KT should have penalties

OKW still doesn't have caches and the more OKW players you have in teamgames, the less caches that team can have.

OKW still doesn't have caches and the more OKW players you have in teamgames, the less caches that team can have.

running out of arguments ?

I cannot see any implication between kingtiger being too strong and having less caches when you have OKW teammates.


Also it is not like 1 Ostheer player in 4v4 is enough to spam caches while OKW players fight, right ?

running out of arguments ?

The only one loosing his mind and spewing out personal comments is you. Its pathethic.

I cannot see any implication between kingtiger being too strong and having less caches when you have OKW teammates.

Well, how could you. Your playercard shows you have a grand total of ONE (1) matches played as OKW.

Also it is not like 1 Ostheer player in 4v4 is enough to spam caches while OKW players fight, right ?

In theory. In practice one OST player cannot compete with 4 Allied players in building caches for the team, neither in time, neither in resources available. OST has the highest bleed of all and is usually manpower starved. Unless of course the OST guy doesn't do anything else but building caches while 3 OKW players enjoy 4 vs 3 for a good couple of minutes. It simply does not work that way.

The only one loosing his mind and spewing out personal comments is you. Its pathethic.

Because 20 wall of text posts which you completely ignored and only took a margin of them are nothing, right ?

Well, how could you. Your playercard shows you have a grand total of ONE (1) matches played as OKW.

I have ~ 400 OKW games in 1v1 so please. Kingtiger is not a 4v4 unit only, it occurs on daily basis in 1v1 gamemode as well and the re-calling tiger phenomone is even more infamosly known there

Please do not alter the facts so they can fit to you better

In theory. In practice one OST player cannot compete with 4 Allied players in building caches for the team, neither in time, neither in resources available. OST has the highest bleed of all and is usually manpower starved. Unless of course the OST guy doesn't do anything else but building caches while 3 OKW players enjoy 4 vs 3 for a good couple of minutes. It simply does not work that way.

I think you did not understand me. It is the same if 1 player builds all caches while 3 other focus solely on fighting squads as if each of those players had to buy 1/4 of all chaces build.

If 3 OKW players can hold the line themselves, they can let Ostheer player to spam caches only. If they cannot, Ostheer player will kick 3 mgs there, volks will cover those mgs and build less caches.

It wont change your field presence at all, no matter if you spend 1000mp on caches as a team or if single player spends 1000 mp on caches and other focus ONLY on building units.

Either way your team will be 1000 mp behind in terms of MP invested in fighting squads

And who said he has to build them at the beggining of the match ? Maybe he could go 3 mgs then stall teching while building caches, while OKW players spam Luchses and once he builds caches he can go for p4/p5 spam ?

In theory. In practice one OST player cannot compete with 4 Allied players in building caches for the team, neither in time, neither in resources available. OST has the highest bleed of all and is usually manpower starved. Unless of course the OST guy doesn't do anything else but building caches while 3 OKW players enjoy 4 vs 3 for a good couple of minutes. It simply does not work that way.

In practice this is how mOST of my 4v4 ostheer games go. I am often with 3 OKW.

I build a few pios and mgs at the start to cover fuel/flanks/cutoffs. After each successful engagement, or after the first retreated pio is reinforced I start building caches where I can.

The idea is to use pio flamethrowers to support okw in clearing garrisons and use mgs to keep them from being overrun by blob concentrations.

After that it's usually brummbar next or t2 for flame ht for simcity and/or pgrens for clearing team weapons.

Point is in 4v4s one player can easily do nothing but support. I'll sometimes FHQ as soviets all along the frontone to create ungodly strong positions for usf ukf allies. That kind of teamwork has more impact on the match than any faction design or individual unit performance.

Comment on the "3 shermans Are the same cost as a Kt" 3 Shermans Have a Popcap of 36 and the Kt has a popcap of 23. Also You need 4 shermans to beat a Kt, which is 48 popcap and significantly more resources. Plus that higher upkeep, and you can afford within your pop to have more units suporting

Pop cap makes the unit incredibly hard to counter IMO. You need at least TDs 2 with a spotter, but probably 3 tank destroyers, 3 at guns or 4 tanks to kill something that's great vs infantry and tanks at only 23 pop.

(part of the TD issue is b/c jacksons and SU85s are meh rn though to be fair)

I've still never heard someone explain to me why it would be unfair if they could only call in 1 per game. It's literally an extra commander ability that makes your commander decision MASSIVELY less consequential. I'd prefer the 1 per game rule over adding penalties.

I get that being able to build more than 1 is mostly a team game problem, but I think it could make 2v2s (my most played) a lot more interesting. Very tired of long matches yielding multiple KTs from one player.

I've still never heard someone explain to me why it would be unfair if they could only call in 1 per game. It's literally an extra commander ability that makes your commander decision MASSIVELY less consequential. I'd prefer the 1 per game rule over adding penalties.

I get that being able to build more than 1 is mostly a team game problem, but I think it could make 2v2s (my most played) a lot more interesting. Very tired of long matches yielding multiple KTs from one player.

More king tiger = more jackson/firefly/easy8/...

But no really make it doctrinal, I want to go mech and puma spam into king tiger...like a true su76m into is2 soviet pro and lieutenant into armor call in "UP" usf, just to try cheese dodgeteching...ehr I mean UPNESS allies like so much.

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

Well, you just explained why it shouldn't be compared to a T70 that is cheap, lightly armored and pens no tanks at all. It makes for no basis to any kind of argument, especially not for a balance modder.

I've still never heard someone explain to me why it would be unfair if they could only call in 1 per game. It's literally an extra commander ability that makes your commander decision MASSIVELY less consequential. I'd prefer the 1 per game rule over adding penalties.

I get that being able to build more than 1 is mostly a team game problem, but I think it could make 2v2s (my most played) a lot more interesting. Very tired of long matches yielding multiple KTs from one player.

They should add this to all heavies to be honest.

pens all allied tanks in the game.

Don't be too misleading its pen isn't that high (for spending 270 fuel) and can still, say 25%, bounce off of late game tanks like the is2 (equal armor to the KT), Pershing and comet.

Comment on the "3 shermans Are the same cost as a Kt" 3 Shermans Have a Popcap of 36 and the Kt has a popcap of 23. Also You need 4 shermans to beat a Kt, which is 48 popcap and significantly more resources. Plus that higher upkeep, and you can afford within your pop to have more units suporting

Expensive units must be more cost efficient than just spamming low-costs otherwise nobody would be building. You can make the same comparison with every 'better' unit and come to the same conclusion - spamming shitty units in inefficient popcap-wise. Its meant that way otherwise it would not work.

Pop cap makes the unit incredibly hard to counter IMO. You need at least TDs 2 with a spotter, but probably 3 tank destroyers, 3 at guns or 4 tanks to kill something that's great vs infantry and tanks at only 23 pop.(part of the TD issue is b/c jacksons and SU85s are meh rn though to be fair)

Or just use smoke and circle strafe it. Good players can pull that off - if not, you can always force it away with TDs. The Sherman, Comet even has the ability on it, people just do not use it. A supported KT is tough not to crack of course, but then again on larger you have a lot other options than to banging your head against the concrete wall on the part of the map where the KT camps.

I've still never heard someone explain to me why it would be unfair if they could only call in 1 per game. It's literally an extra commander ability that makes your commander decision MASSIVELY less consequential. I'd prefer the 1 per game rule over adding penalties.

I get that being able to build more than 1 is mostly a team game problem, but I think it could make 2v2s (my most played) a lot more interesting. Very tired of long matches yielding multiple KTs from one player.

it would be fair if:
1 they make it cost only MP
2 they buff it accordingly (hp, move speed, armor, reload, accuracy)
3 they reduce the cost and requirement a lot
right now kt is strong but is still easy to counter with kitting (especially with the repair speed Nerf)

Expensive units must be more cost efficient than just spamming low-costs otherwise nobody would be building. You can make the same comparison with every 'better' unit and come to the same conclusion - spamming shitty units in inefficient popcap-wise. Its meant that way otherwise it would not work.

Or just use smoke and circle strafe it. Good players can pull that off - if not, you can always force it away with TDs. The Sherman, Comet even has the ability on it, people just do not use it. A supported KT is tough not to crack of course, but then again on larger you have a lot other options than to banging your head against the concrete wall on the part of the map where the KT camps.

I disagree, nobody's late game tech should be less cost efficient than anothers, no player should be rewarded for not having been killed yet. That's not how strategy games typically work. Shermans/jacksons are the late game for USF and SU85s and t34s are the same for soviets. For equal investment there should be some kind of counter to the unit by executing effectively. Much like the king tiger should be effective and cost efficient if used effectively.

Units shouldn't be shitty and inefficient popcap wise, that discourages players for using them and reduces strategic diversity, which is a goal of balance.

I think there are numerous examples of where the Kt is incredibly effective, could you please show us, or point us to one where an inferior investment of resources and popcap even comes close to killing it? I don't believe your statement about circle strafes is correct unless you are using tanks in the numbers i suggested.

Edit: (to stay on topic) I think popcap and near aoe range/damage are the two aspects of this unit that should be adjusted, especially popcap though.

I would like it so that in order to get the KT out, they need to have all three of their buildings standing. So the counter to it would be to destroy one of their buildings so they'd have to rebuild.

In return you reduce the KT's cost. I like the idea of "Impending doom unless you try to stop it". It also makes them think more about building placements if they want to get the KT out.

Just personal opinion. Other then that KT wipes full health squads all the time.