Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
i think we should simply ignore the australian troll. maybe he will get some better hobby. like playing with kangaroos or something
Posts: 414
Sure, usually I don't deal with such extremely biased posts since it's mostly fruitless to discuss with such people, but if you insist...
The blatant OP-ness of OKW from the very start and their 1.5 year dominance in everything above 1v1 can just be ignored right?
Emplacements are ok on their own, only certain commanders gave unbalanced advantages. Tulips are not hard to evade and avoid. The best tanks are still Axis sided. The Panther outperforms the Comet in veterancy bonuses, cost and unit synergy. The crocodile is like an overpriced KV-8 to feed the enemy tanks vet.
The best medium tank destroyer is still the JP4 with superior veterancy and survivability. The OKW P4 becomes the best Anti-Infantry medium with vet. The Stug is the most cost efficient tank destroyer. The KT is non-doctrinal and one of the deadliest foes for tanks and infantry alike. JT and Elefant are just blatantly OP on many maps and negate any kind of armor play. And then there are doctrinal aura tanks with +50% dmg abilities or 20% damage reduction.
Obersoldaten are still the best anti-infantry when gaining veterancy. OKW Schrecks are cancerous since day 1.
--> see Australian Magic's post
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
And I'm biased?
Tulips are bs. After one shot from a comet and a sherman, the tulips will kill a panther.
Okw was OP, now they aren't. If you want to keep the British the way they are then give me OKW at their release.
Posts: 414
No worries, Im ignoring members without PC or a single replay for a quite long time
You also cant take seriously players like sinthe when he has 12 games as allies in total while over 800 as axis.
Posts: 414
Rememeber that all these OP statements come from a guy with 0.4 axis ratio.
I smell L2P rather that OPness of Brits.
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
Explain to me how any of my statements are false.
For example Panther vs Comet
P C
Manpower cost 490 500
Fuel cost 200 185
Speed (max) 6.6 6.9
Armor 320 290
Rear armor 110 180
Target size 24 22
Reload time 7.38 6.28
Penetration 240 190
Accuracy .04/.06 .03/.06
scattermaxdist 8 4.2
Area distance 0.25 / 0.15 1.50 / 0.25
Area damage x 0.05 / 1.00 0.20 / 1.00
Moving accuracy 0.65 0.75
P4(okw) vs Cromwell
Cromwell has better penetration, AOE, moving accuarcy, 20mp cheaper, 40 fuel cheaper, faster, faster rotation, and a smaller target size.
P4 only really beats it in armour.
A King Tiger is target size 26. How is it that the target size of a p4 is only 4 below that and cromwell is 4 below the p4? or that a Comet is the same size as the P4?
 | Playercard of RedT3rror | |||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 1740
true. it can shoot one time, 2s later its almost dead due to UP cancer pit. then react and move back to the healing station
Posts: 414
About Comet vs. Panther:
I like how you compare a dedicated Anti-tank unit with an allround unit. You are also doing a good job by ignoring: veterancy bonuses, tech cost, cost difference between factions, unit synergy, units and weaponry which they are up against, secondary guns, counters etc.
The Cromwell has better penetration that's right, by 9%, but the OKW P4 has better armor by 46%. You also haven't taken a proper look at the AoE, have you? P4 cannon does full damage at distance 0.75, Cromwell at 0.25. The deadly distance for the P4 is 1.125, and I don't know about the Cromwell, but I'm sure you can backup your claim.
Just like with the Panther vs. Comet you are ignoring veterancy, secondary guns and fought units.
Mind showing me your playercard?
Posts: 1096
I'm comparing the panther and comet because the comet is a much better tank than the panther even considering that the panther is supposed to be a TD. The comet can easily best a panther 1v1.
What does it matter if the cromwell has less armour when you can have 2 of them before I have 1 p4? and they are better in their anti inf role.
Explain to me why a cromwell is sized the same as a puma?
Then instead of listing the potential contextual differences, can you explain why they matter? I am making a very broad statement that the stuff the british has is better than what everyone else has based on a cost benefit metric. Ie. It costs less and performs better.
What's the point of have a tank that vets better if you can just tulip 60% of a panthers full health?
Why does my player card matter? Are you one of these playercard bullies that I keep hearing about?
Posts: 1617
Posts: 738
Land mattress, This unit shouldn't even exist. It's not like brits don't have enough arty already.
Relic developers are truly Brit fanboys.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Are you just going to continue making ad hominems? or do you have a position that relates to the arguement at hand?
Like for example that british tanks are very inexpensive for their performance and axis tanks are very expensive for their performance.
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
I'm comparing the panther and comet because the comet is a much better tank than the panther even considering that the panther is supposed to be a TD. The comet can easily best a panther 1v1.
What does it matter if the cromwell has less armour when you can have 2 of them before I have 1 p4? and they are better in their anti inf role.
Explain to me why a cromwell is sized the same as a puma?
Then instead of listing the potential contextual differences, can you explain why they matter? I am making a very broad statement that the stuff the british has is better than what everyone else has based on a cost benefit metric. Ie. It costs less and performs better.
What's the point of have a tank that vets better if you can just tulip 60% of a panthers full health?
Why does my player card matter? Are you one of these playercard bullies that I keep hearing about?
| Playercard of RedT3rror | |||||||||||||||
|
Posts: 90
Well, yes I'd consider myself as a "playercard bully". And why does your playercard matter? Because it's the easiest way to dismiss fanboys and people with L2P problems instead of proving them they are wrong in a long and exhausting discussion while they eventually won't step down from their biased view. It's a good filter.
Posts: 414
No, the Comet can not easily 1v1 a Panther. The Panther wins most of the time (there´s a nice video of multiple Panthers fighting 1v1 with Comets, we had this discussion about the Comet multiple times).
Regarding the Cromwell and P4, both tanks have completely different roles. The Cromwell sucks in AI while the P4 does very well in that. The Cromwell is for swarming axis armor.
Each faction has different strengths and weaknesses. The Brits have the most cost efficient medium tank and very good AT options. However, they lack in the AI department and have problems acting offensively with their infantry.
The "high" price of OKW vehicles is justified by their superiour veterancy. You clearly fail to see the point of faction diversity and complain why unit x outperforms unit y in a vacuum.
Well, yes I'd consider myself as a "playercard bully". And why does your playercard matter? Because it's the easiest way to dismiss fanboys and people with L2P problems instead of proving them they are wrong in a long and exhausting discussion while they eventually won't step down from their biased view. It's a good filter.
Posts: 1248
I would take the comet over the panther every time.
What you seem to be discounting is the fact the panther have a considerably longer reload/cool down. The comet on the other hand he much better rear armour, speed and accuracy on the move. Once the panther is forced to move any advantage it had was gone. Missing a shot for a panther is not a good situation. As for the veterancy, comets get much faster and gets better turret rotation. Generally speed/mobility/consistency > amour/health.
I will admit to recieving a great deal of satisfaction playing axis, I enjoy the tanks. I think your the fan boy, because there is an obvious powerlevel/cost issue here and your standing with you feet dug in pretending like it's not an issue.
I don't think I said anything was secifically OP, I said that the cost of the units/emplacements was more efficient than any of their counterparts measured up against any faction.
1v1 for both okw and oh, I have over 50% W/L. Most of my games played recently are with my friend, who doesn't even own his own computer, on my 2 gaming rigs.
Two major points. Bring the cost in line with the performance of the rest of the factions. Nothing is op except for the Bofors in 2v2.
Posts: 414
Posts: 1930
Posts: 1124
 |
|
|
45 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
7 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
100 | ||
 |
|
|
47 | ||
 |
|
|
27 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
