then that of Panther, but thats about it when it comes to allied AT sources being better then axis ones in general against most frequent targets.
27 Apr 2015, 14:12 PM
#287
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2015, 13:28 PMKatitof


AT DPS is highly dependent on the penetration of the weapon and armor of the target.
This is why PTRS isn't the ultimate AT weapon despite having best theoretical DPS.

This is also why Puma is awesome AT and SU-76 is garbage on tracks despite having comparable AT profile.

Yes, jackson is now great, but its DPS is only slightly better then that of Panther, but thats about it when it comes to allied AT sources being better then axis ones in general against most frequent targets.


The allied TD's are not lacking in penetration (40 and 20 less) and the slightly better damage is around 25% for the jackson (and lol at the jacksons vet 1 ability) and 50 % for the su85. whatever they lack in penetration they make up more then enough with much higher dps and being cheaper. and in the okw case being much cheaper. you can easily field 2 jacksons/su85 for each panther.

So saying that the allies lack heavy AT is wrong. In fact its the other way around.

Do you play 1vs1? let me tell you the okw struggles against the is2 simply because they lack the necessary damage to deal with the is2. this is part because of the callin meta but also because their are no fuel caches.
27 Apr 2015, 14:30 PM
#288
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2015, 14:12 PMZyllen


The allied TD's are not lacking in penetration (40 and 20 less) and the slightly better damage is around 25% for the jackson (and lol at the jacksons vet 1 ability) and 50 % for the su85. whatever they lack in penetration they make up more then enough with much higher dps and being cheaper. and in the okw case being much cheaper. you can easily field 2 jacksons/su85 for each panther.

So saying that the allies lack heavy AT is wrong. In fact its the other way around.

I never said allies are lacking in heavy AT, I just said that 375 armor value isn't equal for allies and axis, for example there is not a single allied unit with 350+ penetration while there are multiple axis ones. Also you are confusing DPS with Rate of Fire. DPS is a result of damage+rate of fire+penetration put against certain armor value and varies if the armor is greater then penetration depending on the armor.
Jackosn vet1 is bugged, at least the damage part, otherwise its one of the best TD abilities around.

Also please don't go certain other individuals way and don't compare units in vacuum, you'll never have just 2 SUs against panther, there will always be additional factors of all other units around. A pair of SU-85 isn't equally lethal to armor as 1 panther and 5 shreckvolks.



Do you play 1vs1? let me tell you the okw struggles against the is2 simply because they lack the necessary damage to deal with the is2. this is part because of the callin meta but also because their are no fuel caches.

Not enough to call myself a 1v1 player, but enough to understand what is going on there.
OKW problems against IS-2 do not originate from the IS-2 stats or OKW AT, but from the fact that they will inevitably fight a pair of them, just like allies will inevitably be forced to fight 2 tigers.

Biggest balance issue with heavy and super heavy armor is and always was the fact that they are not hard capped to one at a time, which is a direct cause of call-in meta and skipping tiers by sov and ost.
27 Apr 2015, 16:33 PM
#289
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

For all these comparisons to the IS2. We know relic is aware of the call in dominated meta. So this kt change might make perfect sense once the IS2 requires teching as well.

But KT is still a beast, especially on smaller maps. Maybe not as your first unit but once you have a Jagdpanzer on support with it it is brutal.
Blitz change was good, jackson change was good, maybe slighgty overdone and armor could be put to 400. BUT KT still murders infantry and that is the biggest problem wiht OKW. shrecks and raketen can deal with su85s and jacksons


i doubt people will notice 25 armour increase. this thread popped up about 4hrs into the patch. that says all.
27 Apr 2015, 16:56 PM
#290
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2015, 16:33 PMpigsoup


i doubt people will notice 25 armour increase. this thread popped up about 4hrs into the patch. that says all.


A 50 armor decrease is 20% more chance for all weapons to penetrate. So giving it 25 would just bring it up to being 10% easier to penetrate than before.
27 Apr 2015, 17:35 PM
#291
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



A 50 armor decrease is 20% more chance for all weapons to penetrate. So giving it 25 would just bring it up to being 10% easier to penetrate than before.


using 160 pen, it is either 37.5%(425) 40%(400) or 42.5%(375). much wow.
27 Apr 2015, 18:19 PM
#292
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

It's a matter of how you express yourself.

Saying 20% increase in penetration sounds bigger than saying, the chance of penetration change 4%/6%
28 Apr 2015, 08:02 AM
#293
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

It's a matter of how you express yourself.

Saying 20% increase in penetration sounds bigger than saying, the chance of penetration change 4%/6%


i disagree.

"A 50 armor decrease is 20% more chance for all weapons to penetrate"

using su85's far pen value of 180, lets look at two extreme scenarios. panzer 4's frontal armour is 180. so 50 armour decrease on p4 means nothing to su85.

jagdtiger's 525 frontal armour on the other hand means, ~34% to pen v. ~38% to pen.

it is silly to say straight up: "A 50 armor decrease is 20% more chance for all weapons to penetrate." it is almost as if the guy is trying to avoid mentioning KT's frontal armour value specifically to support his view. that's just me. may be i am paranoid.

i dont know why i used 160 pen value last time, but lets use 180 now.

425 frontal armour: 42.3% to pen, 400: 45% and 375: 48%.

i doubt some ppl on this thread asking for the armour change to 400 will notice that ~3 more bounces evey 100 shots they take. again, this thread popped up less than 24hrs after the patch(?)(what time is this site set on?) and by the looks of it reading it through again, the same ppl made up their mind then and there. much respect.
28 Apr 2015, 09:52 AM
#294
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2015, 14:30 PMKatitof

I never said allies are lacking in heavy AT, I just said that 375 armor value isn't equal for allies and axis, for example there is not a single allied unit with 350+ penetration while there are multiple axis ones. Also you are confusing DPS with Rate of Fire. DPS is a result of damage+rate of fire+penetration put against certain armor value and varies if the armor is greater then penetration depending on the armor.
Jackosn vet1 is bugged, at least the damage part, otherwise its one of the best TD abilities around.

Also please don't go certain other individuals way and don't compare units in vacuum, you'll never have just 2 SUs against panther, there will always be additional factors of all other units around. A pair of SU-85 isn't equally lethal to armor as 1 panther and 5 shreckvolks.




Not enough to call myself a 1v1 player, but enough to understand what is going on there.
OKW problems against IS-2 do not originate from the IS-2 stats or OKW AT, but from the fact that they will inevitably fight a pair of them, just like allies will inevitably be forced to fight 2 tigers.

Biggest balance issue with heavy and super heavy armor is and always was the fact that they are not hard capped to one at a time, which is a direct cause of call-in meta and skipping tiers by sov and ost.


Mate the only 400 + penetration units are extremely static and easy to avoid. But you are correct it depends on the situation.

As for the second part. yes its the stupid callin meta bullshit thats partly to blame. the okw also has major economy issues in 1vs1. facing 2 is2's is not a problem as long as you have enough fuel for panthers . The okw doesnt have enough fuel. The usf does have enough fuel to pump out 2 jacksons and deal with any tiger call ins. And the reason why i was pissed at the last balance patch. the nerfed the obers the only thing keeping the okw up in 1vs1 and still not addressing the 11 min KT because an ostheer player is using luftwaffe suplly doctrine.
28 Apr 2015, 15:06 PM
#295
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Apr 2015, 08:02 AMpigsoup

...


I think i didn't express myself correctly on an extended way.

I was gonna made the math and show up the change on penetration for each tank at 375-425 but got too lazy. The point is that the variance on penetration goes around those values.
I agree with you. The way Alex make his statements makes things appear bigger for what they really are.

"A 50 armor decrease is 20% more chance for all weapons to penetrate"
As i said, while actually true, this sounds way more than what it really is.

Ex: penetration of X goes from 10% to 12%
A normal person would say: it increased by 2%
Someone who wants to "hyperbole": it's 20% higher.
28 Apr 2015, 15:56 PM
#296
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



I think i didn't express myself correctly on an extended way.

I was gonna made the math and show up the change on penetration for each tank at 375-425 but got too lazy. The point is that the variance on penetration goes around those values.
I agree with you. The way Alex make his statements makes things appear bigger for what they really are.

"A 50 armor decrease is 20% more chance for all weapons to penetrate"
As i said, while actually true, this sounds way more than what it really is.

Ex: penetration of X goes from 10% to 12%
A normal person would say: it increased by 2%
Someone who wants to "hyperbole": it's 20% higher.


It's true but I don't suspect Alex of such deepness when he was writing this ;)
It was rather rage backed by nothing, with numbers from the sky.
28 Apr 2015, 17:33 PM
#297
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



It's true but I don't suspect Alex of such deepness when he was writing this ;)
It was rather rage backed by nothing, with numbers from the sky.


Phrasing means nothing when the end result is exactly the same, take issue with the result not how you get there.

Ultimately, as said earlier speed is the issue here, not armor.
29 Apr 2015, 13:54 PM
#298
avatar of OrangePest

Posts: 570 | Subs: 1

The king tiger is fine as it is
29 Apr 2015, 14:07 PM
#299
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1


Ultimately, as said earlier speed is the issue here, not armor.


I am such a glutton for punishment but...YOU, and yes I mean you, specifically said that you wanted the KT's armor and speed buffed, so the issue is both in your mind.

Guess what, if you see an American player investing heavily in AT defenses (aka Jacksons) then maybe, and this is gonna sound crazy, you should not invest heavily in a single breakthrough tank. Maybe, you should focus on getting out your own AT units, or just invest in infantry based units and ignore the Jacksons. You already said SU-85's are pretty irrelevant against KT so I won't even bother taking about them.

Alex you don't get an I win button for getting to the KT. You get access, as a bonus, to the only non-doctrinal heavy tank in the game, IF YOU WANT IT. If you don't want it you do not need to purchase it, and in many cases you should use something else. Personally I find Panther + Stuka a better investment most of the time, but would still use KT for some situations.

Please don't respond in this thread if you have nothing new to add, we all know you want to buff armor and speed. You made your point now move one.
6 May 2015, 17:46 PM
#300
avatar of Losira420

Posts: 44

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2015, 13:05 PMKatitof


I suppose you were zealously defending old TA the same way you defend old KT here, right?
"high cost justifies a-move IWIN button that hardcounters its hardcounters", correct?

If high cost justifies over the top performance, then I want old KV-2 and ISU with universal ammo back.

I made my point. It is like talking to a rock... Like the unit was overpowered in the first place. TA was imba and it got right kind of nerf that it deserved. KT is another case tho.
PAGES (19)down
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

707 users are online: 707 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49152
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM