Profile of Myself

Kleft
"the Ostwind does not have the ability to clear an AT gun in a frontal assault as easily,"

An ostwind attacking a ATG frontally will not have a harder time clearing it, it will simply die.

Not sure what we are arguing here. I proposed that Centaur should come in line with other tanks and have 0.5 modifier when firing on heavy cover.

Do you actually think that is should perform twice a good as other tanks against heavy cover?
If so can you support it with arguments?

Kleft
"why its not possible for you to punish a centaur walking face first into an R.W. as owk you have easy access to volks schreks,"

PLS don't make it personal it is not what I can do, it is about what units should be able to do or not.

So if in your opinion centaur if performing as it should you would not object in giving Ostwind a similar performance by increasing its damage against heavy from 0.5 to 1 and removing the projectile so it does not collide with world objects...

The tanks that are meant to frontally attack ATGs are heavy assault tanks like the dozer and Brumabar and a unit like Centaur should not be better then those units in their given task.


elchino7
"...you can't complain they are vetting faster (through upgrades), when they are not doing so."

I am not, I am simply pointing out that "tank commander" (especially hammer ones) is an extremely cost efficient upgrade giving bonuses that are over the top for UKF tanks. RW are straggling against UKF so detection radius is an over top bonus.

Firesparks

"...it's cheaper, have cloak, and can retreat."

I's price is the same with 57mm and only 10 MP cheaper than the 6-poundern, and most of the bonuses it has work only in theory.
Cloak makes its slow reaction time even slower and is negated by UKF commander detection radius. Retreat usually ends with a dead RW since by the time the crew decided to turn the weapon they are all dead.

Generally it is a very inconstant weapon, if one manages to get it to vet 3 it overperforms until then it is pretty bad...

Jackiebrown
"going lone wolf and not supporting them with infantry and/or tanks are supposed to get beat by a well microed tank, no matter what faction."

A well microed tank may or may not be supposed to beat an ATG, but I am not talking about that I am talking about A moving a Centaur on RW (even a pak that does has a better chance)and simply killing it...

The Patch changes did very little regarding UKF tanks VS ATGs.

Centaur can still attack move and kill a R.W. with easy and a Pak40, faster than dedicated assault armor like dozer and brumabar I might add...

Crocs will still deny R.W. a chance to retreat (while the also deny garrison).

Things remain pretty bad for R.W. that theoretically "depends" on its abilities to survive (cloak, garrison, retreat) and all of them are almost useless due to UKF armor abilities (tank commander detection, W.P. smoke, flamers, grenades).

The only solid counter to UKF faction remain stugs and JP leaving axis infantries to straggle against double brens, double vickers and commandos.

Imo UKF armor should have less/ weaker option against axis ATGs.

@Quercus
"You can't use a flaw with the intel bulletin system..."

I am not and it is not a flaw in the bulletin system...

1) comet has the same XP value as panther while its more expensive and has more DPS...its XP value should follow the price.

2)Comet is the only tank in the game that has a commander that make it vet faster and bulletin to further make it vet faster so the same logic does not apply to all units...
(Hammer tank commanders simply offer way too much, xp gain being one of them...)


This thread is not about unit balance and I am not complaining about it. This thread is about the UKF vs ATGs, where UKF Tanks overpeform and that creates problems with balance..

Can we pls get back to subject of UKF tank vs ATGs?

The last 5 posts have nothing to do with the subject...