My point is that the majority of engagements are going to be at max range or while (stop) moving. Situations in which the MGs deal no or barely any damage. This is where the Pershing is better than the Tiger because its AOE is significantly better. Tiger has better durability and AT, Pershing has better AI, access to CA as well as mobility and the skill shot. I've been using both extensively lately and especially after the planned buffs to the Pershing, I think they are / will be on par.
Sure, that might very well be. Since you were quoting me about moving accuracy I assumed your points were also referring to that. |
That is why you stop micro. Which affects the main gun DPM but hardly has an impact on the MGs'.
I still don't get your point why the Pershing should be overall much better moving. I'd say it os 'regularly better' compared to the Tiger.
MGs get affected the same by moving, scatter gets either quadrupled like the Tiger's or if microed properly the gun exhibits the same advantage as when stationary.
Especially for an AI focused tank moving is a much larger penalty than for an AT focused tank. |
Movhing highly affects the MGs' DPS though, which makes the Tiger lose a more significant amount of AI because it relies more on its MGs. The Pershing will have much better AI while moving and at 35-45 range because of its better AOE.
I actually just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding that better moving accuracy for the main gun helps vs infantry, which it counterintuitively does not. As MMX said and unless I missed an update, the Pershing's MGs get the regular moving debuff. Even if they were better, only zhe coax can always stay on target. And as you said yourself, MGs scale worse into the late game than the gun.
I did not question that the Pershing has better AI, the question discussed in this thread is if the AI advantage is really worth the other drawbacks. But on the move this advantage will even more 'dilute out'. The absolute advantage might diminish to the point that it is not really worth using such an investment on the move. Especially since the meta even at lower levels is 'stop and shoot', that makes moving accuracy/scatter bonusses not as strong as on paper. |
https://youtu.be/ZeR8ZjeV_uM
https://youtu.be/fJ0hfawIg2A
Not quite true on "better AI" part. Only way Pershing deals better than Tiger significantly(That we can see wiping squad much faster), is making tank shooting while moving all the time. (Thx to 75% modifier on move accuracy)
In those Videos the heavies need to remove the sandbags with the first two shots that deal next to no damage. The Tiger can remove those more quickly because of the higher ROF and already has almost one 'free' shot after the sandbags are removed.
The test works as a comparison for killing targets behind sandbags, not for targets in open field. Generally stating that both tanks are on par from these tests only is not true, because we don't know about open situations.
Additionally, moving accuracy does next to nothing for AI capabilities. |
It would totally be possible if the options of setting up the repair and medic stations without any unit unlocked was given, like I had proposed before sturmpios receieved their overexpensive medkits.
Other factions also aren't designed to need to backtech like OKW does, which is why still linking the medis to BTG HQ is a stupid idea
It would work even better if BTG itself was reworked to be a cheaper support weapons tier with medics and the tech structure was made linear, always requiring both Mechanized and BTG, since BTG was never an equal option to Mechanized like LT is to Captain.
The options are already there, it's just that the time for reworks is over
PS: even in a strict cost comparison ignoring cost of truck and BTG setup, 10 fuel for a stationary medic station is overly expensive compared to every single faction in the game. It's not JUST the backteching, the medics themselves are overpriced beyond what should be considered justifiable
OKW's design is to have a split tech system with either weaker LVs and more infantry based play style or no healing and stronger LVs. That's the only reason why OKW has healing on their engineer starting unit. Does it work? Well, so-so. Well enough for T2 having been the meta for ages, but also not good enough that the change for easier medic access was necessary. Your suggestion might work as well, however it would make the faction closer to all others design-wise.
What would go a long way would be to reduce the price of Sturmpio medkits at vet 2-3 by 5-10 mun.
Apsrt from that, you're doing the wrong comparison regarding medic price as well: if OKW medics did not cost fuel, the price of the main tech would need to be raised to compensate. But even when applying that logic, the medics themselves are cheap as hell. 50MP and 10 FU are probably the cheapest of any faction. Compared to Soviets, you trade 10 FU for 150MP, or 100MP/60MUN/build time when comparing to OST. |
Its the worst if you count the whole tech structure. Brits and Sov only pay manpower, Ost manpower and munition. Only Usf has to pay both manpower and fuel. But the cost is more or less fine. The biggest problem is to have no puma/stuka until you backtech.
While OKW has high back tech cost, that's a bit of a wrong comparison.
Most of this fuel cost is incorporated into the main tech path and therefore important for the timing of vehicles. This makes it impossible to reduce the price. Other factions pay a similar amount of fuel for their tech like OKW. That's why their medics are without fuel cost. If the medics did cost fuel, the main tech cost would need to go down |
Then I wonder why there are con builds so popular if that was the case. Surely con penal Hybrid builds would be prevalent if with now the earlier timing of t70 back teching to t2 shouldn't really be an issue.
T70 has been meta for years now because of Soviet mid game weakness. It is the only unit to really mitigate the Axis power spike because neither Cons nor Penals will carry. That is literally the only reason why the SU76 and M5 are virtually deleted from the game. If you want to disagree you probably need to provide some more reasoning than saying Cons are cheap to reinforce. |
I guess soviets have no way to actually fight the axis besides just charging infantry.
Well then, do the calculation or whatever you like. Conscripts are not very MP efficient against upgraded Axis squads before their upgrade. On top of that, a Soviet Conscript build generates a lack of MP in the early to mid phase, leading to a very MP starved faction until you get MR and vet3 on your Conscripts. Soviet tech is way more expensive than Axis's tech regarding MP. |
Sure, You do realize that cons are cheap to both purchase and reinforce right. Unless you play like a moron you should not bleed.
Conscripts bleed heavily when Axis upgrade their infantry until you can upgrade Conscripts with MR. They are cheap to reinforce, but also come with high RA. |
|
Just some data regarding the VSL upgrade:
Compared to the "old" version, VSL Grens lost a 10% RA modifier (=10% less EHP), gained approx 5% more static damage (-1 to +10% depending on range and vet status, strongest gain at mid ranges with about equal short and long range) and lost between 15-25% moving DPS (15% mid to long range, 25% short range).
They were clearly nerfed, but keep in mind that they were basically THE meta before the nerf and very strong against all other main line infantry. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
