KT should have penalties

If you have a rebuttal why don't you just post it? Also what does the offensive capabilities of soviet TDs have do with OST lack of them (except for elephant of course)

Your comment made it clear that you don't know anything about Soviet units. The IS2 is something like 160 damage, 40 range. The SU85 is 160 damage, 60 range but also one of the worst pathing vehicles. They would love to have the TD that you imagine they have.

Also, just comparing damage, range, and penetration is a joke, since the armor values of allied tanks are typically much less than axis tanks.

Your comment made it clear that you don't know anything about Soviet units. The IS2 is something like 160 damage, 40 range. The SU85 is 160 damage, 60 range but also one of the worst pathing vehicles.

Cool? I never brought up SU85 and somehow my nonexistant post is incorrect.

since the armor values of allied tanks are typically much less than axis tanks.

Except for the is2 which is the topic at hand. And typically allied tanks have huge acc and pen vet so it kinda balances out.

Your comment made it clear that you don't know anything about Soviet units. The IS2 is something like 160 damage, 40 range. The SU85 is 160 damage, 60 range but also one of the worst pathing vehicles. They would love to have the TD that you imagine they have.

Also, just comparing damage, range, and penetration is a joke, since the armor values of allied tanks are typically much less than axis tanks.

The cheapest tanks don't have the best values ever ?
Fking broken game i'm leaving...

Ps: get broken and ultra cheap t34-85 and ez8....fixed

The cheapest tanks don't have the best values ever ?
Fking broken game i'm leaving...

Ps: get broken and ultra cheap t34-85 and ez8....fixed

lmao again with the 34-85 and ez8s. Really don't get it so easily countered as almost everything AT axis has pens them easily. cloaked rakatens you don't know are there, paks/pak wall (use its vet ability), jp4 spam, stug spam, panthers, any other axis tank, even pumas can fight one of them or especially ez8s and win supported. snares on both factions to guarantee they wont escape or instantly hault there flank and mines to hault there flank. Its because 1v1 they can usually win against both p4s??? wtf there doctrinal I would hope so and both on factions they only have mediums with litte or no AT ability.

My only problem with KT is how it often wipes USF AT-guns, and possibly the pop-cap being too low. It counters its counter.

Single ATG are specifically NOT meant to be counters to the KT. Its designed that way, it says in the unit's description - "weak against massed AT guns". And it is true - two US ATGs firing HVAP rounds can force a KT away, at least if the player handling it has any brains. They might not pen all the time and they might not do that much of a damage, but oh boy they are firing fast.

One should not except to counter the most expensive and teching intensive unit in the entire game to be countered by a single 270 MP AT gun.

The main issue with the King Tiger in terms of facing it has to do with its scatter and AOE where it can snipe things such as ATGs just as well as specialist AI tanks at range.

T70 Scatter

Angle Scatter 7.5
Distance Scatter Max 2.5
Scatter Offset: 0.15
Scatter Ration: 1


King Tiger Scatter

Angle Scatter: 4
Distance Scatter Max: 4
Scatter Offset: 0.25
Scatter Ratio: 1

Sherman HE

Angle Scatter: 6
Distance Scatter Max: 5.5
Scatter Offset: 0.3
Scatter Ratio: 1

None of this includes the fact the King Tiger's main gun deals 240 damage vs the 40 of a T70 or 160 of a Sherman HE round which increases the radius it OHK's infantry. A lot of units in this game should be trading their massive radius on infantry for more damage on the outer edges so they are not punished so heavily for misses, but squads won't evaporate if someone rolled well.

Teching costs

T70: 95/105
Sherman 170/180
King Tiger 195 (without caches)
IS-2: CP only

Unit costs:

T70: 70
Sherman: 110
King Tiger 280 (without caches)

Thus the question to be asked is by the time anyone accumulates cc. 500 fuel (OKW can't build caches), is it one King Tiger or cc 3 Shermans firing HE is the one that decrews ATGs faster and more reliably.

It is also a question of which fires at 4 men Squads and Weapons teams the most and which one fires on 5-6 men squads and weapon teams.

Teching costs

T70: 95/105
Sherman 170/180
King Tiger 195 (without caches)
IS-2: CP only

Unit costs:

T70: 70
Sherman: 110
King Tiger 280 (without caches)

Thus the question to be asked is by the time anyone accumulates cc. 500 fuel (OKW can't build caches), is it one King Tiger or cc 3 Shermans firing HE is the one that decrews ATGs faster and more reliably.

It is also a question of which fires at 4 men Squads and Weapons teams the most and which one fires on 5-6 men squads and weapon teams.

I dont think any cost justify the power of the King Tiger. Maybe in 1 vs 1 its ok but in 2vs2+ you realy get problems. The Problem lies more within its durability + its damge it can inflict on Infantery. One SU-85 can barely push it away so you need 2 and even than you cant kill it reliable. So you need to pay 260 fuel on only AT to fear it certainly away.

The King Tiger on the otherhand can push forward fire a round killing half of a squad and retreat to save after.

In higher gamemodes if you dont lose hard in early or mid game you can easely save for the KT. Than mix in a Jagdtiger or an Elephant to counter all the AT vehicles and a Stuka zu Fuß for the AT-Guns and you get a hard to counter Combo.

I admit the KT is very expensive but nevertheless its to good against everything. It got 45 Range and 240 damage with goiod penetration. So exept for the Comet, the Pershing (even Range) and all AT-Vehicles it outranges the most Tanks. So its not a teribble AT-Unit. And beside of this its so deadly against Infantery.

I think its very cost efficient for what it does. But even if the cost effiency isnt given, the King Tiger does have a to big impact. So my suggestion is to nerf its performance against Infantery. Its forgiveness is kind of adressed in the DBP by nerfing the repair spead. But in exchange if its to UP reduce its price.

yh lets compare t70 and sherman to the KT lol

The point is that comparing the KT's abilities to single units is a false comparison. Sure its impressive. It should, at that cost.

The question you have to ask yourself is which had more wipe potential - three Shermans firing on a PaK 40 or RAK or Gren squad, or a single KT. The answer is the three Shermans of course. The KT rarely wipes the squads, usally it snipes 3 models. Three Shermans firing at a Gren squad or anything is an almost certain wipe though.

Except of course the Shermans arrive much, much earlier and put pressure on the OKW player earlier. Try countering Shermans with RAKs, see how great they are - the RAK doesn't need lucky wipes, it dies 80% the time it tries to engage a tank because the crew is so unprocted.

They also do 480 damage against tanks, which works out to 240 even if we take into account the 50% pen rates. Sure its not as reliable for a single Sherman, neither it shouldn be, but you have three attempts instead of just one before waiting 6-7 seconds. Its just one Sherman that hits the ground harmlessly, while two others hit.

As a rule, every expensive unit must be more cost effective than because it can't be at several places and the player pools all resources into a single unit instead of spreading it evenly between several.

Expensive units that are not more cost effective than just spamming cheaper units are poor choices - why wait for a Panther when at the same time and costs 3 StuGs can do the same job better and earlier is a typical example of what's wrong with that approach (and the Panther).

If the expensive unit does not add a new level of ability the lesser unit can't hope to match, its unattractive. a single unit is always easier to be destroyed, flanked, baited, snared than three.

The point is that comparing the KT's abilities to single units is a false comparison. Sure its impressive. It should, at that cost.

The question you have to ask yourself is which had more wipe potential - three Shermans firing on a PaK 40 or RAK or Gren squad, or a single KT. The answer is the three Shermans of course. The KT rarely wipes the squads, usally it snipes 3 models. Three Shermans firing at a Gren squad or anything is an almost certain wipe though.

Except of course the Shermans arrive much, much earlier and put pressure on the OKW player earlier. Try countering Shermans with RAKs, see how great they are - the RAK doesn't need lucky wipes, it dies 80% the time it tries to engage a tank because the crew is so unprocted.

They also do 480 damage against tanks, which works out to 240 even if we take into account the 50% pen rates. Sure its not as reliable for a single Sherman, neither it shouldn be, but you have three attempts instead of just one before waiting 6-7 seconds. Its just one Sherman that hits the ground harmlessly, while two others hit.

As a rule, every expensive unit must be more cost effective than because it can't be at several places and the player pools all resources into a single unit instead of spreading it evenly between several.

Expensive units that are not more cost effective than just spamming cheaper units are poor choices - why wait for a Panther when at the same time and costs 3 StuGs can do the same job better and earlier is a typical example of what's wrong with that approach (and the Panther).

If the expensive unit does not add a new level of ability the lesser unit can't hope to match, its unattractive. a single unit is always easier to be destroyed, flanked, baited, snared than three.

The problem with this approach is, that the T3 of Ostheer is more comparable in Teching cost with the T4 of the Soviets for Example. So in making all the high end Tanks more cost efficient, the Axis will dominate the late game especially in Team games. So we are ending with Allies who have to defeat the Axis at the Start or are doomed and helpless in the end.

The next Problem is in team games it doesnt metter if you can only be in one place with your KT. There are not many Points you fight and you got also your Team mates who can fill the gap.

Thirdly in combination with a higher micro Tax, Traffic jams, less health and armor you can lose a Sherman in a fight more easier. If someone shoots on your KT you and he backes up, you dont lose any resources.

Are you seriously comparing the KT to the T70?

Are you seriously comparing the KT to the T70?

He was comparing their AI capabilities.

And T70 is best stock Soviet AI tank ATM (t34 is worse in sheer AI DPS, only better if we incluse its survability)

He was comparing their AI capabilities.

And T70 is best stock Soviet AI tank ATM (t34 is worse in sheer AI DPS, only better if we incluse its survability)

Still doesn't make sense. KT is expensive as shit. Should be good to say the least.

Still doesn't make sense. KT is expensive as shit. Should be good to say the least.

It is expensive because it has great armor and health, deals 240 damage and pens all allied tanks in the game.

In short, its fine.

The issue with OHK AOE and how to reduce the OHK radius is interesting, but frankly I would not touch it - one may reduce the OHK radius and increase the damage radius which is fine vs full health squads but could easily result in mass wipes if the KT shoots at damaged models already engaged in the gunfight.

Touching the KT's AOE will of course mean that you will have to rebalance ALL other AOE units, as you can't just nerf and bring down the KT to the effectiveness level of other, less expensive units.

Of course we might just get some weird explanation about 'to make the KT more accessible to players, we have decided to triple nerf it and reduce its fuel costs by 10', we have seen some of those, but then you will have just made another highly controversial and unwarrented change that will result in rejection of the balance mod as a whole in the end.

This is what im afraid of, a fat nerf on the KT and its guna be given some useless buffs to compensate like 5-10 fuel cheaper, typical from smith and his mod team. If u guna nerf the KT, give it some useful buffs in other areas to compensate.IMO it should be left as it is as ther are more pressing concerns

This is what im afraid of, a fat nerf on the KT and its guna be given some useless buffs to compensate like 5-10 fuel cheaper, typical from smith and his mod team. If u guna nerf the KT, give it some useful buffs in other areas to compensate.IMO it should be left as it is as ther are more pressing concerns

It should be limited to one per game I think,

nothing is more rewarding than losing half of your army to take it down just to see another one in a minute.

OKW has many good tanks, they should use them too

It should be limited to one per game I think

Fine, as long as all other heavy call ins are one per game only, or if the KT is buffed to the same level in vCOH, i.e. 3000 HP (adjusted for DMG inflation), Unpenetrable from the front, no fuel cost attached, and like, 800 MP.

Fine, as long as all other heavy call ins are one per game only, or if the KT is buffed to the same level in vCOH, i.e. 3000 HP (adjusted for DMG inflation), Unpenetrable from the front, no fuel cost attached, and like, 800 MP.

It is already different to other heavies.

A) it is strongest heavy
B) it is availible every game, no matter what doctrine you chose. Other factions dont have the luxury. OKW is no longer a fuel starved faction, thats why it should cost 230 fuel and be limited to one per game