Profile of Darkpiatre

snip.

You're right in most of your statement, but now there is a big difference outside numbers which is matchup.

Tiger is better against High armor, that's true, but are there many heavy armored tank that Ostheer has to face currently?

I mean the Tiger was a greater option against Churchill and other Heavy tank, but both got nerf and are not use anymore, why? Because medium took the edge in the meta. What are the consequences?

The first is the Tiger kinda lost its job, like fishing somewhere without fish, therefore lost attractivity. But there is still ISU-152,KVs, and Comet which are armored. But in both cases the Panther or the Elephant will be a better choice. The Panther is more mobile, has a better range from the get go, the same DPShot and cost less (and has more pen far ect... we already stated that). Against 60 range TD, being able to avoid bad engagement is important and is why the Panther is always a better choice to counter Comet/Kv. The Elephant is a better choice overall since the new balance AI/AT power of the Tiger.

About the overall meta, I don't like Medium Meta because it can overshadow heavy tank easily, being less likely to get catch out of position, being less vulnerable to pak ect...
I will not repeat my self over it. But there is a big difference between those 2 "meta". The heavy one does not delete mediums from the game: you can have a Tiger and still use medium with it since it is UNIQUE. While if mediums are better choice, then why would you use heavy anyway?

As for those 5 commanders, they are all equaly viable as long the Tiger is IMO. They all offer specific bonus aside from the Tiger and is why there wasn't one go-to commander during the previous patch.

As for the meta which is purely subjective, the heavy meta may have been painful in 1vs1 but in the other game modes it felt fair (but 9 CP was bullshit), and I will maintain that commanders make a great diversity in this game, and having only 2 to 4 viable on a pool of more than 10 is quite a shame. For instance replays published on youtube are choosen depending of which commander is played because unorthodox strats come with unorthodox commanders. The UTT2 was also disapointing from this perspective, and even with "Meta commanders" there was a clear winner side. The Heavy meta may not the best but at least was fair for either side and more fun from my teamgames perspective.

snip

My statement could be summurize by the idea of balancing the Power of a single big unit over a bunch of medium one.

As we can see, an heavy tank (tiger or not) does cost nearly 2 medium (P4 for instance).
Now the idea is, what is the most versatile and powerfull option? 2 P4 or 1 Tiger?

2 P4 means:
-2 cannon so Twice as more damages against tank (160*2=320 for 160 for the Tiger) and it is not the slightly less reload time which can off-set that.
-2 Health Bars, which means 1280 HP for 2 P4 against 1040 for a regular Tiger.
-2 separate units: less likely to get wipped out by a ram+Il2, to get immobilize by a Guard, to get engine damage from anything (snare 1 target is obviously easier than 2 and I prefer keeping 1 P4 than nothing)
-2 Separate units: Possibility to out-manouever Heavier Target, combine with greater DPM (first point), you can understand why a Single Tiger isn't match for 2 Cromwells/ T-34-85 while 2 P4 can fend itselfs.
-2 Separate units: Double Mounted MGs/Coaxials MGs ect... (same idea with the cannon...)
-Greater mobility
-Convenience: I prefer having 1P4 on the field then get a second 1 than waiting for a full Tiger, this way you put more consistent pressure on the battlefield.

1 Tiger means:
-More armor, which impact is hard to state since TD are meant to pierce it 70% of the Time.
-Less ammo to upgrade (1 mounted mgs/blitz ect...)
- More pen, so more reliable against heavy target (Churchill, KV, ect...)
-slightly more pop efficient (21 pop for tiger against 24 for 2P4)
-Cp (12/13) requirement
- need to spare ressources during a great amount of Time.
-Battlephase 3 requirement (even T4 for ace version)
-Call-in
-Cooldown on death (3 min)
-Less mobility
-bigger target size (with the slow speed, TDs can farm vet on it without commiting)
-Combinaison of the 2 previous: Easier target to combo and damage engine.

I stated the more obvious ones, but as you can see, there is a lot of drawback on using heavy tanks, and if it doesn't perform well enough (the idea of ratio explain on my previous post) nobody will make it. And currently, it isn't a good choice.

We waited 2 mounth to see if the patch was a good idea, it destroyed the "Heavy meta" as intended but also flipped every other modes, luckily Elephant and Inf doc are still viable option (even if Inf isn't that much use in 3vs3/4vs4).

Heavies were a great part of the 3vs3/4vs4 meta which could avoid the idiotic spam medium and rush tactics and could off-set the lose of MP due to a weaker late infantry (other topic) and arty spam (since the Pzwerfer is weaker, you can see the need of the Tiger).
The Tiger is part of 5 Wehrmacht commanders and bring a lot of diversity in all game modes. It is an icon in WW2 games and Heavy tank are meant to be powerfull and it is obvious that is will be more attractive in direct confrontation (1vs1) than Artillery for instance.

Those nerfs brought less diversity in the game for the sake of 1vs1 Meta and the results shown in tournament aren't really good (The final of the UTT2 was incredible). The game experience isn't better.

So maybe the Tiger terrorize people in 1vs1, maybe it was easier to play than a bunch of medium, but in Teamgames it was pleasant to play and not a must have to win and I prefer seeing a noob hard micro an heavy tank to win than a pro swarming mediums and A-click my base to win.

There is no need to be exactly the same to be compared, as long as you do it right and make it clear why and what is important in this comparison.

Unless you give any basis for this calculation, it is pretty much worthless (no offense intended).
There is no relation to a selection of exemplary targets with would take penetration into account and judging from the Panther vs Tiger discussion below I am not sure if you have applied the correct formula to calculate the time between to shots as well.

Due to the long reload, I could also claim that the Firefly is shitty compared to the Stug because the StuG destroys any light vehicle and any medium way faster than the Firefly. And this is essentially what you did (actually not even that since you did not specify a target).

Depends on what the faction is suppose to face.
For calculs: (60/(Reload time))*(damage per shot) with some approximation you have the true DPM (without pen/bounce/deflect damage/miss ect... which could turn the calcul into nightmare).
An heavy tank is meant to be reliable in every way and be really good at tanking damage in exchange for mobility. It is a balance really hard to achieve because, if it is not good enough, other more "specialized" unit are better. And since the only target a Tiger is better than the other against is other heavy tank, which also got nerfed and vanished, the Tiger is not a worthy AT option, so it remain AI. If its AI capabilities are good enough, it could be a viable "bigger" P4 in its role, but turns out it isn't, so building one is risky due to the high amount of ressource to spare and other inconvenience which goes along which the "BIG ONE" archetype which were told before.

The ISU isn't properly OP, even if its AI performance seems unfair. It is exactly what power an heavy tank should have to remain an option which overpass the medium spam. With the nerf, those 3 heavies (IS-2/Tiger+variant/Pershing) kinda lost their identities (the IS-2 case is a bit special).

So yes, those nerf were intended for 1vs1 and their effects weren't sure by the time of the patch release. We waited several mounth and tournaments to be able to see exactly what happenend. The results are that the Tiger is no more used in any game mode, whether it be the 1vs1 or 2vs2 tournament, or from my own 3vs3/4vs4 experience.

We can no longer say that those nerf were beneficial and anybody against is just a idiot Wehrboos relying to much on its "OP toy" to win. Whether it be the overall impression or the stats during big events, everything point out that those nerf were disproportionate. Maybe it solves the Heavy meta in 1vs1, but it destroyed the diversity every other gamemode, limiting the Ostheer with the Elephant or the Infantry doctrine. And I find it legitimate asking for a buff which could allow us to have acces to a greater variety of commander,whether it be for the Ostheer, the USF or the SU. ( 5 Ostheer commanders have the Tiger or a Variant)

should really only be used for AI.

Here is what exaclty was false.