Login

russian armor

Kyle wants feedback on the PIV

PAGES (10)down
3 Dec 2016, 19:32 PM
#101
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

The way you word it it sounds like the StuG is the reason people dont build Panthers. But even if there was no StuG in the game, I wouldn´t build the Panther.

If there was not stug in the game Wer would be unplayable, one would never reach Tech 4 and thus one would never built a Panther...

The Stug is simply too cost efficient and it can even fight super heavy tanks. Direct result of that is that Panther has not been looked at although it has become cost inefficient with the arrival of m36s and fireflies that can penetrate and kill it with 4 shots.

So in a sense yea the performance of the stug is directly related with the state of the Panther.

If you are interested you can find more about my opinion here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57834/kyle-wants-feedback-on-the-piv/page/3

In Relic's effort to provide counters to they Super heavy Axis vehicles, axis mediums become cost inefficient...
3 Dec 2016, 19:59 PM
#102
avatar of The Red Zaku

Posts: 31

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 19:32 PMVipper

If there was not stug in the game Wer would be unplayable, one would never reach Tech 4 and thus one would never built a Panther...

The Stug is simply too cost efficient and it can even fight super heavy tanks. Direct result of that is that Panther has not been looked at although it has become cost inefficient with the arrival of m36s and fireflies that can penetrate and kill it with 4 shots.

So in a sense yea the performance of the stug is directly related with the state of the Panther.

If you are interested you can find more about my opinion here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/57834/kyle-wants-feedback-on-the-piv/page/3

In Relic's effort to provide counters to they Super heavy Axis vehicles, axis mediums become cost inefficient...


I'm not sure that I agree with your logic here. You're arguing that a specialized AT platform is over performing because it can handle allied heavy tanks (the allies don't have super heavy tanks). In that case isn't the jackson OP? It has the ability to do significant damage to even the KT and has high mobility combined with a ludicrously fast repair speed at only a slightly higher cost to the stug.
The stug pays for its low cost with its poor maneuverability and limited firing arc. Its absurdness only really comes in once it hits vet 3, which it can only reach by doing significant damage to vehicles. Even at its max vet it still is quite easy to flank and requires (not insignificant) support in order to leverage its advantages. If there was an aspect where the stug was over performing it would be target weakspot's ability to simultaneously blind and stun an enemy tank, not its actual stats.
3 Dec 2016, 20:07 PM
#103
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


I'm not sure that I agree with your logic here. You're arguing that a specialized AT platform is over performing because it can handle allied heavy tanks (the allies don't have super heavy tanks). In that case isn't the jackson OP?


First Super heavy vehicles are the ones limited to 1 (according to Relic), thus all faction have them.

Second if you read my post you will see that M36 imo is also OP for the exact opposite it reason, it is to good VS mediums. It can hit and penetrate PZ4 at range 60 with almost 100% and it can hit, penetrate and kill Panther with 4 shots reliably.

The Panther by comparison was far better designed before WFA since it was a stock counter to IS-2, KV-2, ISU-152 but its low rate of fire made a non cost efficient counter to T-34/76 or T-34/85 that could swarm it.

In order for the current balance of tank to work T4 stock units need to be good vs Super heavy and less effective Vs medium tanks giving some breathing room to medium tanks especially the more expensive axis one that have less shock value.

The same way T3 TDs need to be less effective vs Heavy and Super heavy tanks making the teching to T4 more important if the opponent chose to use them.

There is a need for "medium tank destroyers" and "heavy tank destroyers".
3 Dec 2016, 20:11 PM
#104
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 16:28 PMAradan


But i play both side. I want to have the same chance of winning, regardless of the selected side.


Oh I know. That is not the point I made! I was not saying that you were in any shape a biased fanboy :)
3 Dec 2016, 20:14 PM
#105
avatar of Justin xv

Posts: 255


In that case isn't the jackson OP? It has the ability to do significant damage to even the KT and has high mobility combined with a ludicrously fast repair speed at only a slightly higher cost to the stug.


So the Jackson is OP because it can do significant damage to the KT? You realize that is the only non-doc unit in the USF arsenal that's capable of dealing with the KT right? And it's OP?

And you have Vipper saying the Jackson is OP because it kills medium tanks properly?

Listening to people like you two would be a dire mistake on Relic's end. Wow.
3 Dec 2016, 20:41 PM
#106
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


And you have Vipper saying the Jackson is OP because it kills medium tanks properly?


So you see nothing wrong with the fact that a Firefly can alpha strike a vet 3 PZIV and kill it in 8 secs at range 60...
Listening to people like you two would be a dire mistake on Relic's end. Wow.

Actually Relic made this thread to listen to all people and thus people "like me".
3 Dec 2016, 21:22 PM
#107
avatar of The Red Zaku

Posts: 31



So the Jackson is OP because it can do significant damage to the KT? You realize that is the only non-doc unit in the USF arsenal that's capable of dealing with the KT right? And it's OP?

And you have Vipper saying the Jackson is OP because it kills medium tanks properly?

Listening to people like you two would be a dire mistake on Relic's end. Wow.


Do you know what context is or do you choose to go through life without acknowledging it? If you read my post you would of realized that I was calling the jackson OP to show how I thought calling the Stug OP didn't make sense.
4 Dec 2016, 07:26 AM
#108
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post3 Dec 2016, 14:53 PMVipper


Actually no
Jp is not a heavy TD it has less penetration than a SU-76, it a medium TD that cost more than most medium tank and has higher pop than most medium tanks and once the camo is fixed you will see allot less of it.

The Panther a heavy TD is not cost efficient vs medium.

The armor PZIV get as veterancy is quite useless VS M36 firefly and SU-85 and even questionable vs SU-76.

In the size and speed of the PZVI, the accuracy, penetration, range and damage of heavy TD make PZIV a bad investment.

To top it all a firefly can literally take down a PZIV in 8 second with little reaction time from the player.

Cheaper light vehicles that arrive earlier can counter it, cheaper medium tanks can fight it, AT infantry can blob it, premium medium tanks out class it and Heavy TD can fire on it out of sight and range...


130 cost t-34-85. 150 cost p4 okw, 125 cost p4 ostheer, dunno how many cost e8 but still close to jp price, so yes, its half of mediums tanks cost like jp that have buffs in vet.
Panther is, cost panther have better armor and more hp.
Coz vs TD need use pacs/shreks of flanks.
What a new farytale about firefly, you forget write 2 FF ? Coz i am dunno how he must kill him with one shoot and 2 rockets.
I am dunno man, if FF are heavy TD, so who are stugs and JP ?
4 Dec 2016, 09:06 AM
#109
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


130 cost t-34-85. 150 cost p4 okw, 125 cost p4 ostheer, dunno how many cost e8 but still close to jp price, so yes, its half of mediums tanks cost like jp that have buffs in vet.

With the danger of going of Topic I will give a quick reply to this. JP price and pop made sense when one had early access. JPs penetration is lower the SU-76 so with is current stat it should be considered a counter to medium tanks as such it should be price lower than medium tanks and have less pop then medium tanks. If one keep want to work as a counter to heavy tanks one should increase the penetration.


Panther is, cost panther have better armor and more hp.
Coz vs TD need use pacs/shreks of flanks.

Yes but again the Panther is a cost efficient counter vs medium tanks because it's ROF and its cost.


What a new farytale about firefly, you forget write 2 FF ? Coz i am dunno how he must kill him with one shoot and 2 rockets.

Firefly does 200 damage and fire every 8 secs, each tulip does 120 damage and stun for 2.5 secs. Total damage delivered in 8 secs is 640 the HP of Medium tanks. The Firefly can kill a medium tank in 8 sec. 2,5 of them while the vehicle is stunned. think become even worse at vet 2 when reload time is down to 6 and even worse at vet 3 when the damege goes up to 280! needing only Tulip to land!!!

I am dunno man, if FF are heavy TD, so who are stugs and JP ?

the pricing and Pop of Su-76 and Stug indicates that they are counter to medium tanks and they should be less effective vs heavy tanks so someone would have a reason to built a Panther or Su-85.
4 Dec 2016, 09:14 AM
#110
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Dec 2016, 09:06 AMVipper
Yes but again the Panther is a cost efficient counter vs medium tanks because it's ROF and its cost.


Hahaha. The Panther certainly isn't unusable, but you can't cite rate of fire and cost. The Panther has a slow rate of fire, and mediocre accuracy to go with it, and is the most expensive tank hunter.
4 Dec 2016, 09:28 AM
#111
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Hahaha. The Panther certainly isn't unusable, but you can't cite rate of fire and cost. The Panther has a slow rate of fire, and mediocre accuracy to go with it, and is the most expensive tank hunter.

Are you confusing cost efficient with usable? Because I wrote cost efficiency as the issue and not usability.

I am citing cost because it affect how many Cromwell will lone Panther be facing and its chance to be able to counter them...

If you think the Panther is up to the task of countering medium tank spam I suggest you try next time in game and see what happens...
4 Dec 2016, 14:02 PM
#112
avatar of empyriumm

Posts: 51

I think TDs should be like this:

Medium class TDs: Can penetrate only medium class with price adjustments

Soviet: Su76
Wehr: Stug, puma
US: m10(should be undoc and T3 side upgrade with better performance)
Okw: Puma(should be side upgrade and better performance)
Ukf: AC(u should choose when u produce it AT specialist or AI)

Heavy class TDs: Can penetrate heavy class with price adjustments but accuracy to medium class should be very low

Soviet: Su85, T3585(should be AT specialist like panther but not equal and 76 need price nerf and better performance like other all arounded mediums)
Wehr: Panther(need better performance)
US: m36
Okw: Jp4(need a pen buff), panther
Ukf: Firefly

Medium all arounded tanks

Soviet: T3476(need better performance and price nerf)
Wehr: Pz4(need better performance)
US: M4A3 and E8
Okw: Pz4
Ukf: Cromwell(need a price nerf)

And comet should be heavy class and price nerf because its performance like a undoc cheap tiger
4 Dec 2016, 15:06 PM
#113
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

I think it's more important to differentiate turreted tanks from assault guns than whether or not they are considered 'medium' or 'heavy'.

I wouldn't call an AEC and an M10 the same kind of unit, nor would I compare them to a StuG.

These are all very different units in function and feasible counterplay.

The AEC has been an awkward unit that should've been like the Greyhound, but it's become an Allied Puma because of how the meta has stagnated around light vehicles for so long. Same with the 222 over the course of this game's run.
4 Dec 2016, 15:41 PM
#114
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I think it's more important to differentiate turreted tanks from assault guns than whether or not they are considered 'medium' or 'heavy'.


The term medium or heavy is in reference to the Vehicles they are designed to counter and not the properties of the unit itself.

A "medium tank destroyer" is designed to perform better at countering "medium tank" regardless of the "weight" of the unit itself.

In the same manner a "heavy tank destroyer" is designed to perform better at countering heavy/super heavy tanks.
4 Dec 2016, 16:36 PM
#115
avatar of JohnnyShaun

Posts: 144

Technically this is false. There was a post on the P4 in the Winter Balance Preview Feedback thread and since this was out of scope of the patch I move it out. That is all. Or is it?


Make PZIV able to switch AP/HE shell just like shermans. /thread
4 Dec 2016, 17:10 PM
#116
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Dec 2016, 15:41 PMVipper


The term medium or heavy is in reference to the Vehicles they are designed to counter and not the properties of the unit itself.

A "medium tank destroyer" is designed to perform better at countering "medium tank" regardless of the "weight" of the unit itself.

In the same manner a "heavy tank destroyer" is designed to perform better at countering heavy/super heavy tanks.


Alright, I get you. Although I still think the functionality of a StuG separates it considerably from the Puma regardless of what they might kill.

So much so that I wouldn't lump them together except in very cursory categories.
4 Dec 2016, 17:39 PM
#117
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283



Alright, I get you. Although I still think the functionality of a StuG separates it considerably from the Puma regardless of what they might kill.

So much so that I wouldn't lump them together except in very cursory categories.


That's because his definition has nothing to do with the actual definition. The term "heavy" or "medium" or "light" in front of an armoured fighting vehicle never refers to anything but the vehicle itself. That may be a gun definition (which is why the Panther was a medium tank for the Germans) or a weight definition (which is why the Pershing was not a heavy tank for the Americans). The supposed opponents of a vehicle are irrelevant to that classification.
4 Dec 2016, 17:52 PM
#118
avatar of JackDickolson

Posts: 181

Discussing terminology and ingame classifications are irrelevant. Panther is a separate subject/issue.


Let's focus on the topic at hand, nevertheless I feel this poll is concluded.
4 Dec 2016, 17:59 PM
#119
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

Discussing terminology and ingame classifications are irrelevant.


It is somewhat relevant (even to this topic), as people expect certain units to behave in a relatively similar fashion to their real counterparts. Nobody expects a StuG to start flying around the map and act like a plane, because it didn't do so in reality. People don't expect the Panzer IV to outclass the Tiger, because it didn't do so in reality.
If some people now start throwing wrong labels around, that may wake the wrong expectations with other participants.

Of course the game takes some freedom with those labels (the Panther wasn't a tank destroyer, despite behaving like the German equivalent of the Jackson in the game), but those work within the boundaries of the actual roles of these units in reality. Of course the StuG for example is not great at fighting infantry, but it does a significantly better job at it than an actual tank destroyer in the game would (for example the Jagdpanzer IV/70).

TLDR: If people start calling a tail a leg, and use that as the basis for their arguments, the argument itself becomes convoluted to the point of making no sense anymore.
5 Dec 2016, 01:08 AM
#120
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

The AEC has been an awkward unit that should've been like the Greyhound.


Isn't the Greyhound complete shit though? Aside from the crutch it's squad-wipe gimmick ability.
PAGES (10)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

1032 users are online: 1032 guests
0 post in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50002
Welcome our newest member, rwintoday1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM