Mediums to panther/tank destroyer interactions
Posts: 789
Currently, getting a medium or saving for something else is a bit like The prisioner’s dilemma.
You are both offfered 2 choices. You can either get a medium, or get a tank destroyer.
If you both choose medium, you are on even ground.
If 1 chooses a medium and one chooses a tank destroyer, the medium player will probably loose
If you both choose a tank destroyer, you are on mostly even ground
1) If you choose medium, you will either be on even ground or likely to loose
2) If you choose tank destroyer, you will either be likely to win or on even ground.
Option 2 is much better because there is no chance you’ll be likely to lose.
And if you lose, he will be able to get another tank just as you get yours, and 2 tanks are very likely to win against 1.
He can even get a medium as his second tank to kill you infantry, and even if you go tank destroyer his tank destroyer + medium should win.
Posts: 4474
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Medium do give shock value and anti infantry, and if ur dominance with AI is big u can use AT infantry to deal with TD
Or you can exploit the map so you attack wherever the TD is not.
Posts: 4474
i think he is talking about team game where TD coverage is omnipresent as it’s x4
Or you can exploit the map so you attack wherever the TD is not.
Posts: 911
Or you can exploit the map so you attack wherever the TD is not.
That requires you to have constant knowledge of where the TD is, does it not?
Posts: 3260
If we toned down all the heavies (Panther included), we could tone down the tank destroyers too.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
i think he is talking about team game where TD coverage is omnipresent as it’s x4
Then it doesn't make sense to compare units on a 1v1 basis. The way it's worded sounds like a 1v1 scenario.
That requires you to have constant knowledge of where the TD is, does it not?
See above. A single TD on a whole map can move so much as deter as well.
Getting AT sole units is a safe move that won't win you games but won't make lose neither because you are unprepared.
It's the same as getting a shock light vehicle or stalling to a medium tank. Getting an Ostwind instead of PIV.
Tank destroyers only need to be in their current state because they need to counter heavy tanks.
If we toned down all the heavies (Panther included), we could tone down the tank destroyers too.
And how do you tone heavies down while keeping them desirable to use?
Posts: 3260
And how do you tone heavies down while keeping them desirable to use?
For a heavy generalist?
270 armour, 960 effective hit points, price reduced to 540 MP 200 FU, accompanying nerf to the fire rate of tank destroyers.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
For a heavy generalist?
270 armour, 960 effective hit points, price reduced to 540 MP 200 FU, accompanying nerf to the fire rate of tank destroyers.
You've just made a unit limited to 1 a complete waste of space and encouraged everyone to get TDs in pairs while pretty much nothing happened for meds as their primary threats are ATGs and AT infs.
Posts: 3260
You've just made a unit limited to 1 a complete waste of space and encouraged everyone to get TDs in pairs while pretty much nothing happened for meds as their primary threats are ATGs and AT infs.
The Pershing's even squishier and it's one of the best tanks in the game.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
The Pershing's even squishier and it's one of the best tanks in the game.
Cause it's mobile and has insane AI?
60f and mp for only 160HP and some firepower? Comet is calling, he doesn't want his title of worst tank stolen.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The Pershing's even squishier and it's one of the best tanks in the game.
Pershing has speed and the best cannon.
Somehow I can't imagine cheaper tiger with even better cannon that suddenly has permanent blitz at the cost of whooping 80 health.
Posts: 3260
Pershing has speed and the best cannon.
Somehow I can't imagine cheaper tiger with even better cannon that suddenly has permanent blitz at the cost of whooping 80 health.
Firstly, 1040 to 960 is dropping from 7 AT hits to 6. It's a bigger deal than you're making it out to be.
Secondly, any cost decrease to heavy tanks would also be applied to the Pershing because it's, y'know, a heavy tank.
Thirdly, where did anyone say anything about making heavies faster?
The Pershing is a heavy tank design that works.
- It's substantially tougher than a medium tank but doesn't demand tank destroyers to fight it.
- It's defining trait is its gun, meaning it can still serve its role on a field with a lot of AT.
Contrast the IS-2, which has a gun about as accurate as as a B4 and armour values so high it's Panther or go home.
Ditch the insane armour values and give them decent guns instead. A tank that exists only to force tank destroyers is only ever going to be a balance headache or cheese unit.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Also it's extremely disingenuous to say Tank Destroyers are oppressive. The SU-85 and Firefly are powerful but also have drawbacks, so there is balance. The exception and main source of frustration is the Jackson.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
The Pershing is a heavy tank design that works.
It doesn't really work though, it just has a completely overpowered AI gun and high mobility that compensate for its lackluster HP pool in 1v1s and maybe 2v2s but this low survivability makes it pretty useless in team games where AT is much more concentrated. Its armor is high enough that it generally demands a dedicated counter, while its low HPs simultaneously makes it very vulnerable to a stroke of bad RNG.
Posts: 919
Why would you change the Tiger? Everyone agrees it's the most balanced Heavy Tank atm.
Also it's extremely disingenuous to say Tank Destroyers are oppressive. The SU-85 and Firefly are powerful but also have drawbacks, so there is balance. The exception and main source of frustration is the Jackson.
The exception and main source of frustration for allied side is Jagdtiger/Elephant at a couple of 4vs4 maps at least ;-)
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
The exception and main source of frustration for allied side is Jagdtiger/Elephant at a couple of 4vs4 maps at least ;-)
Oh yeah don't get me wrong, Super Heavy TDs are completely broken in teamgames.
Posts: 3260
It doesn't really work though, it just has a completely overpowered AI gun and high mobility that compensate for its lackluster HP pool in 1v1s and maybe 2v2s but this low survivability makes it pretty useless in team games where AT is much more concentrated. Its armor is high enough that it generally demands a dedicated counter, while its low HPs simultaneously makes it very vulnerable to a stroke of bad RNG.
Is there any vehicle with a range below 60 you don't think is useless in team games?
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Is there any vehicle with a range below 60 you don't think is useless in team games?
There are plenty, mainly those that have good timing and/or shock value or other remarkable traits, but that list does not include 13CP generalist heavies and especially not 13CP 800HP generalist heavies.
Posts: 3260
There are plenty, mainly those that have good timing and/or shock value or other remarkable traits, but that list does not include 13CP generalist heavies and especially not 13CP 960HP generalist heavies.
How many hit points does a 13 CP generalist heavy need to be worthwhile?
Livestreams
70 | |||||
19 | |||||
4 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.943410.697+9
- 4.715.934+12
- 5.35459.857-1
- 6.599234.719+7
- 7.278108.720+29
- 8.307114.729+3
- 9.269143.653+2
- 10.10629.785+7
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
13 posts in the last week
32 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, GeorgiadfHess
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM