|
You dropped out when you were 7 and now that you're 10, you still haven't learned anything? |
|
Nowadays people go for 3x rifles and then LT. Nades and LT upgrade are next (LT upgrade is for AA or howits). After that, you play depending on the situation. Of course, if you feel like you need something else, it's good to experiment. Heavy tanks have been nerfed so Pershing is pretty useless right now. Rangers can have 3 elite zooks (+dmg +pen) so they are a good tank hunter section. Calliope commander is good. Other than that, check some games on youtube by USF players to get a sense of it. It's mostly all the same. Infantry + officer + Jackson is the mainline. |
|
So the solution is: Give Axis a game winning combination. If the Allies have bad luck to get a game to such a lengthty time, it's on them... my God. Just close this thread, the solutions from both sides of the party are getting ridiculous. |
|
And if you invest in tank destroyers, you are losing a lot of AI power. It goes both ways. Jackson, SU and Firefly are only good vs tanks. Besides, it's not 100% penetration at long ranges, it's 60% which is definetely not "Auto-git and penned most of the time". It's more like half of the time which gives the KT enough time to push with a supporting army. If you push with KT and your teammate pushes with Panthers, there is no line of tank destroyers that can withstand the armour of that magnitude. |
|
It doesn't need a nerf. The combo is locked behind the doctrine and it's the main use of T34-76 past the first tank stage (where it's mostly used vs infantry and light vehicles). That doctrine is a definite counter to heavy tanks with RAM as it should be. It's a muni vs fuel duel. You spend 200 muni and a t34 to kill a 230 fuel and 640 manpower heavy tank. Is it a good trade for the axis? No, but that's the whole point. Besides, the combo is mostly used vs front line heavy tanks like KT and Tiger, not the heavy tank destroyers that sit behind and snipe. Again, it's a risk to field frontline heavies vs that doctrine. You can't really complain about an ability that drops bombs in a straight thin line designed to destroy tanks. |
|
I'm out of this thread. The arguments being thrown here have nothing to do with reality and I'm not wasting my time arguing with people I've never met. This whole thread is IMO worthless.
Peace |
|
PIAT commandos are fine. They cost a pretty penny of population, manpower and you basically kill their potent CQC AI capabilities. For what? Killing light vehicles? They can't kill any heavy vehicles with PIATs, they can scratch the paint of some mediums and maybe force a retreat of other mediums (like STUG). And most of the time you'll have to immediately retreat after going out of camo. Also, you can easily keep the 222 alive to scout.
Complaining about doctrinal units that have to spend 100 muni to kill light vehicles with sneak tactics (which requires micro) is pathetic, to say the least. |
|
So the whole map is carpeted by arty and hence a lot of yellow cover and you complain that a CQC unit that excels in cover is OP. Furthermore, the commando PIATs are only good vs light vehicles. To sum up, you have a specifically-specific scenario that suits one unit and you call it OP. My God what this forum is becoming. |
give it a crew in the form of pzgrens from ost in black uniforms wth crit repairs and smoke grenades 
Edit: and the ability to push the king forwards with the effect of "step on it" and another ability to quickly push the turret so that it can spin around much faster (one crew member would be delegated to do this (hull mg wouldn't be working then).
If you did that with KT, it would break down in seconds. It's a 69 (hehe) ton motherf***** with a measly 690 HP powering it. Many years ago I saw a documentary about the tank wars of WW2 (week before it was WW1). Most people (Sherman veterans) said that the KT was non-penetrable and that most of them were lost due to breaking down (like Panther, an extremely unreliable tank). The current stats on the tank in the game reflect that. You can't have that much armour and firepower and HP and expect to do Tokyo drifts with it. No matter if the tank lost main gunner and all other gunners on active ability effect, it's just preposterous since it would allow KT to do what Panthers can do due to their high HP pool. Get the F out of combat safely. A lot of people are treating KT as a jack of all trades, when it's not. It's a jack of "I'm a fat fu**, come at me brah, but not when I'm alone ... brah" trades. |
|
KT is a rolling fortress. Slow and steady. It can win a game if properly supported, no matter what's going on, on the map. It's fine. If you use KT on small maps with lots of corners, well, it's your problem then. It's a non doctrinal heaviest heavy tank. What more could you want?
Let's give it 999 armour so that TDs can't penetrate it and let's give it 3 top MG gunners so it can wipe infantry within seconds. That's basically some of the replies on this thread. In order to counter KT, you need tank destroyers. I've seen game winning plays with one KT and supporting infantry. The worst mode to use KT is 1v1 since it can get destroyed if it's left unsupported and it's quite slow. Anyone that thinks that KT is underperforming needs a reality check |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
