is the king tiger the best single tank in the game?

You do know that damage involves aoe ai capabilities, right ?

Changing the damage from 240 to 160 won't do anything unless you'd completely rework the KT's AOE damage/radius along with it. It has a lethal AOE radius of 3 no matter if it does 240 or 160 max damage (because it has 84 mid range AOE damage). Improving the scatter without lowering this AOE would just turn it back into the old wiping machine. But scaling down the AOE profile along with scaling down to 160 damage would just turn it into a Panzer IV with more armor and HP, but then why would anyone pick it if they could get two Panzer IVs with twice the firepower for the same price?

The one way to increase the KT's reliability against infantry without making it OP again is to use a Brummbär-like AOE profile where it does mainly - but consistantly - high HP damage in a large radius instead of model kills. Then scatter could be buffed and its AI damage would be more reliable and consistant without wiping squads left and right.

The one way to increase the KT's reliability against infantry without making it OP again is to use a Brummbär-like AOE profile where it does mainly - but consistantly - high HP damage in a large radius instead of model kills. Then scatter could be buffed and its AI damage would be more reliable and consistant without wiping squads left and right.

Agreed

Half the issues with axis armor has to do with the scaling of allied TDs.

The allied TDs have high base stat and the effectiveness becomes even greater with veterancy.

So axis tanks vet slower and get defensive bonuses that are almost pointless because allied TDs get better offensive ones.

Half the issues with axis armor has to do with the scaling of allied TDs.

The allied TDs have high base stat and the effectiveness becomes even greater with veterancy.

And they have to, because there is no allied version of panther as a stock tank that would specialize in anti heavy duty, one vehicle has to do it all and I highly doubt stock rosters will ever change to add "allied panther".

So axis tanks vet slower and get defensive bonuses that are almost pointless because allied TDs get better offensive ones.

Infantry doesn't get vet protecting them from mortars, snipers and HMG suppression, they get vet that helps against direct fights with other direct infantry, tanks don't get vet protecting them from their intended hardcounter, they get defensive bonuses that help tremendously against tanks of same tier. Not really a hard concept.

And they have to, because there is no allied version of panther as a stock tank that would specialize in anti heavy duty, one vehicle has to do it all and I highly doubt stock rosters will ever change to add "allied panther".

No that simply your opinion, there many way to fix any problems. The Panther argument simply does not hold any water.

Infantry doesn't get vet protecting them from mortars, snipers and HMG suppression, they get vet that helps against direct fights with other direct infantry, tanks don't get vet protecting them from their intended hardcounter, they get defensive bonuses that help tremendously against tanks of same tier. Not really a hard concept.

Another nice but flawed theory. Allies have little reason to built any mediums, they have better choices in premium mediums heavies or super heavies.

The veterancy armor bonuses of axis tanks is currently almost pointless.

No that simply your opinion, there many way to fix any problems. The Panther argument simply does not hold any water.

Except, there aren't without adding new tier of specialized units.
In case you don't know it due to not playing allies at all, they have 1 stock medium+ tank destroyer per fraction contrary to both axis factions having 2. That alone means that this 1 TD needs to fill both niches by itself. So no, your opinion about many ways to fix any problem doesn't hold any ground here and crumbles on itself by lack of stock anti tank vehicle variety on end game level for all allied factions.

Another nice but flawed theory. Allies have little reason to built any mediums, they have better choices in premium mediums heavies or super heavies.

The veterancy armor bonuses of axis tanks is currently almost pointless.

That is a nice theory, but it completely ignores actual axis options, making it flawed at principle; existence of JT, ELE means these TDs and premium meds aren't as uncounterable as you make it sound, additionally regular ATG with single shreck/faust squad is all that takes to counter these doctrinal meds. Plus, if allies use no med tanks, that means all of their AI comes from inf exclusively, which means superior combined arms of ost and overpowering OKW inf(JLI, vet2+ obers) can have a field day.

In case you don't know it due to not playing allies at all, they have 1 stock medium+ tank destroyer per fraction contrary to both axis factions having 2.

Not that it is of any relevance here but I played more allied games than you.

Yet another flawed theory, because SU-76 and SU-85 the 2 Soviet TDs say halo.

In case you don't know it due to not playing allies at all,

Since you determined to derail yet another thread, I have to bid you Goodbye.
Have a nice day.

I think all it needs is a speed increase, currently that is its only downfall. Any other increase would make this even more stronger than necessary I believe.

Speed is currently too slow for a firepower that is not as strong as ISU-152. It needs to be faster simply and it was so in reality, as fast as Tiger. Change the speed as to how fast the Tiger is currently. It just soaks too much damage because of how slow it is.

It is the worst tank in my opinion. I would rather take ISU-152, IS2, Pershing, Churchill and even a Tiger instead. King Tiger is simply worse than others because of its speed. Can be countered easily because of that fact.

Even then OKW does not have proper AT mid - late game to support the King Tiger properly, therefore it should have a speed increase.

It should only be faster instead of it currently begging for a slow death.

Not that it is of any relevance here but I played more allied games than you.

Yet another flawed theory, because SU-76 and SU-85 the 2 Soviet TDs say halo.



Since you determined to derail yet another thread, I have to bid you Goodbye.
Have a nice day.

In team games most players go straight to TDs as most axis players will go straight to Panthers. It's just natural that you build the counter to a unit you know is going to hit the field. The will be the dabble of LV play but AT guns and AT infantry can deal with those.

Non-premium medium tanks struggle to find a place where they belong as the panther can often just reverse away and axis mediums will only have a short window before TDs roll out.

I'd be happy for the Jackson/Su85 (not sure about firefly) to get a small nerf if the Panther was toned down too. This would hopefully encourage more medium/LV gameplay too.

Just throwing ideas out there as ultimately allied TDs simply cannot be nerfed with the current state of the panther.

I think that viper and katitof discussion is directly referred to KT vs TDs performance.
Katitof explains that in order to maintain some order in the actual game it's a must that TDs >>> KT. Since the latter is so common to field, not resource wise but because is OKM stock. For ost is Panthers.
On the other side it's true that TDs have OP stats, making fun of the heaviest axis armor and that's a design flaw. They just punch way too good, as many once claimed about volks in mainline infantry. Again viper is correct. He wants to introduce a less linear combat, dive shoot frontally and reverse. And add more strategic and hard to pull combat, smoke flank , push with arty and inf, off map strafes. But that sums even more on the already high micro tax of allied factions.
It's an unfair balance for both sides.

Buffing KT will break this meta stable balance, nerfing TDs can force too much on allied.
KT are way too expensive for their so delicate role. Bringing its cost down but limiting it with a 30 min cd should restrain people from Spamming it.

We all want the original King Tiger (remember watching a YouTube video of 4 AT guns vs 1 KT and all shots bounced).

It's a phoenix. Except it doesn't reborn.

game design now is against RNG, before it was the opposite.
KT could use some extra armor but the problem will be how effective its AI is

I think it's a fundimental design flaw. Atm armour either works and deflects the shot or it doesn't and it takes damage. This all well and good except RNG can say it deflects it's hard counters every time OR none of the time. The effectiveness of counters is then either trivial or the armour itself is trivial if the counters get buffed. With the current system there is no alternative when it comes to high armored units and those intended to counter them.

I think dedicated high end TDs just need defection damage and a pen cut. This way armour does SOMETHING but TDs still are always a threat. Armour would act as an immunity to damage against plebling medium tanks and light TDs but also as a damage reduction against TDs at the very least,which is a far cry better than acting as cardboard like now.

This could also serve as a way to make certain underperforming premium units like the comet stand out more and solidify its role as a brawler

This would of course be faction independent as there are units on both sides that bring ire due to the woes of RNG.

I think it's a fundimental design flaw. Atm armour either works and deflects the shot or it doesn't and it takes damage. This all well and good except RNG can say it deflects it's hard counters every time OR none of the time. The effectiveness of counters is then either trivial or the armour itself is trivial if the counters get buffed. With the current system there is no alternative when it comes to high armored units and those intended to counter them.

I think dedicated high end TDs just need defection damage and a pen cut. This way armour does SOMETHING but TDs still are always a threat. Armour would act as an immunity to damage against plebling medium tanks and light TDs but also as a damage reduction against TDs at the very least,which is a far cry better than acting as cardboard like now.

This could also serve as a way to make certain underperforming premium units like the comet stand out more and solidify its role as a brawler

This would of course be faction independent as there are units on both sides that bring ire due to the woes of RNG.

i hope in the next COH there will be a completely different armor system i really don't like the "take full damage or take 0".

i hope in the next COH there will be a completely different armor system i really don't like the "take full damage or take 0".

That's how armour works though. The only way to make it more realistic is if one penetrating hit knocks out the tank.

That's how armour works though. The only way to make it more realistic is if one penetrating hit knocks out the tank.

if we are talking about realism than i really beg to differ this is "how armour works".

That's how armour works though. The only way to make it more realistic is if one penetrating hit knocks out the tank.

yeah hardcore style. I like that.

That's how armour works though. The only way to make it more realistic is if one penetrating hit knocks out the tank.

Realsim<balance.
It's a game and the all or nothing approach literally leaves us with over performing armour or over performing TDs. I've played through both. There needs to be a middle ground where armour means something AND TDs are always a threat.

Its also disingenous to suggest that a non-penetrating hit 'does nothing' in the real world.

Crew shock, or even crew deaths, can be caused by non-penetrating rounds

Mobility kills can be caused by non-penetrating round

Turret rings can be jammed by non-penetrating rounds

Gun barrels can be destroyed or damaged beyond use by non-penetrating rounds

A series of non-penetrating rounds, particularly from high calibre guns, will fatigue the metal of your armour and leave it much more vulnerable to further hits


If your case for 0 damage deflections is 'realism' we should have the option for sustained AT fire to cause all sorts of hell to a vehicle. A single round through a vehicle should be more or less fatal. Molotovs should be fatal (finally, a late game use for conscripts)

Rather than introduce dozens of different random criticals, where a single churchill round could render a Tiger's turret inoperable, deflection damage on all AT weapons would simulate all of the above in a much lighter fashion.

If you fire enough decent size shells at any vehicle it will, eventually, break.

It would take a lot of stat tweaking, and its sure as hell not in the scope of this commander patch. But I would like it as a design change, I think. May it see some testing in CoH3.