0.7.6 Patch Notes

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[MonthlyMayhem]

lol I've had LATHT penetrate my T17 before..

[Smokaz]

It can penetrate stuff, but its penetration is baaaad. And its damage is super low.

[SnoOp]

lol I've had LATHT penetrate my T17 before..

Ya and wat happened, did it regenerate its health.

[MonthlyMayhem]

No it got damaged!

[Baine]

lol I've had LATHT penetrate my T17 before..

Ya and wat happened, did it regenerate its health.

LOL.

[Masacree]

LAHT can't run up to their counters (AT guns) and pwn them and supporting infantry, like a t17 can.

[lionel23]

Those halftracks freakin' rape infantry and can stop any vehicle dead in its track.  It's not like allies have a 'PE' type faction that can mount and spam tons and tons of cheap light vehicles to stop a horde of LATHTs that have even some remote anti-tank support.

Example, get 3-4 LATHTs with a few 50mms and marders, you pretty much can't approach them with tanks, infantry gets blown away by all the focus firing (and I think its silly they can focus fire on units in heavy cover and still nail the guy), and anything that does try to rush through get its engine blown away.

If stun is removed, so should treadbreaker, its the axis equivalent of stun but with a much longer duration (being the rest of the game) when compared to stun.  Or if its suppose to do that (being anti-veh), then focus fire should be removed from it as it needs to have a weakness to either vehicles or infantry (and arty doesn't count since they are all vehicles and not squishy squads).

[Masacree]

Example, get 3-4 LATHTs with a few 50mms and marders, you pretty much can't approach them with tanks, infantry gets blown away by all the focus firing (and I think its silly they can focus fire on units in heavy cover and still nail the guy), and anything that does try to rush through get its engine blown away.

LOL.

Okay, if you field your entire pop in non-capping AT in clumsy vehicles, then yes, they will be unapproachable by tanks. However, if you can't figure out how to counter that, then I recommend you find another game.

[MonthlyMayhem]

Focus fire is silly, it shouldn't negate cover...at all.

[Illegal_Carrot]

Focus fire is about as retarded as the stun was. Like you said, the LATHT is purely an AT vehicle. Focus fire makes it lethal against infantry, and tread breaker itself is retarded (especially since it has a chance to immobilize first shot). Kinda worse then stun.

If stun is removed, so should treadbreaker, its the axis equivalent of stun but with a much longer duration (being the rest of the game) when compared to stun.  Or if its suppose to do that (being anti-veh), then focus fire should be removed

Did you not read what I posted? Have you never used a LATHT?
Without both FF and TB, the LATHT would be fairly useless, and noone would take it. It is the exception to the "don't mix AI and AT" rule, becasue it would simply never get taken if it didn't; it's just that worthless without those abilities.
As I said before (and you apparently ignored), the T17 is still worth taking, even without Stun.

the LATHT is far less cheaper and far more pop efficient in the role that deamonizes the T17

LATHT (w/ TB) - 255MP, 95MU, 60FU
T17 (w/ Sandbags) - 330MP, 60MU, 85FU
The difference in prices is negligible. And when you compare both units' battlefield effectiveness, they're about even in pop-efficiency, too.

Might as well take away abilities such as Machinegun AP rounds if were having such a problem with specialized units having cross combat genre effectiveness

HMGs are area denial tools, not anti-infantry weapons. AP Rounds merely allows the .30cal to deny areas more effectively, by scaring away Axis LVs as well as infantry. Besides, the .30cal does decent damage to most PE vehicles, so it's not like AP Rounds gives it anti-LV abilities out of nowhere.

lol I've had LATHT penetrate my T17 before..

The LATHTs cannon has mediocre accuracy, bad damage and terrible penetration. Just because one LATHT shot penetrated a T17 once one time doesn't mean it's a balanced unit..

(and arty doesn't count since they are all vehicles and not squishy squads)

Arty owns PE vehicles (and just about everything, really).

It's not like allies have a 'PE' type faction that can mount and spam tons and tons of cheap light vehicles

Because T17/M8/Staghound/Quad spam has never been a problem in the past..
But they do have a 'Brit' faction that can do stupider shit than even the most hardcore Ami spammers, but that's another discussion.

Example, get 3-4 LATHTs with a few 50mms and marders

I take it you've never played PE before?

[puddin]

the price is negliagable.. But pop is what 5 and 8? and Pool cost is what 2 and 3?

Also T-17 takes a DOCTRINE UNLOCK

GOD FORBID  A DOCTRINE UNLOCK HAVE SOME FUN ABILITY NOOOOOO THE SKKY IS FALLING RUN THE FUCK AWAY AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Groundfire]

Pop is actually 3 for LTHT and 9 for T17

[Illegal_Carrot]

But the T17 can be used effectively 100% of the time, and has such a wider variety of uses. The LATHT is only useful once every several minutes, and is useless for all the time in between. Top it off with the fact that it dies in 2-3 shots form nearly everything, and the pop difference doesn't mean as much as you might think.

[lionel23]

Quote
I take it you've never played PE before?

Oh you did not just try to pull that fucking bullshit with me Carrot.  Yes, I HAVE played PE, so don't even go there.

Arty owns PE vehicles (and just about everything, really).

Really? So you're suggesting I kill PE vehicles and HTs with my 'precision' artillery? Wtf are you smoking Carrot, listen to yourself before you post something like that.  Next thing you're going to say are Calliopes rape King Tigers from 100% life to less than 25% cause of their rockets now?

HMGs are area denial tools, not anti-infantry weapons. AP Rounds merely allows the .30cal to deny areas more effectively, by scaring away Axis LVs as well as infantry. Besides, the .30cal does decent damage to most PE vehicles, so it's not like AP Rounds gives it anti-LV abilities out of nowhere.

HMGs are TERRIBLE area denial due to their short range, and what idiot PE player is going to sit there and get hit by AP rounds?  You have short range american MGs with fast PE vehicles, they just zip around and circle strafe you (if you're in a building with the 3 second relocation delay) or they just zip next to you and rape the crew, why you think AP rounds keeps getting lowered? Its just too situational and weak on the current platform, and all US players know the thing is very prone to half bursts and double reloads compared to an MG, or maybe you never really played US before if you want me to throw that question right back at you.

Did you not read what I posted? Have you never used a LATHT?
Without both FF and TB, the LATHT would be fairly useless, and noone would take it. It is the exception to the "don't mix AI and AT" rule, becasue it would simply never get taken if it didn't; it's just that worthless without those abilities.
As I said before (and you apparently ignored), the T17 is still worth taking, even without Stun.

So why does Axis get a special exception?  The thing can kill guys IN COVER with PERFECT ACCURACY and its a light AT HT.. Notice the name.. um.. LIGHT AT?  Its like say lets give the damn marder Focus Fire too, its retarded and I've been in PE team games where one persons brings a crap ton of those, with infantry clown cars with marders with mortar HTs, its ridiculous. And until they fix Treadbreaker, taking out stun isn't even comparable in terms to how powerful tread is.

[puddin]

... But with 2 on the feild, you can keep infantry at bay because if you cycle it, Your still LEss then 1 T-17 in pop, You can disable Said T-17, and another vehicle, such as a sherman, or maybe a greyhound, or maybe Pershing trying to come after you.  

So completely Ignoring such a big stat Such as the pop cap a unit takes up on the field when at the start of a game that 36% of pop cap is eaten by a T-17 and only 12% of pop is eaten by a LATHT.  See i can use numbers to make a point that looks better then it truly is by focusing merely one one side of the argument and leaving everything else out.  

And again, Completely ignoring the fact that
1>) Tread break Available to ALL PE docs.  And DOES NOT COST PP OR EAT UP A BOTTOM SLOT.   Must be nice Since the T-17 is only available to the Armor Doctrine...  That already Eats Munitions and Fuel a shit ton as is... But hey, Lets not factor in that the Armor Doctrine might find Fuel to be more rare.  

So where is the PP cost and the fact that if armor gets 2 Teir 3 unlocks and a t-7 it does not get a Teir 2?  It can change the face of an Armor doctrine to even select the unit...  

So where does that figure into your math oh wise one?

[lionel23]

And I agree with Puddin, this is a DOCTRINE unlock and the PE equivalent lets you get THREE of them for their low pop cost.  Pool cost of 2 is normal for pretty much all light vehicles, so the Light AT can cycle between 3 different vehicles and requires doctrine infantry or unlocks to counter the threat of those HT with infantry or if you want to sacrifice wimpy M8s (they need a buff and need to become anti inf) or risk your shermans to deal with a HT.

And not going to reiterate what Puddin just said, since he beat me to saying that too  

[Computer991]

Three of what? It only has a vehicle disabler,and a FF after that it's useless really....It use to be a huge munies sink 130 i believe with repair and all. PE being one of the weirdest factions to play i don't think its really that OP or Imba.

[winisez]

Doctrine unit unlocks are supposed to add variety and tactical options to youe company, not an under-priced or OP unit. E.g Hummel- adds an artillery unit to pe, its ok, hardly crazy, but not terrible either. Its also a t4 unlock.

t-17 is under-priced - It will kill A LOT more than it costs to pay for, in almost every instance of it being fielded.

[Baine]

the Light AT [...]requires doctrine infantry or unlocks to counter the threat of those HT with infantry or if you want to sacrifice wimpy M8s (they need a buff and need to become anti inf) or risk your shermans to deal with a HT.

Ehm. 1 Atg will get rid of them very fast.

[Illegal_Carrot]

Oh you did not just try to pull that fucking bullshit with me Carrot.  Yes, I HAVE played PE, so don't even go there.

I've never seen you play PE, played with/against you as PE, or even heard of you playing PE, so please forgive me for not not knowing. That being said, your claim of "3-4 LATHTs with a few 50mms and marders" creating an impenetrable front line defense is completely asinine.

Really? So you're suggesting I kill PE vehicles and HTs with my 'precision' artillery? Wtf are you smoking Carrot, listen to yourself before you post something like that.  Next thing you're going to say are Calliopes rape King Tigers from 100% life to less than 25% cause of their rockets now?

What makes it so 'precious?' Almost every Allied player has some sort of arty now, and the thing fires a volley every few minutes. My claim isn't even that outrageous, as a few good arty hits can take out tanks, trenches, and defensive lines, let alone a few paper-thin vehicles.

what idiot PE player is going to sit there and get hit by AP rounds?

If you're having trouble with LVs circling your MGs (which is understandable), then you should have some other form of AT weaponry/deterrent to scare it off. What you're describing is AP rounds being too expensive/ineffective (which is a completely different argument), and not our actual discussion of unit abilities and cross-roles.

So why does Axis get a special exception?

How many times do I have to say this? Without Focus Fire, the LATHT would be useless/worthless/ineffective/never get taken. If you think FF is OP, then that, too, is a completely different argument.

But hey, Lets not factor in that the Armor Doctrine might find Fuel to be more rare.

Let's not factor in that PE is completely based around Fuel, even more so than Armor doctrine.