KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage

Since when do people count side tech into tech equations? Do we count OKW Medtruck + Medics, Mechanized + Repair engineers and then FlakHQ + Panther prize for the Panther as well? Big, big think.

Seriously? Uhhh, because Ost unlocks snares, weapon upgrades, AND grenades in their tech for "free". YOU said Osts teching is more prohibitive, if you want to accurately compare costs, you need to include EQUIVALENT sidetechs. Nobody gets a free repair station, so thats far from equivalent

To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel. It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong.

Seriously? Uhhh, because Ost unlocks snares, weapon upgrades, AND grenades in their tech for "free". YOU said Osts teching is more prohibitive, if you want to accurately compare costs, you need to include EQUIVALENT sidetechs. Nobody gets a free repair station, so thats far from equivalent

To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel. It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong.

Here's a handy guide for figuring out if something is free:

Do you pay for it? >> Yes >> It's not free
V
V
No >> It's free

Here's a handy guide for figuring out if something is free:

Do you pay for it? >> Yes >> It's not free
V
V
No >> It's free

You'll notice free was in quotes dude. If you want to troll me go somewhere else. The point stands, you are simply wrong about Ost teching. Its not more prohibitive, this was fixed a long time ago

If you still dont understand, I can explain it you in further detail in PMs. Your whining about Ost is not on topic for the thread

No matter what people say about tech cost, the probability is that a Churchill or KV-1 will arrive on the field earlier than the Panther.

Even if the Panther arrives earlier it will hardly have the same impact due to it bellow mediocre AI.

If one is not prepared to KV-1 or Churchill he is in trouble one can stop a Panther simply with ATGs.

No matter what people say about tech cost, the probability is that a Churchill or KV-1 will arrive on the field earlier than the Panther.

Even if the Panther arrives earlier it will hardly have the same impact due to it bellow mediocre AI.

If one is not prepared to KV-1 or Churchill he is in trouble one can stop a Panther simply with ATGs.

Yep, look at this game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQaPq9wZ84&t=1877s

2 KV1 up against 2 P4 and 1 Stug.
That is even after Sov player was afk for 1 min!
Ost player dropped knowing is hopeless.

Seriously? Uhhh, because Ost unlocks snares, weapon upgrades, AND grenades in their tech for "free". YOU said Osts teching is more prohibitive, if you want to accurately compare costs, you need to include EQUIVALENT sidetechs. Nobody gets a free repair station, so thats far from equivalent

To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel. It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong.

well this is simply false. First of all, neither OST tech has 'free' tools (we have already discussed this, if you want to define a custom meaning for the word free, then please be specific about it) nor that 'equivalent' sidetechs. Its like changing the rules of the game, ingame. Factions are different and you pretend to justify your point using BS leverage.

"if you want to accurately compare costs" first you should take account opportunity/timing ratio. I doubt you understand axis factions opportunities/timings since you keep failing at the arguments logic. Secondly it is neccesary to understand what those cost mean for the faction, some pay more for TDs other pay more for better infantry, since balance is a complex equation, cost are meant to guide the avability of impactful units.

To compare teching, but using fictional game situations for it, is just plain flawed logic. Numbers dont mean anything if they are out of context. Some techings are meant to slow or limit progression (OST,UKF), others are more like a unfolding strategy (SU,OKW,USF).
Straight comparation 1v1 OST vs Brits, brits have an easier time. Sidetechs are recommended but not neccesary. AEC or cromwell is a must in a normal game, but so is a 222 or a P4.

"To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel." -I think soviets are very out of the scope of the current discussion. There is no need to mention them, since each building they get opens their rooster. If you want to compare SU vs OST building cost, you are missing a big point.

"It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong." -It is true that OST tech is prohibitive as long as each tech doesnt bring anything new to OST. Its a tax you pay to unlock abilities and buildings. It is prohibitive, it limits things from happening. And its cost arent cheap too.

Seriously? Uhhh, because Ost unlocks snares, weapon upgrades, AND grenades in their tech for "free". YOU said Osts teching is more prohibitive, if you want to accurately compare costs, you need to include EQUIVALENT sidetechs. Nobody gets a free repair station, so thats far from equivalent

To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel. It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong.

don't forget all faction get perks and trade offs, brits get heal on the move and in map art flare, usf gets tank crews,wtc

I doubt you understand axis factions opportunities/timings since you keep failing at the arguments logic.

I play all sides equally, I dont really care what your opinion of me is

"To unlock the same things, soviets need to spend more fuel." -I think soviets are very out of the scope of the current discussion. There is no need to mention them, since each building they get opens their rooster. If you want to compare SU vs OST building cost, you are missing a big point.

I dont want to compare them, I'm not the one who made a blanket statement about Ost teching in a thread about the Churchill and KV1...

"It is 100% false to say Osts teching is more prohibitive. Its flat out wrong." -It is true that OST tech is prohibitive

Okay but thats not what he said. He said its MUCH MUCH more prohibitive than all other factions. Stop rambling about nonsense that has nothing to do with my point, or his, or the thread.

don't forget all faction get perks and trade offs, brits get heal on the move and in map art flare, usf gets tank crews,wtc

Jesus christ can we stop expanding the scope of this thread even further? I'm well aware of the trade-offs. Ost has plenty of issues, teching is not one of them anymore. That's all I'm saying....

I play all sides equally, I dont really care what your opinion of me is

Then use common ground logic here, specially out of bias arguments to let others understand properly.

I dont want to compare them, I'm not the one who made a blanket statement about Ost teching in a thread about the Churchill and KV1...

If you answer a 'blanket' statement, then you are already part of it.If your counter argument cant be counter counter argumented, its like killing a man and getting out of jail for free.
I think its for the best for all of us to be wise using words.

Okay but thats not what he said. He said its MUCH MUCH more prohibitive than all other factions. Stop rambling about nonsense that has nothing to do with my point, or his, or the thread.

Actually OST tech is not 100% prohibitive. Since you unlock some tools with it. A 100% prohibitive tech would be one that you only pay for the sake of it. No new buildings, no snares. Not even OST has that, so saying is much more prohibitive is more accurate too.
As far as i can understand, to ramble is to force others out of their place.
Im just saying that you are claiming false arguments.

Jesus christ can we stop expanding the scope of this thread even further? I'm well aware of the trade-offs. Ost has plenty of issues, teching is not one of them anymore. That's all I'm saying....

Who brougth up SU to discuss side techs?

Who brougth up SU to discuss side techs?

Who's still talking about it? You

Ost teching was fixed several patches ago. That is literally the extent of my argument about that topic. You are reading way too far into this. Why dont we get back to the actual topic of the thread

Invised offtopic posts

That’s a soft counter, not a hard counter. Hard counter is Panther vs medium tanks. Hard counter is also Elephant/Jagdtiger vs heavy tanks, but it’s commander dependent.

Panther isn't supposed to kill it solo fast.
In fact, no single unit is supposed to do it.
Its a damage sponge after all, its supposed to last, especially against just a single AT source.
You're supposed to add its own shots and being a deterrent for church to NOT rush and circle PaKs.

We're talking actual game here, not 1v1, zero additional units in support scenario.
If you don't have PaKs/raks by the time you have a panther, you've lost and churchill isn't the reason why.

Alternatively, 2 StuGs will also make a short work of it.

Firstly, there is no HP buff to Panther. It was moved forwards because the buffed Allies td are killing expensive unvet panthers easily. Of course moving forward the HP, Relic for some reason further nerfed Panther armor, so it is vulnerable to med tanks and yes Churchill!

That's a definition of a buff.
And if churchills are circle strafing your panther, you've got much larger problem on hand then churchills stats.
Lastly, unless its easy8 or 34/85, every other medium tank that'll jump panther from behind will still lose because it'll just kill it before it'll be killed specifically because of that extra hp it got.

Yep, look at this game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQaPq9wZ84&t=1877s

2 KV1 up against 2 P4 and 1 Stug.
That is even after Sov player was afk for 1 min!
Ost player dropped knowing is hopeless.

At no singular second there is a situation where there is that specific unit composition you've mentioned going up against each other.

Additionally, KV-1 doesn't even do much except just being there, its B4, cons and ATG doing all the work aka combined arms - where were grens and ost pak supporting that P4? I've only seen almost suiciding stug.

Why do you feel the strong urge to lie and provide a proof of lies in the same post?

At no singular second there is a situation where there is that specific unit composition you've mentioned going up against each other.

Additionally, KV-1 doesn't even do much except just being there, its B4, cons and ATG doing all the work aka combined arms - where were grens and ost pak supporting that P4? I've only seen almost suiciding stug.

Why do you feel the strong urge to lie and provide a proof of lies in the same post?

Grens and Pak were cowering in the corner hoping the shock troops won't steal their lunch money for the fourth time that week. OST will always be outclassed in late game infantry. If they don't have armor parity they can't leave the base.

It's nice that people are pointing out that you can counter a churchill if you dedicate 30% of your pop-cap to strict AT units, but it misses the point. In an even fight, say 4 grens, an AT gun, and a panther vs. 4 IS, an AT gun and a churchill, it is the grens who will be pushed off the field. The Pak might get in two shots before retreating while the 6 pounder can just be set on a-move the entire fight. If you lose the panther, and can't replace it it's game over. If you lose the churchill you'll still be able to field the 6 pounder safe from infantry, and buy a bunch of piats.

Allied tanks with large health pools in and of themselves aren't a problem. It's that the armor health pool supports the stronger infantry selection the allies enjoy.

The Churchill is SUPPOSED to require large amount of resources to kill, that's its entire job. It's a meatshield. It's meat. If you could solo it with ease using any unit like some hope it wouldn't be a meatshield. You still CAN solo it with mist units, it just takes some time to do so... Because that's its job. That's LITERALLY its job. Idk what you want from it here....

If the churchill gets nerfed too much, I don't think people are gonna build either of the final two brit tanks. Hammer and anvil will come down to a choice between the perks and everyone will ignore the vehicles

If they get limited to 1, then shouldn't they get buffed with a large price increase? At least feels like the comet in it's current state isn't good enough to limit, and if you nerf the Churchill same for it IMO. Might be good enough now to limit, idk

If the churchill gets nerfed too much, I don't think people are gonna build either of the final two brit tanks. Hammer and anvil will come down to a choice between the perks and everyone will ignore the vehicles

If they get limited to 1, then shouldn't they get buffed with a large price increase? At least feels like the comet in it's current state isn't good enough to limit, and if you nerf the Churchill same for it IMO. Might be good enough now to limit, idk

That's my thinking. The best thing to ever happen to heavy tanks was a limit of 1. They are still unique and powerful but so much easier to balance AND be that way when you only have to worry about 1 a player. I'd go as far to say that launch comet (less the WP Uber range) would have been nearly OK if it was a limit of 1 (small tweaking needed though).

I'd go as far to say that launch comet (less the WP Uber range) would have been nearly OK if it was a limit of 1 (small tweaking needed though).

I think you are right about that. As for the original Churchill, it's health was definitely too high (1600 im pretty sure?) but it maybe could've done without the armor nerf under the same circumstances (and with higher price)