Rule of 2
- This thread is locked
Posts: 49
Posts: 609
Posts: 673
But... I see problem with that limit and some medium tanks. Panther, Comet and Churchill - they are not really much different from heavy tanks. Churchill itself is uber-heavy (if we look at HP), Comet performs like little downgraded version of Tiger 1 with seriously buffed range of fire and Panther is really near to be called "Heavy".
And all those "mediums" are not limited at all! What do you think - should they be limited as "medium-heavy" tanks somehow?
P.S. Funny case with KV-series tanks. They all are "heavy", but limited only KV-2. It's not such a big deal, of course, but looks really strange...
Posts: 168
That's actually right, that you can call only 1 heavy at once. Not sure, that it should be changed somehow.
But... I see problem with that limit and some medium tanks. Panther, Comet and Churchill - they are not really much different from heavy tanks. Churchill itself is uber-heavy (if we look at HP), Comet performs like little downgraded version of Tiger 1 with seriously buffed range of fire and Panther is really near to be called "Heavy".
And all those "mediums" are not limited at all! What do you think - should they be limited as "medium-heavy" tanks somehow?
P.S. Funny case with KV-series tanks. They all are "heavy", but limited only KV-2. It's not such a big deal, of course, but looks really strange...
commet <tiger\panther
Churchill isant so sceary he is just there
pershing <panther\tiger
pershing is a heavy tank in this game, panther wins it 1 v 1 so ye pls limit panther thx
Posts: 1216
All doctrinal units had clear differences in advantages compared to stock units, and almost all of them are either more expensive as compensation, or deliberately sucky but comes earlier and cheaper. Tigers compared to Panthers etc are no different.
If they ninja-changed the game so you could in fact call in unlimited heavies besides King Tiger and Tiger Ace, I'm 99% sure no one would ever notice...nor ever take advantage of it. And before you say "well what's the point then?" I cite their removal of duplicate bulletins: the point is just design decision, nothing more.
Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1
The limitation really just forced from one popular meta to making another, which I'm sure was the intention. That they didn't limit Churchills or KV-1s pretty much exemplifies this being flawed logic, but what the hell it changes the game lelic style, right?
All doctrinal units had clear differences in advantages compared to stock units, and almost all of them are either more expensive as compensation, or deliberately sucky but comes earlier and cheaper. Tigers compared to Panthers etc are no different.
If they ninja-changed the game so you could in fact call in unlimited heavies besides King Tiger and Tiger Ace, I'm 99% sure no one would ever notice...nor ever take advantage of it. And before you say "well what's the point then?" I cite their removal of duplicate bulletins: the point is just design decision, nothing more.
Not really, when have you ever seen multiple Churchills and KV-1s be a game winner? The Churchill is not what it was and the fact that they were designated "heavy" in real life means little for a game. Relic will use their own arbitrary rating for vehicles and it makes sense to not limit these. People have to remember historical accuracy is not the way to balance a game.
Yeah, doctrines are where the heavy hitters lie.
I think you underestimate the playerbase. Once a Shock Rifle spammer, always a Shock Rifle spammer. The return of unlimited heavies or capped at two would stop most of the evolving meta, and whilst some people have adapted, you'd get situations where a large proportion of the playerbase is again abusing this lack of restriction or losing to it, with only the well practised who can play around it. It was never fun, it was really boring and medium and light vehicle play is where this game shines.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
The limitation really just forced from one popular meta to making another, which I'm sure was the intention. That they didn't limit Churchills or KV-1s pretty much exemplifies this being flawed logic, but what the hell it changes the game lelic style, right?
All doctrinal units had clear differences in advantages compared to stock units, and almost all of them are either more expensive as compensation, or deliberately sucky but comes earlier and cheaper. Tigers compared to Panthers etc are no different.
If they ninja-changed the game so you could in fact call in unlimited heavies besides King Tiger and Tiger Ace, I'm 99% sure no one would ever notice...nor ever take advantage of it. And before you say "well what's the point then?" I cite their removal of duplicate bulletins: the point is just design decision, nothing more.
You loved so much the Tiger/IS2 stall meta to say that? limiting them by 1 was the best move taken about those units.
Posts: 37
Allow heavy vehicles to be built to a maximum number of two instead of one.
Why?
Posts: 1216
You loved so much the Tiger/IS2 stall meta to say that? limiting them by 1 was the best move taken about those units.
No, I've only ever managed to get multiple heavies when I was either winning very well, or it was clearly a move that has it's disadvantages (ie I'd not have the resources to get other units to support them), or to put it more plainly, not playing the game OR losing ground because I or a teammate wanted to hoard resources for a second Tiger...which pu plainly, just means I'm losing.
In the former, it had no bearing on the game' outcome since it was already decided, and the latter it would have required the sort of play that left you without many other units you might need in lieu of a second Tiger or Elefant, almost always a dumb move unless you just wanted to fool around since the enemy was already kicking your ass. Given the cost of a second heavy call-in, you're investing into a tactic that is less likely to work compared to if you went multiple Panzer 4s instead.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
No, I've only ever managed to get multiple heavies when I was either winning very well, or it was clearly a move that has it's disadvantages (ie I'd not have the resources to get other units to support them), or to put it more plainly, not playing the game OR losing ground because I or a teammate wanted to hoard resources for a second Tiger...which pu plainly, just means I'm losing.
In the former, it had no bearing on the game' outcome since it was already decided, and the latter it would have required the sort of play that left you without many other units you might need in lieu of a second Tiger or Elefant, almost always a dumb move unless you just wanted to fool around since the enemy was already kicking your ass. Given the cost of a second heavy call-in, you're investing into a tactic that is less likely to work compared to if you went multiple Panzer 4s instead.
It is largely possible to field 2 tigers or 2 IS2 or 2 Pershing in a 1vs1 game, you just need to have a balanced match that last a bit longer than usual.
Being able to field 2 heavy generalist units isn't something we don't know the outcome. And we are all happy to not have it anymore.
Posts: 1740
If there is no 'good' discussion coming up, I'm gonna close this thread.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Posts: 1355
I remember games where players had 90 pop cap with 2 heavy tanks and 3 Inf units. No combined arms at all.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 794
No thanks.
Posts: 1740
If you think otherwise PM me and I may reopen it.
Livestreams
17 | |||||
1 | |||||
183 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.943411.696-1
- 4.715.934+12
- 5.35659.858+2
- 6.599234.719+7
- 7.278108.720+29
- 8.307114.729+3
- 9.269143.653+2
- 10.10629.785+7
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
13 posts in the last week
32 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, hillofsteel
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM