I felt that original KT requirement was a good concept. To field the KT you had to have all 3 trucks up and operational. If you ignored the trucks, you let him have the KT.
Now they can just call it in whether or not you have destroyed the truck. If I destroy a flak hq, my opponent will just say "Welp, better save for the KT now". Depending on the situation, I didn't hurt him at all.
Can we return the requirement to have all 3 trucks up at all times in order to get the KT? I felt that at least encourages me to counter it early.
EDIT:
I have been corrected that it wasn't a requirement but here is my response
"Well first I apologize since I thought that was how it always was. That just means all my efforts of destroying their Flak HQ are pretty much in vain.
Secondly they could reduce the cost of the KT itself with the requirement. I'd like an opportunity to deprive them of the KT."
Can We Return the KT Requirement?
9 Jan 2016, 09:12 AM
#1
Posts: 320
9 Jan 2016, 09:18 AM
#2
Posts: 609
That was actually never a requirement, as far as I can remember. Since Alpha you just had to drop the trucks and you were good, even if they got wrecked.
9 Jan 2016, 09:54 AM
#3
Posts: 1124
Fuel tech requirment is 40+40+120=200
KT. = 310
Total = 510
Then you want to make it possibly 550 or 630 fuel. I don't think so friend.
KT. = 310
Total = 510
Then you want to make it possibly 550 or 630 fuel. I don't think so friend.
9 Jan 2016, 10:03 AM
#4
Posts: 254
That was actually never a requirement, as far as I can remember. Since Alpha you just had to drop the trucks and you were good, even if they got wrecked.
correct!
9 Jan 2016, 10:09 AM
#5
Posts: 558 | Subs: 1
it would be nice if they would change it.
9 Jan 2016, 21:07 PM
#6
Posts: 320
Fuel tech requirment is 40+40+120=200
KT. = 310
Total = 510
Then you want to make it possibly 550 or 630 fuel. I don't think so friend.
Well first I apologize since I thought that was how it always was. That just means all my efforts of destroying their Flak HQ are pretty much in vain.
Secondly they could reduce the cost of the KT itself with the requirement. I'd like an opportunity to deprive them of the KT.
9 Jan 2016, 21:27 PM
#7
Posts: 707
Well first I apologize since I thought that was how it always was. That just means all my efforts of destroying their Flak HQ are pretty much in vain.
Secondly they could reduce the cost of the KT itself with the requirement. I'd like an opportunity to deprive them of the KT.
So making him unable to build Ober/JP4/Pz IV/Panther is in vain?
Try surviving until a KT with volks and no armor.
Playercard: http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198005198550
My Theater of War Guide, Every missions on General/achievements/Grand Strategy:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=309197460
My Guide of Using German Voices with English Text Tweak:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=492709499
CoH2 Epic Moments Index:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=573921959
My Theater of War Guide, Every missions on General/achievements/Grand Strategy:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=309197460
My Guide of Using German Voices with English Text Tweak:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=492709499
CoH2 Epic Moments Index:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=573921959
10 Jan 2016, 02:03 AM
#8
4 Posts: 1194 | Subs: 1
I think this should be how the KT works anyways. Its kind of silly that killing an OKW HQ only means that your opponent can just wait a bit longer and get a KT out.
And yes Siuking, it is quite easy to just rely on volks, doctrinal infantry, and raketans until the KT arrives. (AT = volks + rak, AI = elite infantry supported by volks and/or light armor).
And yes Siuking, it is quite easy to just rely on volks, doctrinal infantry, and raketans until the KT arrives. (AT = volks + rak, AI = elite infantry supported by volks and/or light armor).
10 Jan 2016, 07:37 AM
#9
Posts: 1026
I don't ever recall destroying the trucks preventing it they only had to be built at some stage. Not even simultaneously.
I support requiring all three trucks. OR, if we're adding side-grades, then making it so all three side-grades are required (each sidegrade would be like 15 fuel or 20 depending on how good they were).
I support requiring all three trucks. OR, if we're adding side-grades, then making it so all three side-grades are required (each sidegrade would be like 15 fuel or 20 depending on how good they were).
10 Jan 2016, 08:01 AM
#10
7 Posts: 1664
+1 It would make sense. If you want to wait it out for a KT you need more conservative truck placements.
10 Jan 2016, 08:59 AM
#11
5 Posts: 243
If you try to "rush" KT you have to spent 1620 MP & 550 Fuel.
Current stats of KT is good but not that great.
Current stats of KT is good but not that great.
10 Jan 2016, 16:51 PM
#12
Posts: 593
I felt that original KT requirement was a good concept. To field the KT you had to have all 3 trucks up and operational. If you ignored the trucks, you let him have the KT.
Now they can just call it in whether or not you have destroyed the truck. If I destroy a flak hq, my opponent will just say "Welp, better save for the KT now". Depending on the situation, I didn't hurt him at all.
Can we return the requirement to have all 3 trucks up at all times in order to get the KT? I felt that at least encourages me to counter it early.
true never thought about that, but I always felt like if they were gna make this change make the kt have a waaay longer build time
10 Jan 2016, 17:16 PM
#13
Posts: 232
I saw the pre-buff KT as a sort of come back mechanism for the OKW. A way to compensate for the fuel penalty and wait time when losing trucks. Since neither of those apply anymore I'd fully support requiring all three deployed and active.
10 Jan 2016, 17:24 PM
#14
Posts: 211
yes, BUT...
it should still be a call-in
(maybe get a little boost to compensate)
The good thing about the "all trucks must live" requirement: It involves decision making: Should i place agressive trucks? But maybe loose kt access over it.
Currently, it's silly how reckless truck placement can still result in a fielded kt.
But maybe then it could use a slight boost to compensate (price or whatever)
i could be wrong, though, it just seems logical to me
it should still be a call-in
(maybe get a little boost to compensate)
The good thing about the "all trucks must live" requirement: It involves decision making: Should i place agressive trucks? But maybe loose kt access over it.
Currently, it's silly how reckless truck placement can still result in a fielded kt.
But maybe then it could use a slight boost to compensate (price or whatever)
i could be wrong, though, it just seems logical to me
10 Jan 2016, 17:43 PM
#15
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
KT does not require all buildings to be set up because it is designed as a last stand unit. Making it require all tech would eliminate it from game.
Side note: Currently destroying base HQ makes no difference on gameplay. It is only a very limited role since it means you won't be able to build the units that it constructs. By the time it dies you should already have these units and should not need to build more. In fact it can act like a boost since it allows multiple engineer units to be called in at discount.
Side note: Currently destroying base HQ makes no difference on gameplay. It is only a very limited role since it means you won't be able to build the units that it constructs. By the time it dies you should already have these units and should not need to build more. In fact it can act like a boost since it allows multiple engineer units to be called in at discount.
10 Jan 2016, 17:48 PM
#16
1 Posts: 615
OKW can be really aggressive with their HQs without any consequences for losing them. They can lose all three of their HQs and still bring out King Tigers backed up by Volks because that is all you need.
This is a terrible design that needs fixing ASAP.
This is a terrible design that needs fixing ASAP.
 | Playercard of NorthWeapon | |||||||||||||||||||
|
COH2 YouTube Channel
I'm making a videogame based off of CoH2
11 Jan 2016, 08:55 AM
#17
Posts: 301
Hello.
Destroying a flak HQ is never in vain.
Kozo.
Destroying a flak HQ is never in vain.
Kozo.
...For conflict is the great teacher,
and pain... the perfect educator...
and pain... the perfect educator...
12 Jan 2016, 07:44 AM
#18
Posts: 609
Personally, I like the idea of requiring all the trucks on the field. That being said, I'd also suggest shifting some of its rear armor to front armor and toning down the AoE a little bit so its less vulnerable to Jackson kites but is more vulnerable to flanking mediums and infantry counters.
12 Jan 2016, 08:16 AM
#19
2 
Posts: 1108
OKW can be really aggressive with their HQs without any consequences for losing them. They can lose all three of their HQs and still bring out King Tigers backed up by Volks because that is all you need.
This is a terrible design that needs fixing ASAP.
loosing all three tiers without no consequence
No medic and no repair anymore. | Playercard of MoerserKarL | |||||||||||||||||||
|
12 Jan 2016, 09:12 AM
#20
Posts: 320
loosing all three tiers without no consequence
Well not having a repair point just puts them in the position of every other faction.
Destroying the medic bunker hurts(losing access to healing and units), but it's only 200 MP and 25 fuel if I recall, that won't set them back that hard.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
8 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
22 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
0 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35458.859+3
- 4.939410.696+5
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265
Board Info
962 users are online:
962 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49989
Welcome our newest member, LegalMetrologyConsul
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, LegalMetrologyConsul
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM