Tiger 1 need a very little Buff in dmg

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.

Not really simply, keep the crews out of the m36 if there no enemy tanks around and lower the pot to 8.

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.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're talking about 1v1s here. I'm talking about team games. In team game corridor maps 2 Jacksons is enough to shut down all Axis armor and so are SU-85s and Fireflies.

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?

The very moment you post your sources it wasn't like that.
Feel free to dig in into patch notes of OKW revamp and compare medium vehicle prices to ost equivalents and JP4 to SU-85 price at the time.

For someone repeating like a broken record "much faction design" you are chosing to completely ignore and disregard whatever doesn't suit your narrative, pretending it didn't happen and using only most recent changes as a counter argument(which also reinforces the argument against your "muh faction design" mantra, which doesn't hold from the very moment first community patch dropped).

everyone knows allies TD are OP and they have to be. If ther not ther late game will be non existent because they lack options compared to OKW and ostheer.

Slight range buff and a small MP cost decrease would help alot with making the tiger much more efficient while TD's can still counter it effectively

I agreed. Tiger I and Pershing have a damage of 160, which is the same damage as a medium tank. Because of this, it does not look as strong as you think when you deal with medium tanks. I think it would be ok to raise it to around 240 to make up for the characteristics of the heavy tank.

By the way, I think it's okay that the tank distroyer is a counter for heavy tanks. All units must have at least one countermeasure. In fact, CoH2's tank distroyers have a modest main gun to deal with heavy tanks.
(It is worth remembering that Michael Bitman, who was Tiger Ace, was killed by Sherman Firefly.)

I agreed. Tiger I and Pershing have a damage of 160, which is the same damage as a medium tank. Because of this, it does not look as strong as you think when you deal with medium tanks. I think it would be ok to raise it to around 240 to make up for the characteristics of the heavy tank.

By the way, I think it's okay that the tank distroyer is a counter for heavy tanks. All units must have at least one countermeasure. In fact, CoH2's tank distroyers have a modest main gun to deal with heavy tanks.
(It is worth remembering that Michael Bitman, who was Tiger Ace, was killed by Sherman Firefly.)

Yes tank destroyers should counter heavy tanks, there simply not need to have 95% chance to hit an penetrate at range 60.

By the way, I think it's okay that the tank distroyer is a counter for heavy tanks. All units must have at least one countermeasure.

Well everyone agrees about that.
It's just that the argument could be made that TDs are too good at it. Or that heavies are too bad to deal with it, depending on one's point of view.

I think one question needs asking with the call-in heavies: what are they for?

Every tank in the game fits somewhere into this triangle.



A purely AT tank (something that can't hurt infantry at all) is somewhere on the red line. A purely AT tank is on the blue line.

In a tank-on-tank battle between two tanks of the same cost, the tank that's closest to the red line is going to win. A Tank Destroyer beats a generalist, a generalist beats an Anti-Infantry tank.

Therefore, the tank with weaker AT (the hunted tank) has to avoid the tank with stronger AT (the hunter tank).

Some tanks are very good at being the Hunted Tank. The Brummbar and M8 Scott can take devasting pot shots at infantry and run away behind AT walls when the Jacksons turn up.

The Panther is an interesting case. It's about 75% AT and 25% AI, so it's the Hunter Tank against generalists and the Hunted Tank against Tank Destroyers. As the Hunter Tank it can drive off T-34s and contribute a passable amount of anti-infantry damage on top of that.

As the Hunted Tank, it's terrible. It's not going to win the tank battle, so it's contributing its anti-infantry damage instead rather than as well.

This is the problem Heavy Tanks have. Unless they're all in on anti-tank (Elefant, Jadgtiger) they're always going to be the Hunted Tank. Therefore, they've got be to good in that Hunted Tank role: smashing up infantry and weaker tanks, then running away when the TDs turn up.

I like your graphic there, but i feel as though it entirely downplays the importance of maneuverability/positioning for vehicles.

Heavies and especially the casemate heavies are extremely lacking in maneuverability. A t34/76 can kill a jagdtiger without taking damage technically, (competitively unrealistic yes, but it highlights how important positioning is for these units.) It's really the difference between whether or not a unit can be used offensively, defensively, or both.

I think the Tiger just needs a very small armor buff from 300 to 320. I find it somewhat unreliable against infantry but if we made it a bit more reliable, it may cause problems. The Tiger's armor is a bit lacking because allied factions all have their TDs buffed to counter KT (375) armor while ignoring the consequences for the Tiger. Yes the Persh also has 300 armor but the most reliable axis counter, the panther, is more expensive than the allied TDs. Especially for Ost as they're the only faction that has 4 tiers. Axis unturreted TDs have don't have 200+ pen like the allied TDs and hence the Pershing's 300 armor is already justified. Overall I think the Tiger is in a good spot, it just needs a very small buff.

Allied TDs need a pen reduction but deflection damage. If they are to function as one size fits all but not invalidate armour as a whole. Guaranteed damage through deflection damage enables the ability to zone out high armour targets with chip damage and force them off for repairs, armour against non TDs functions as it does now, but as a sort of damage reduction chance without. Jackson would maintain HVAP to allow it better chance to deal full damage, su85 could still get a pen buff with vet to do the same and the Firefly could perhaps be granted something like armour sundering to its tulips to make it unique instead of cheesy stun locks and status effects.

Deflection damage is the only way I can see to have single purpose TDs perform all the jobs they need to and armour to still be relevant.

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




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.

To your first point: Premium mediums would suffer under it would get countered by pretty much all units beside mediums and lone infantry squads without at capabilities, I personally only ever use premium mediums to survive one extra shot or have a overall slightly bette survivability which i only need if i face many tankdestroyers and some indirect options which would counter undefended at-based infantry or atguns.

Heavy Tanks work quite well for me if i use them as a spearhead unit supported by units that wouldn't stand a chance on their own like pgrens with schrecks that usually get focused and destroyed easily. I do think that in general heavy tanks could use a buff but i do not think that a straight damage buff would work without buffing premium medium tanks somehow: maybe some better pen for t34/85, slightly better mobility for sherman 75mm dozer, maybe revert the moving accuracy for the m4a3e8, Comet could either use a bit more hp or pen at vet0 to compare to the current panther and its veterancy needs a slight rework as it unlocks nice passive features like phosphor unlock and passive grenades but lacks combat buffs, I am unsure if Panther might need some changes to keep their role useful compared to the tiger that gets the same range at vet2 has similiar pen and armor and gets great mobility at vet3 while having way better health and antiinfantry performance.

To conclude i won't say that Heavy Tanks do not underperform but i think they could overperform compared to another class of lategame units.

The Comet is just an overpriced crappy tank that needs buffs to panther level so im not sure why people are comparing cost-performance to comet with tiger.

The reason we don't see as many tigers is because

A: mobile defence/command tank is still king

and

B: Panther buffs with health change have made it into the best lategame tank now (especially backed up with command tank aura and unkillable brumbar, tiger and T3 tanks just doesn't come close to this firepower).

The tiger like the IS-2 is still a solid unit, but why pick a doctrine for one and lock yourself out of so many cheesy ostheer doc abilities when the above exists. Back when Mech assault was meta the tiger was still considered fine, tiger has received no major nerfs or redesign since then.

Tiger tank needs to suegondese.

Suegondese nuts heheheh gotem.


I think the Tiger would be a lot more interesting of a tank if it was more similar to the Pershing. Namely, if it had better max speed and acceleration. Personally I don't think its damage needs to be improved: Its anti-inf and AT capabilities are basically the same as all the other heavy tanks. However, pershing gets Speed, IS2 get to be in significantly better doctrines and on the side of the allies (who don't have to face against allied tank destroyers) and the Tiger... the tiger is just there, doing its thing, getting hard countered by AT guns and tank destroyers.

If you gave the Tiger the speed and accel of the Pershing it would probably a real unit again.


Edit: Thinking more about this though, none of the heavy tanks are truly viable at the highest levels of current play because the tank destroyers of every faction are too effective at dealing with heavy tanks. It's far more effective to simply spam mediums.

...
Every tank in the game fits somewhere into this triangle.
...

Nice explanation, yet you forgot faction design. Balance its not achieved comparing units but instead of taking an entire faction and his capabilities to deal diferent situations.
I.E. SU can have more expensive and worse tanks than others, but their teching is cheaper and also they can AT snare with penals. (May not be the actual case, just an example) or they just simply gather more resources easly. Again, comparing 1v1 each troop will lead you to poor judgement IMO.

Edit: I think all heavy tanks are failing at their job. They are supposed to be slow but sturdy, capable of breaktrhoughs or holding ground while other units assist with fire. If they all got their frontal armor buffed, significantly, and maybe a damage nerf/tweak they could get some shine again.

Edit: I think all heavy tanks are failing at their job. They are supposed to be slow but sturdy, capable of breaktrhoughs or holding ground while other units assist with fire. If they all got their frontal armor buffed, significantly, and maybe a damage nerf/tweak they could get some shine again.

I think this is a problem caused by the bad gameplay design of having only front and rear armor. Because side armor is not a think, enemies need to overextend significantly in order to get a hit on the rear armor since side armor does not exist. With the entire front half of the vehicle counting as front armor, it can't have a super high armor value because it would be impossible to pen it even from the sides.

For example the King Tiger should be pretty much inpenetrable from the front for all Allied tanks that are in the game (except for special ammo) but even a slight flank would normally expose its weak side armor. Sadly this can't be simulated in coh2.

I think this is a problem caused by the bad gameplay design of having only front and rear armor. Because side armor is not a think, enemies need to overextend significantly in order to get a hit on the rear armor since side armor does not exist. With the entire front half of the vehicle counting as front armor, it can't have a super high armor value because it would be impossible to pen it even from the sides.

For example the King Tiger should be pretty much inpenetrable from the front for all Allied tanks that are in the game (except for special ammo) but even a slight flank would normally expose its weak side armor. Sadly this can't be simulated in coh2.

Side armor can't be a thing, unless proper hitbox/tracking/relative positions between 2 entities is a thing. For example: a frontal engagement register as a rear hit because the shell actually scatters and somehow hits the rear part of the tank.

If that can be implemented, then fixing tanks phasing through each other AND FINALLY a perfect pathfinding i think we can start to talk about side armor. Which to be honest, would mostly only make sense to apply to heavies and maybe premium mediums. The game is too fast paced for angling to be a thing.

Actual distances and fire range of tanks are severely toned down. Therefore changes in direction become much more drastic. You just cant model "front/side/back armor" because you should easly aim a tank without needing to turn it in a 1:1 scale tank combat (the game doesnt intend that). A good solution to that was to have front/rear amor only.
My point was simple, make frontal armor of heavy thicker in order to give them "durable" condition.

In this situation, TD is very difficult to balance. At this point, I agree that TD is very good at controlling heavy tanks. However, if the penetration of the TD is slightly lowered, the Heavy tanks can overcome the TD's attack, eliminate the opponent's MP, and run with little damage. Anti-tank measures in the case of Allied forces are relatively weak compared to Axis. In this case, I am afraid that I will completely lose measures against heavy tanks. Especially in 1v1, it is more difficult to handle than 3v3 or 4v4.
I personally prefer some buffs in heavy tanks as mentioned in the above description, but I think this can lead to new problems if connected to TD's nerf.