Tiger 1 need a very little Buff in dmg

A Comet (800 hp) that dies to 4 shots (200 damage each) and almost costs the same as a Tiger if you include the hammer tech would be utterly useless sure it has better speed and nondoc smoke/phosphor at vet1 but it will be hard to make it work vs tigers so it might only bully mediums and some infantry and gets hardcountered by heavys or tankdestroyers.

Same goes for t34/85, M4A3E8, Sherman Bulldozer (both variants) (hp between 720 and 800 compared to 640 for mediums) so pretty much every single premium medium tank will have a worse time while fighting against Tigers. I think it might go that far that their cheaper counterparts will not only more efficient at fighting vs heavy tanks but also nearly as effective.

Should the game go on long enough, how many tigers can on have on field at any given time? Now how about comets, 85s, e8sor dozers? And how many 60 range tank destroyers are lined up behind the line tiger? The tiger is not akin to a premium medium because it's a HEAVY tank, a heavy tank in the ONLY faction in game without a 60 range TD, the only faction actually who has a proper TD that is mutually exclusive with their heavy tank...

Yeah it use to be an huge issue when TDs struggled against heavies and I honestly prefer Medium+TD meta over heavy spam meta that plagued coh2 a few years ago.


That being said I think the Tiger could use a slight price decrease or maybe Buffs to mgs as we don't want another wipe machine like the old KT either.

+1

Axis already have the edge with blob counters. Stock rocket artillery and the Brummbar already means allied infantry play require a lot of care, especially when Volks and Grens are already very strong, usually being countered by Allied elites which tend to better than the axis ones. Soviets rely on guards or shock troops, USF on Rangers or 1919 rifleman and UKF on commandos or bren blobs. Giving axis more tools to wipe these expensive units is going to throw both infantry play and vehicle play into axis favour. The current balance is somewhat decent if you ask me, I'd rather not mess with it too much.

TDs should counter heavy tanks, just not as effectively as they do now IMO. If they are positioned even slightly well, a Tiger has no chance against Allied 60 range TDs with its low 45 range and slow speed because they can just kite away safely while returning deadly fire.

Giving the Tiger a bit more range would help it a lot, so it can effectively engage when TDs are slightly out of position without having to literally banzai rush (45 range) them to take a shot. Decreasing the range advantage TDs have (by buffing the Tiger's range) would keep them as effective as they are now, but would greatly increase the amount of skill needed to micro them to this full potential as it becomes much more risky to engage.


Otherwise I'd settle for a price decrease that better reflects its current restrictions.

Interesting idea. I wonder how much it would change things. Something between 50-55 range would probably be ideal in this situation, however, probably nearer to 50 would make most sense because allied TDs should still effectively outrange axis heavies (since they are counters to it). Keep in mind a 5 range difference is ludicrously small in tank to tank fights and would be a ton of micro to keep within with TDs, especially the non-Jackson (and much slower) ones.

Tbh while I know it's too late in the game I wish damage was relative to the caliber of the gun for the sake of new players. One shouldn't have to dive into the stats to find out that the 88 deals the same damage as the 75 unless it's a kt then it deals as much damage as a 152, unless that 152 is lobbed from a howitzer, then it deals as much damage as a 76, which is exactly half the damage of a pak 43s 88.... Which is the same damage as the 76mm 17lb, which ends up being more than the 88 of the elefant who deals the same damage as the 128 of the Jagdtiger who deals almost double the damage of the 122 of the is-2 who deals the same damage as the 57mm at gun..

Yeah well there’s so much wacky bullshittery with weaponry in this game. Aside from just tank guns, you have infantry weapons, where there are 3 different versions of the stg, all with completely different dps curves, two versions of the M1 carbine, like 4(?) versions of the kar98k, 2 mosins, 2 brens, etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous but probably doesn’t matter much most of the time to newer players. It’s pretty intuitive that the ranger version of the M1 carbine is better than the rear echelon version or that the ober kar98 is better than the volksgrenadier version. I didn’t even notice the kt did 240 damage for a long time when I was a newer player, but once you get good enough that that sort of stuff starts to matter you end up figuring it out anyway.

A Comet (800 hp) that dies to 4 shots (200 damage each) and almost costs the same as a Tiger if you include the hammer tech would be utterly useless sure it has better speed and nondoc smoke/phosphor at vet1 but it will be hard to make it work vs tigers so it might only bully mediums and some infantry and gets hardcountered by heavys or tankdestroyers.

Well yes, most units arnt as good when they face their counter, why is that a problem?

Same goes for t34/85, M4A3E8, Sherman Bulldozer (both variants) (hp between 720 and 800 compared to 640 for mediums) so pretty much every single premium medium tank will have a worse time while fighting against Tigers. I think it might go that far that their cheaper counterparts will not only more efficient at fighting vs heavy tanks but also nearly as effective.

So heavy tanks cant be good vs tank destroyers, they can't be good against premium mediums, what exactly are they supposed to be good at? A heavy tank should be getting something for their high price and low mobility.

Interesting idea. I wonder how much it would change things. Something between 50-55 range would probably be ideal in this situation, however, probably nearer to 50 would make most sense because allied TDs should still effectively outrange axis heavies (since they are counters to it). Keep in mind a 5 range difference is ludicrously small in tank to tank fights and would be a ton of micro to keep within with TDs, especially the non-Jackson (and much slower) ones.

Yeah well there’s so much wacky bullshittery with weaponry in this game. Aside from just tank guns, you have infantry weapons, where there are 3 different versions of the stg, all with completely different dps curves, two versions of the M1 carbine, like 4(?) versions of the kar98k, 2 mosins, 2 brens, etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous but probably doesn’t matter much most of the time to newer players. It’s pretty intuitive that the ranger version of the M1 carbine is better than the rear echelon version or that the ober kar98 is better than the volksgrenadier version. I didn’t even notice the kt did 240 damage for a long time when I was a newer player, but once you get good enough that that sort of stuff starts to matter you end up figuring it out anyway.

Infantry weapons KINDA makes sense tho because solder variables. Like a militia armed with the same weapons as special forces might not line up, but tanks are a different story, or should be. The caliber of the weapon is as easy for new comers to expect as understanding that conscripts and guards might use their rifles differently

In my opinion, I feel most mainline heavies are lacking in terms of performance to cost ratio, OFC they shouldn't be big death machines that are the single backbone of the army but still the Tiger 1, IS2, and Pershing all feel a little out of place/underwhelming Excluding Tiger II.

^ This guy just claimed the Pershing and Tiger 1 feel underwhelming while the Tiger 2 doesn't. I just can't even......

+1

Axis already have the edge with blob counters. Stock rocket artillery and the Brummbar already means allied infantry play require a lot of care, especially when Volks and Grens are already very strong, usually being countered by Allied elites which tend to better than the axis ones. Soviets rely on guards or shock troops, USF on Rangers or 1919 rifleman and UKF on commandos or bren blobs. Giving axis more tools to wipe these expensive units is going to throw both infantry play and vehicle play into axis favour. The current balance is somewhat decent if you ask me, I'd rather not mess with it too much.

Theres also the fact that having an entire squad implode in one shot is super frustrating especially for factions like USF/UKF which losing a vet 3 rifle or IS is basically irreplaceable in a game.

Theres also the fact that having an entire squad implode in one shot is super frustrating especially for factions like USF/UKF which losing a vet 3 rifle or IS is basically irreplaceable in a game.

At least for a boat load of munitions you can mitigate it somewhat. Try losing a squad as Soviet where you can't buy your way out of losing vet.

Interesting idea. I wonder how much it would change things. Something between 50-55 range would probably be ideal in this situation, however, probably nearer to 50 would make most sense because allied TDs should still effectively outrange axis heavies (since they are counters to it). Keep in mind a 5 range difference is ludicrously small in tank to tank fights and would be a ton of micro to keep within with TDs, especially the non-Jackson (and much slower) ones.

50 range (+5 range at vet3 I think) is one of the major things that makes the Tiger Ace much more usable than the regular stock one, simply because the extra range means it can capitalize on catching enemy TDs off guard much better. With 45 range it's a death sentence having to bumrush enemy TD's while lacking the speed to get away safely afterwards.

I honestly think giving the Tiger this 50 range at vet0 would help it perform a lot better in the current meta. Not sure if it should still get +5 range at vet3 then, that might make it OP.

Allied TD need to become less effective at max range.

With the reduce of Panther's armor only Elephant, JT and KT have high armor.

The penetration and accuracy can easily go down.

Example SU-85 vet 3 penetration 312/299/286

Chance to penetrate Tiger max range 95% and 135% chance to hit.

Chance to penetrate Panther max range 100% and 125% chance to hit.

Allied TD need to become less effective at max range.

With the reduce of Panther's armor only Elephant, JT and KT have high armor.

The penetration and accuracy can easily go down.

Example SU-85 vet 3 penetration 312/299/286

Chance to penetrate Tiger max range 95% and 135% chance to hit.

Chance to penetrate Panther max range 100% and 125% chance to hit.

Should we apply the same logic for the Tiger itself?

Allied TD need to become less effective at max range.

With the reduce of Panther's armor only Elephant, JT and KT have high armor.

The penetration and accuracy can easily go down.

Example SU-85 vet 3 penetration 312/299/286

Chance to penetrate Tiger max range 95% and 135% chance to hit.

Chance to penetrate Panther max range 100% and 125% chance to hit.

One question.
Why would that happen?

Allied TDs are -supposed- to counter all axis armor with lower range reliably without the need to spam them.
Panther isn't supposed to kill TDs, its supposed to go down to them.
Same for Tiger.
Same for KT.
Same for P4.
Same for StuG.

So unless you plan to give all allies something akin to Panther, TDs need to stay where they are.

You might just as well be arguing the need to nerf HMGs, because mainline infantry is countered by it when approaching frontally without support.

Also, why are you never arguing against Panther penetration, rof and vet?
It stomps all allied armor in range, yet you never once complained.

In my opinion, I feel most mainline heavies are lacking in terms of performance to cost ratio, OFC they shouldn't be big death machines that are the single backbone of the army but still the Tiger 1, IS2, and Pershing all feel a little out of place/underwhelming Excluding Tiger II.

if anything I feel like Pershing performs the best for its price considering the mobility it gets and the mix of AI/AT it has.
IS-2 and KT are garbage though, IS-2 more so

Then again, it's a glorified panther

Allied TDs are -supposed- to counter all axis armor with lower range reliably without the need to spam them.
Panther isn't supposed to kill TDs, its supposed to go down to them.
Same for Tiger.
Same for KT.
Same for P4.
Same for StuG.

This TD meta is bad design as long as it counters every single vehicle. I'm fine with TDs countering heavy tanks - although this should be less easy (with range differences making it way too easy to kite currently). However, TDs should have lower rate of fire so they do not counter mediums as well. Right now, Allied TD is just the answer to everything and it makes the Allied game devoid of the same strategic choices Axis have to make.

This is actually somewhat the case with OKW's Panzer IV ausf.J, that can win close range to TDs due to ROF as long as it can fire first. I think this rock-paper-scissors mechanic should be emphasized much more.

Should we apply the same logic for the Tiger itself?

The tiger vs what? I am not sure what your point is it.

As I pointed out a vet 3 SU-85 has 95% chance to hit and penetrate a Tiger at range 60, even I that chance went down 85% the unit would still be fine.

This TD meta is bad design as long as it counters every single vehicle. I'm fine with TDs countering heavy tanks - although this should be less easy (with range differences making it way too easy to kite currently). However, TDs should have lower rate of fire so they do not counter mediums as well. Right now, Allied TD is just the answer to everything and it makes the Allied game devoid of the same strategic choices Axis have to make.

Its a situation you can't really win and it'll always be about TD meta in team games.
In 2v2 and 1v1 the units need to be strong to counter what they need to without the need to get multiple, especially with their large pop cap and cost.

And you can't nerf it without lowering cost and pop to allow to get more, because now you will need more to do the job, which encourages spam anyway(as evidenced in the past).

If you nerf RoF, that'll also allow heavies to be used much more aggressively, panther included, because now it can stand in range that much longer, which again forces player to get more TDs instead of other vehicles to counter lower RoF.

Unless people will learn to use ATGs, AT infantry and flanks to keep TDs at range and counter them, people will always complain.

And yes, allied TDs are answer to everything, because there is literally no alternative, allies do not have cheaper, spammable TD that would be answer to med and axis always have possibility to get panther out, so a TD needed to counter it in anticipation is mandatory.
Both axis factions have Panthers, but they also have Pumas, StuGs, JP4s. Couple that with allied paper armor outside of british very late game and you have the answer why its like that.
Only soviets have SU-76, but that is still less effective then any of the axis ones against meds, especially post nerfs.

One question.
Why would that happen?

Allied TDs are -supposed- to counter all axis armor with lower range reliably without the need to spam them.
Panther isn't supposed to kill TDs, its supposed to go down to them.
Same for Tiger.
Same for KT.
Same for P4.
Same for StuG.

So unless you plan to give all allies something akin to Panther, TDs need to stay where they are.

You might just as well be arguing the need to nerf HMGs, because mainline infantry is countered by it when approaching frontally without support.

Also, why are you never arguing against Panther penetration, rof and vet?
It stomps all allied armor in range, yet you never once complained.

That is actually two questions not one.

I can answer them if you answer the following questions first:
Did the OKW get 100 manpower more because the SWS truck's price went from 0 to 100?
DO OKW pay 25 fuel for their vehicles because of OKW's theme?

And you can't nerf it without lowering cost and pop to allow to get more, because now you will need more to do the job, which encourages spam anyway(as evidenced in the past).

[…]

Unless people will learn to use ATGs, AT infantry and flanks to keep TDs at range and counter them, people will always complain.

So you're saying it's fine that the Allies should get one TD to counter every vehicle while the Germans should get themselves a whole army to support their tanks against said TD?

This TD meta is bad design as long as it counters every single vehicle. I'm fine with TDs countering heavy tanks - although this should be less easy (with range differences making it way too easy to kite currently). However, TDs should have lower rate of fire so they do not counter mediums as well. Right now, Allied TD is just the answer to everything and it makes the Allied game devoid of the same strategic choices Axis have to make.

This is actually somewhat the case with OKW's Panzer IV ausf.J, that can win close range to TDs due to ROF as long as it can fire first. I think this rock-paper-scissors mechanic should be emphasized much more.

Wut, which TD meta? do you think people build TD to win games? Just to remember, M36 Jackson is 14pop, build 2 and you've just lock 1/3 of your popcap into pure AT.