pzgren should be wehr's dedicated tank hunters

Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2018, 08:21 AMKatitof

Well, if someone REALLY feels like he needs it, that's kind of the exact point why doctrines exist.

Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2018, 17:57 PMTheGentlemenTroll

Its a bit off-putting that OST is technically forced into a doctrine for a competent light vehicle, I always considered Doctrines to be more of a supporting role than a faction defining role. Being locked into a doctrine because of a faction weakness is bad design IMO.

Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2018, 18:10 PMKatitof

snip

Jump back to quoted post23 Mar 2018, 08:21 AMKatitof

Well, if someone REALLY feels like he needs it, that's kind of the exact point why doctrines exist.

@firesparks i disagree. Obviously it would require playtesting but an earlier 221 would help against snipers (ideally) and assuming you built one being able to upgrade it to a 222 if you chose to when the battle phase is researched (just the tech, not the building) gives a more organic flow to light vehicle play- while ost still wont have a t70 of thwir own they will be able to apply some pressure sooner without bleed. They will be able to force reactionary AT (theres no reason for the allies not to be able to get AT somehow) which in turn reduces their AI. Its all conmected, look at how even simply moving the mg42 from insta built t1 to t0 changed the game, literally SECONDS sooner but one of the best changes seen imo

This is why i think the BIGGEST issue in balance is that allied infantry get too much from the start and then scale so much better ontop of it

Allied infantry dont NEED tank support tp fight the enemy, the can usually make due with attack move and minimal support, this means that fuel can be dumped into TDs to negate the actually needed ost support armour. Weaker (or more appropriately slower momentum) allied infantry would mean more medium tanks, would mean less TD spam. Ideally of course. Its all connected

Jump back to quoted post24 Mar 2018, 04:42 AMFiresparks

If the allied infantry scaled too much, it's because people keep giving them over powering buff to compensate for their weaker armor.

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 06:50 AMsinthe

I don't think that they have weaker armour anymore

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 11:55 AMthedarkarmadillo

snip.

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 17:33 PMsinthe

tend to spam AT guns.

Many of the TDs also out range axis armoured units. Which turns peaking with a tank into literally getting obliterated on the spot and losing a tank hurts way more for an axis player than an allied player.

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 17:53 PMIncendiaryRounds

Speaking of puma, it doesn't come fast enough at 5 cp. I think 4 cp is balanced. The rest of the doc is quite weak so the puma better come on time

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 11:55 AMthedarkarmadillo

well, the p4 has 25 more pen close and 30 more pen far and 20 more armour than the t34 for only 30 more fuel meaning 30 fuel gives a 69% chance to pen and only a 44% chance to be penned so i mean i PERSONALLY would say thats stronger armour...
and i mean, every tank that isnt a light vehicle in the okw lineup has a MINIMUM of 230 armour, and half of which are over 300.

just because there exists tools to combat the strong armour doesnt mean its not an advantage, sure the SU's have a bit too much pen and the jackson has all the tools to survive being squishy without actually being squishy but outside that the german armour has higher pen and armour values almost across the board. outside of actually designed hard counters (who again, ARE over performing slightly) the axis tanks DO have an advantage undeniably..

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 17:41 PMKatitof

This argument I consider extremely stupid.
Why can't you spam ATGs as well?
Why axis players insist that once they field Panther, all allied armor should just implode?
Why it is good for allies to use both, dedicated TDs and ATGs, but for axis its "hard"?
Bleed is comparable for both sides and so are costs.


That's kind of the point of TDs, they outrange or outlast(panther) armor they face while reliably dealing damage to it.
You seem to want to have tanks a fighting chance against TDs without having to use ATGs.
Why?

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 18:00 PMStug life

yea if only at guns out ranged td

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 18:01 PMFiresparks

the thread is getting off topic with the discussion on medium tank, td, and atg.

stuff like that deserve a thread of its own.

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 18:09 PMKatitof

ATGs and TDs are very relevant for the discussion as some people seem to be under the false impression that handheld AT should be main source of AT damage instead of only supportive one.

AT which is as easy to use and preserve as infantry handheld AT will never be on pair with TDs and ATGs and will always serve as deterrent or some help during pushes, but will never take the role of main AV unless you really spam it like mad-the only "issue" in this thread is that axis handheld AT can not be spammed to a-move like zook noob blobs in 4v4 can.

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 18:09 PMKatitof

Handheld AT not outranging med tanks somehow does not prevent them from being effective.
And placing these ATGs create a no-go zones for TDs, which you can exploit to creep with your army.
I might blow your mind on this one, but you don't need to play axis like they actually did in WW2 with unsupported armor rush everywhere.

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 17:41 PMKatitof

This argument I consider extremely stupid.
Why can't you spam ATGs as well?
Why axis players insist that once they field Panther, all allied armor should just implode?
Why it is good for allies to use both, dedicated TDs and ATGs, but for axis its "hard"?
Bleed is comparable for both sides and so are costs.


That's kind of the point of TDs, they outrange or outlast(panther) armor they face while reliably dealing damage to it.
You seem to want to have tanks a fighting chance against TDs without having to use ATGs.
Why?

Jump back to quoted post25 Mar 2018, 18:09 PMKatitof

Handheld AT not outranging med tanks somehow does not prevent them from being effective.
And placing these ATGs create a no-go zones for TDs, which you can exploit to creep with your army.
I might blow your mind on this one, but you don't need to play axis like they actually did in WW2 with unsupported armor rush everywhere.


ATGs and TDs are very relevant for the discussion as some people seem to be under the false impression that handheld AT should be main source of AT damage instead of only supportive one.

AT which is as easy to use and preserve as infantry handheld AT will never be on pair with TDs and ATGs and will always serve as deterrent or some help during pushes, but will never take the role of main AV unless you really spam it like mad-the only "issue" in this thread is that axis handheld AT can not be spammed to a-move like zook noob blobs in 4v4 can.