AE's King Tiger Adventure Analysed by Someone With Eyes

As far as the video goes. The KT is in a bad spot because of its scatter, which lead to a few missed shots. As far as the bounces go on the comets, yes A_E got a bit unlucky, but it isn't unheard of. 1 KT shouldn't be soloing 2 comets though.

Kind of curious - how much does scatter play into tank v tank combat (opposed to accuracy). I always thought that scatter was more for AI purposes and the KT had it's scatter increased because it tended to frontally solo AT guns. For that reason I'm not sure how much the scatter plays into the KT now generally being UP (compared to Jackson buff or what have you).

*snip*

Shit happens m80, and half of the fun of your streams when you're playing is your reaction to things.

Kind of curious - how much does scatter play into tank v tank combat (opposed to accuracy). I always thought that scatter was more for AI purposes and the KT had it's scatter increased because it tended to frontally solo AT guns. For that reason I'm not sure how much the scatter plays into the KT now generally being UP (compared to Jackson buff or what have you).

On most tanks scatter is low enough so that most shots that don't score a natural "hit" scatter into the tank hitbox and potentially deal their damage. But when the scatter value becomes high enough you see shells flying past their targets more frequently. Scatter is mainly intended as AI because either 1. model size is low enough that scoring a natural "hit" against individual models almost never occurs or 2. accuracy is never even considered when a tank fires a shell at infantry. I'm unsure of which CoH2 uses, but I'd bet its one of those.

The problem is that scatter is an exponential value that gets incredibley worse the higher it goes. At least that's my understanding, I may need another lesson on it though from Mr. Smith

In conclusion: Scatter plays more into tank engagements the higher the scatter value is (and lower the accuracy is, plus things like target size etc), hence why the KT, IS2, cromwell and comet can be considered more "RNG" cannons.

Snip

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Always nice to be a bit more informed on game mechanics.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Always nice to be a bit more informed on game mechanics.

I have to disagree a bit.

Show Spoiler
In sort, high linear scatter help weapons score collision shots vs vehicles moving in the line of shot. That is why most TDs have high linear scatter.

Everybody knows that all Axis tanks other than the Panzer IV are underperforming. The Tiger and Panther barely deflect shots. Neither does the KT. Added with gun splash nerfs for heavy tanks.

But with the current community patchers, I don't see this chaning anytime soon.

They were responsible for unwarranted vet nerfs (Panther, JPIV) in addition to penetration buffs for Allied tank destroyers. To add insult to injury Elefant and JT were also nerfed. Lategame has totally shifted to the Allies (against the game design).

On most tanks [...]

Hey, thanks for sharing. That's clear and concise, well written too. What about you write a guide for this page? That'd be great.

The Tiger and Panther barely deflect shots. Neither does the KT.

They deflect well everything that is not their hardcounters, that is how its supposed to work.

Added with gun splash nerfs for heavy tanks.

Can't see how that is a bad thing, heavy tanks were OP for years and present in almost every singular game
across all skill levels up until the nerfs.

But with the current community patchers, I don't see this chaning anytime soon.

And it won't, because heavy tanks do NOT underperform in any way - sure, they do compared to old selves, but their old selves were again, overpowered.

They were responsible for unwarranted vet nerfs (Panther, JPIV) in addition to penetration buffs for Allied tank destroyers. To add insult to injury Elefant and JT were also nerfed. Lategame has totally shifted to the Allies (against the game design).

Most durable vehicles of their own class with overpowering vet bonuses.
You'd have to be blind to not see them getting attention at one point or another and allied AT is supposed to stand on its own against all axis armor, that includes 320 and 375 armor stock units, was it any other way, we would have imbalance.
And late game was leveled, just like early game was with dozens of allied nerfs and axis buffs.

Sorry, but "krupp steel" argument is long dead, it was toppled over by the need for balanced gameplay across all game stages.

Hey, thanks for sharing. That's clear and concise, well written too. What about you write a guide for this page? That'd be great.

Thanks, but that's unlikely due to the state of game currently. However if you ever don't understand something you're more than welcome to open a thread asking about I'd help where I can and many others would as well.

Then get P4 instead

Thats definitely an alternative, but the KT should definitely be buffed.

Thats definitely an alternative, but the KT should definitely be buffed.

It was just nerfed because of how stupidly op it was.
The fact that its hardcounters actually hardcounter it now is not relevant and not an issue.

It was just nerfed because of how stupidly op it was.
The fact that its hardcounters actually hardcounter it now is not relevant and not an issue.

Ok first of all the bigger problem with the King Tiger is it's scatter, which doesn't have much to do against TDs, but rather aginst infantry and also the SU 85 and the Firefly were good against it before, the only thing that changed was that they overbuffed the Jackson, so it preforms too well against the King Tiger. Just, because something is a hardcounter doesn't mean it can't overpreform.

The heavy tanks in general have something of an identity crisis. What's their niche? The ones that see use (the Pershing and a little of the Tiger I) do so because they're call-ins.

The ones that aren't call-ins are outperformed by multiple mediums. Would you take a Jadgtiger or two JP4s? An Elefant or three StuGs? A King Tiger or two P4s? An IS-2 or two T-34/85s?

Heavy tanks need something their weight in mediums lacks if they're to be worthwhile. Reducing their cost in line with their performance is one option. A KV-1 style repair speed buff is another.

The heavy tanks in general have something of an identity crisis. What's their niche? The ones that see use (the Pershing and a little of the Tiger I) do so because they're call-ins.

Not really sure what do you expect them to be, but they are larger generalist meds now.
Pershing always was like that with firepower being its quirk.

The ones that aren't call-ins are outperformed by multiple mediums. Would you take a Jadgtiger or two JP4s? An Elefant or three StuGs? A King Tiger or two P4s? An IS-2 or two T-34/85s?

One thing about performance and efficiency is, what do you expect them to do vs what and for what cost?
Relic did explained that once in the past with heavy vs med example, it basically went like this:

Heavy costs 200 fuel for example, pair of meds cost 100 fuel each. How do you go about balancing cost efficiency here? If heavy would win, it would be overpowered. If meds would win, meds would be overpowered.
Perfect situation is when heavy kills 1 med and dies to other or both are critically low.

Now with that in mind and heavies costing pretty much twice as much as med, where do you see heavies? Because they're kind of worth 2 meds, trading firepower for staying power-previously they did had both, fire and staying power and that was wrong.

Heavy costs 200 fuel for example, pair of meds cost 100 fuel each. How do you go about balancing cost efficiency here? If heavy would win, it would be overpowered. If meds would win, meds would be overpowered.

That illustrates the problem fairly well.

If a slugging match between a 600MP 200FU heavy tank and two 300MP 100FU medium tanks is a fair fight then the heavy tank is almost always worse than the two mediums.

This is because halfway through that slugging match one of the medium tanks is going to withdraw or die. Consequently the damage output of the medium tank pair is going to be cut in half.

In order for the two mediums to win they must reduce the heavy tank to less than 33% health in the time it takes the heavy to reduce them to 50% (ie: kill one of them). In order to make the slugging match fair the heavy tank must have less firepower or less health than medium pair.

That translates into a disadvantage everywhere else. If the medium pair has greater firepower it's more effective against targets that can't fight back on equal terms such as infantry. If the medium pair has greater health it's more survivable against targets it can't fight back against on equal terms such as AT guns.

Add the fact that a pair of medium tanks can split up and by virtue of being two vehicles instead of one are less vulnerable to snares, stuns and Mark Target and it's not looking good for the heavy.

Like nobody ever raged at coh2 lol

But Muh bias accusations

Not really sure what do you expect them to be, but they are larger generalist meds now.
Pershing always was like that with firepower being its quirk.



One thing about performance and efficiency is, what do you expect them to do vs what and for what cost?
Relic did explained that once in the past with heavy vs med example, it basically went like this:

Heavy costs 200 fuel for example, pair of meds cost 100 fuel each. How do you go about balancing cost efficiency here? If heavy would win, it would be overpowered. If meds would win, meds would be overpowered.
Perfect situation is when heavy kills 1 med and dies to other or both are critically low.

Now with that in mind and heavies costing pretty much twice as much as med, where do you see heavies? Because they're kind of worth 2 meds, trading firepower for staying power-previously they did had both, fire and staying power and that was wrong.

Dir Katitof once more you are presenting your own opinion as if it was Relic's.

What Relic actually wrote is that when they where balancing heavy tanks they actually made them 30%-40% more powerful due to "opportunity cost".

PLS either start quoting Relic when you want to use them as an argument or stop mentioning them at all.

Dir Katitof once more you are presenting your own opinion as if it was Relic's.

What Relic actually wrote is that when they where balancing heavy tanks they actually made them 30%-40% more powerful due to "opportunity cost".

PLS either start quoting Relic when you want to use them as an argument or stop mentioning them at all.

Watch fucking relic twitch vods and stop acting like sassy, know-it-all ignorant.

As much as you want and see yourself as the all knowing voice of reason - you are not.
High attitude and nipping does not make you forum noble.

I am fed up with it, people are fed up with it and mods are fed up with it as you could read on your latest PW if you need a proof even for that.

What Relic actually wrote is that when they where balancing heavy tanks they actually made them 30%-40% more powerful due to "opportunity cost".

30 to 40% more powerful than what? One medium? Two mediums?

Watch fucking relic twitch vods and stop acting like sassy, know-it-all ignorant.

As much as you want and see yourself as the all knowing voice of reason - you are not.
High attitude and nipping does not make you forum noble.

I am fed up with it, people are fed up with it and mods are fed up with it as you could read on your latest PW if you need a proof even for that.

Once more if you want to use Relic as argument provide a quote or provide a link.

In this case (and it is not the first) you either fail to understand what Relic (Peter Qumsieh) is clearly saying or you are bluntly lying.

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PeterQumsieh/20150414/240950/Balancing_Multiplayer_Games__Opportunity_Power_and_Relativity.php

"Applying this concept simply requires us to account for the opportunity cost of each decision in a game. If a decision has a very low opportunity cost, then I typically ignore it. When this is not the case, I create designer rules to account for it. For example, in Company of Heroes 2, the more expensive a unit the better the return on investment. When comparing relative cost, we made heavy tanks approximately 30-40% more powerful than their counterparts. Prior to this adjustment, heavy tanks were extremely difficult to field because the cost was just too high. This was a very direct and readable modification to this unit type, which in turn made heavy tanks viable."

At least when I offer an opinion say it is my opinion and not Relic's. If I am going to use Relic as an argument I quote them or understand what they are saying.