i disagree that allied TDs still need to be so potent to EASILY take a KT from the front as heavy tanks had their rear armour nerfed to allow mediums to be an actual option against them. a heavy tank should force a combine approach.
the su85 in particular i feel is over buffed, as since then exists AT penals with the AT hand nuke as well as actually viable t34s
the jackson too has all the tools to survive being squishy, without the squishy making it a brawler that can also flank and can also out range that can also up the anty with vet shells
the FF imo is good as it provides reliability and thus is a threat, but also has enough drawbacks to warrant it
What to do with the KT?
28 Mar 2018, 21:42 PM
#61
Posts: 5279
#stalinwept
29 Mar 2018, 03:53 AM
#62
92 
Posts: 374
it will always be a shit unit,
Every time i see the thing it either does one of two things.
A: it's just a metal slug that just derps around and die in the most glorious of explosions
B: it's just a metal slug that just derps around and forces your opponent to quit giving me such a gross dirty feeling to the point where i feel sick inside for building that damn thing for ending a game to fast where glorious of explosions could be had.
Every time i see the thing it either does one of two things.
A: it's just a metal slug that just derps around and die in the most glorious of explosions
B: it's just a metal slug that just derps around and forces your opponent to quit giving me such a gross dirty feeling to the point where i feel sick inside for building that damn thing for ending a game to fast where glorious of explosions could be had.
29 Mar 2018, 11:52 AM
#63
Posts: 375
I don't mind the new KT but there're times where im like "how could u miss that shot KT". rather the KT miss more when moving then when not moving, just need to slightly change not moving scatter and leave moving scatter as is. The KT can still get cheese shots off, just more rare.Such a big unit that it shouldn't be able to hit targets while moving.
AU Straya! Credit to Jaskass4life for image vv
3 Apr 2018, 21:36 PM
#64
Posts: 144
Buff front armor to 400, the original armor nerf was just simply too much (425 to 375).
While at it, the Tiger could also use an armor buff to about 350, now that the Panther armor vet was nerfed.
The trouble with both Tigers is that they are too easy to damage (especially Tiger I) and they cannot have much presence in the field if everything not just specialized counters but even mediums can pen it relatively easily.
While at it, the Tiger could also use an armor buff to about 350, now that the Panther armor vet was nerfed.
The trouble with both Tigers is that they are too easy to damage (especially Tiger I) and they cannot have much presence in the field if everything not just specialized counters but even mediums can pen it relatively easily.
3 Apr 2018, 23:52 PM
#65
Posts: 5279
Buff front armor to 400, the original armor nerf was just simply too much (425 to 375).
While at it, the Tiger could also use an armor buff to about 350, now that the Panther armor vet was nerfed.
The trouble with both Tigers is that they are too easy to damage (especially Tiger I) and they cannot have much presence in the field if everything not just specialized counters but even mediums can pen it relatively easily.
T34 pen at far 80
KT armour 375
Percent chance of pen 21.3
TIL 21%= easily.
Therefore all axis armour bar 2cms can fight tanks relatively easily as 375 is also the value of the most armoured allied tank..
Jokes aside, i agree an armour buff would be nice for the tiger II. Its rear armour was merfed so mediums are actually a threat now so it doesnt need to be reliably countered from the front by TDs. 400 is plenty reasonable.
Tiger 1 id rather get a range increase to 50 (55 with vet) than an armour increase, maybe a damage bump to 200 (is-2 as well for the damage bump) just to make it that little bit MORE.
#stalinwept
4 Apr 2018, 09:03 AM
#66
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Buffing the penetration of allied TDs and then the armor of the KT makes little sense.
Maybe reduce the penetration instead.
Maybe reduce the penetration instead.
4 Apr 2018, 17:44 PM
#67
Posts: 5279
Su85, while a dps monster with vet was unreliable as all hell. It needed a pen increase (it got too much, but it needed one) Similiarily the old jackson, it had great damage but wasnt reliable against even a p4 without HVAP so it too needed a pen increase.
The kt had its ass nerfed, so increaseing its frony still leaves it vulnerable to flanks
The kt had its ass nerfed, so increaseing its frony still leaves it vulnerable to flanks
#stalinwept
4 Apr 2018, 18:28 PM
#68
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
What is the point in paying more for axis armor and gaining armor bonus if allied TDs have so much penetration?
FF
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 240
Penetration far 210
Tullip
Penetration near 1.000
Penetration mid 1.000
Penetration far 1.000
Deflection damage 39.99 (Deflection damage on what) ?
SU-85
Penetration near 240
Penetration mid 230
Penetration far 220
Vet2
Penetration near 312
Penetration mid 299
Penetration far 286
M36
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 240
Penetration far 220
vet3
Penetration near 338
Penetration mid 312
Penetration far 286
AP vet 3
Penetration near 390
Penetration mid 364
Penetration far 325
Allied TD penetration was buffed to fight the KT and now the suggestion to buff the KT armor more? In that case lower all other vehicles armor make them cheaper and replace the armor bonus with something useful.
FF
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 240
Penetration far 210
Tullip
Penetration near 1.000
Penetration mid 1.000
Penetration far 1.000
Deflection damage 39.99 (Deflection damage on what) ?
SU-85
Penetration near 240
Penetration mid 230
Penetration far 220
Vet2
Penetration near 312
Penetration mid 299
Penetration far 286
M36
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 240
Penetration far 220
vet3
Penetration near 338
Penetration mid 312
Penetration far 286
AP vet 3
Penetration near 390
Penetration mid 364
Penetration far 325
Allied TD penetration was buffed to fight the KT and now the suggestion to buff the KT armor more? In that case lower all other vehicles armor make them cheaper and replace the armor bonus with something useful.
4 Apr 2018, 18:42 PM
#69
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Maybe the point of that armor is to not try to use it against the very thing that is supposed to hardcounter that high armor?
Maybe tanks are not supposed to stand up to and slug it out against something that literally has tank destroyer in the name?
You don't expect infantry to frontally win against MG, why do you expect tanks to be able to engage tank destroyers without a flank?
Just a thought.
Maybe tanks are not supposed to stand up to and slug it out against something that literally has tank destroyer in the name?
You don't expect infantry to frontally win against MG, why do you expect tanks to be able to engage tank destroyers without a flank?
Just a thought.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Apr 2018, 19:08 PM
#70
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Maybe the point of that armor is to not try to use it against the very thing that is supposed to hardcounter that high armor?
Maybe tanks are not supposed to stand up to and slug it out against something that literally has tank destroyer in the name?
You don't expect infantry to frontally win against MG, why do you expect tanks to be able to engage tank destroyers without a flank?
Just a thought.
Do you agree that KT armor should be increased or are you just trying to get to 10.000+6.300 posts?
4 Apr 2018, 19:24 PM
#71
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Do you agree that KT armor should be increased or are you just trying to get to 10.000+6.300 posts?
I do not see why it should have armor buffed.
IS-2 never had its armor increased, because Panther penetrated it reliably, I completely fail to see why should it be any different with KT. What is the actual argument for it? Krupp steel? Muh history?
Its a super heavy tank and only a singular unit of each opposing faction reliably stands up to it.
You want a unit to not be vulnerable to its own hard counter and I completely fail to see why as it walks over every singular unit in the game that attempts to engage it. Even IS-2 will lose to a Panther in a slugfest with a bit of luck, but there is absolutely nothing that is able to contest KT.
This is why TDs were buffed and this is why KT should not be.
If you want allied TDs to have lower penetration, KTs armor should go down as well.
It walks over tanks, it walks over AT infantry, it walks over ATGs, TDs are the only reliable things in game.
Alternatively, if you want TDs to be less reliable against KT, KT should receive further nerfs in firepower department to damage at the very least.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
4 Apr 2018, 19:27 PM
#72
Posts: 808
What is the point in paying more for axis armor and gaining armor bonus if allied TDs have so much penetration?
FF
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 240
Penetration far 210
Tullip
Penetration near 1.000
Penetration mid 1.000
Penetration far 1.000
Deflection damage 39.99 (Deflection damage on what) ?
SU-85
Penetration near 240
Penetration mid 230
Penetration far 220
Vet2
Penetration near 312
Penetration mid 299
Penetration far 286
M36
Penetration near 260
Penetration mid 240
Penetration far 220
vet3
Penetration near 338
Penetration mid 312
Penetration far 286
AP vet 3
Penetration near 390
Penetration mid 364
Penetration far 325
Allied TD penetration was buffed to fight the KT and now the suggestion to buff the KT armor more? In that case lower all other vehicles armor make them cheaper and replace the armor bonus with something useful.
agreed, some of these penetration values are ridiculous
4 Apr 2018, 19:27 PM
#73
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I do not see why it should have armor buffed.
IS-2 never had its armor increased, because Panther penetrated it reliably, I completely fail to see why should it be any different with KT. What is the actual argument for it? Krupp steel? Muh history?
Its a super heavy tank and only a singular unit of each opposing faction reliably stands up to it.
You want a unit to not be vulnerable to its own hard counter and I completely fail to see why as it walks over every singular unit in the game that attempts to engage it. Even IS-2 will lose to a Panther in a slugfest with a bit of luck, but there is absolutely nothing that is able to contest KT.
This is why TDs were buffed and this is why KT should not be.
If you want allied TDs to have lower penetration, KTs armor should go down as well.
It walks over tanks, it walks over AT infantry, it walks over ATGs, TDs are the only reliable things in game.
Alternatively, if you want TDs to be less reliable against KT, KT should receive further nerfs in firepower department to damage at the very least.
You have to argue that with people suggesting that KT needs more armor not me.
I would suggest to you to try to read what other are talking about before posting.
4 Apr 2018, 20:29 PM
#74
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Persoanlly I don't see how buffing its armor would help the situation at all. TDs would still pen semi consistantly, and the KT frontal armor was hardly an issue in the first place. If the KT doesn't hit anything it'll just be a worthless resource sink, aka the IS2.
But also personally the only issue I saw with the KT was 1. semi-doctrinal, cause you at least had to pick a doctrine, but 2. it would gib 5-6 man squads with its alpha strike from fog if they were clumped. TDs could deal with the KT pre patch and they still can post patch, now it just doesn't hit anything cause scatter went up by 200%. Balance team "minor tweaks" at its finest.
But also personally the only issue I saw with the KT was 1. semi-doctrinal, cause you at least had to pick a doctrine, but 2. it would gib 5-6 man squads with its alpha strike from fog if they were clumped. TDs could deal with the KT pre patch and they still can post patch, now it just doesn't hit anything cause scatter went up by 200%. Balance team "minor tweaks" at its finest.
4 Apr 2018, 20:51 PM
#75
Posts: 5279
Some TDs need a pen reduction. No arguing that. But should that happen they NEED defelction damage. You cant make a unit whos sole purpose is to damage tanks be a complete dice roll on if it damages them or not. Imagine a sniper with a 50% chance to miss. Fuckin useless.
#stalinwept
5 Apr 2018, 00:04 AM
#76
Posts: 295 | Subs: 1
I do not see why it should have armor buffed.
IS-2 never had its armor increased, because Panther penetrated it reliably, I completely fail to see why should it be any different with KT. What is the actual argument for it? Krupp steel? Muh history?
Well probably because panther is like x2 more expensive to get (ostheer at least, for OKW you dont need it), aswell as panthers 50 range instead of 60 range, meaning harder kiting. Add to the final product accuracy and RoF, and get best Crapp steel
5 Apr 2018, 09:21 AM
#77
Posts: 4474
how about less armor more hp/more armor more target size by a lot ? and nerf the pen on allied TD/ nerf the accuracy on allied TD ?
I do not see why it should have armor buffed.
IS-2 never had its armor increased, because Panther penetrated it reliably, I completely fail to see why should it be any different with KT. What is the actual argument for it? Krupp steel? Muh history?
Its a super heavy tank and only a singular unit of each opposing faction reliably stands up to it.
You want a unit to not be vulnerable to its own hard counter and I completely fail to see why as it walks over every singular unit in the game that attempts to engage it. Even IS-2 will lose to a Panther in a slugfest with a bit of luck, but there is absolutely nothing that is able to contest KT.
This is why TDs were buffed and this is why KT should not be.
If you want allied TDs to have lower penetration, KTs armor should go down as well.
It walks over tanks, it walks over AT infantry, it walks over ATGs, TDs are the only reliable things in game.
Alternatively, if you want TDs to be less reliable against KT, KT should receive further nerfs in firepower department to damage at the very least.
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
32 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
221 | ||
 |
|
|
17 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
415 users are online:
1 member and 414 guests
PatFenis
PatFenis
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49063
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, jennifermary
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM