Title: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Dnicee on November 04, 2009, 10:23:07 pm It seems like we need another KT discussion`?
balanced or not? I just want to point out that i never had any trouble with heavy tanks when i played as airborne- Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: shockcoil on November 04, 2009, 10:29:53 pm It's not just balanced, its bad
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: tank130 on November 04, 2009, 10:32:18 pm Well is guess if you never had a problem then everything is ok. That's great news for the Mods!!!
Never again mods do you have to check balance or get input on units again. As long as dnice says he has no problem, all is good. I on the other hand feel there is a problem with the KT. It has an insane amount of HP. In a persistence mod that has limited units, a unit like this is not balanced. Now don't give me a bunch of fucking crap about use this strat or that strat to take it. I know how to take the fucking thing out. What doesn't make sense is having to use 80% of your units to fight one fucking tank. Go around it you say. Sure easy to say if we are playing 1v1, but the fact is we are not. Tiger is a big bitch, but so is a pershing. They both have their pros and cons, thus making it balanced. The KT is just a big fucking brute with a shit load of HP that does not add to game play. Lastly, wtf is up with two in one company. Really? Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Leafedge on November 04, 2009, 11:30:43 pm If it takes 80% of your army to kill it, and you have equal pop to him, then wtfl2p. Even if it does, you are killing the KT, not the other way around, so he's losing stuff and you aren't. All is well. In reality, taking 50% of your army to break even against the KT is fair, because the damn thing is half his popcap too. This may have changed a bit since last I played but I assume if it isn't still 20 pop it has to be close.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Tymathee on November 04, 2009, 11:45:20 pm Well the thing is that most players surround their kt's with say, mortars or double lmg's, stuka's, that take out allied at. You can't even use any type of tank against it really. It can two shot at guns and with the fact that German Steel affects KT's now I think that really makes it powerful. I think the KT needs a much higher count in terms of armor, its just that powerful.
I think one of the biggest problem is when there's more than one in a company. It takes a crap load of kt just to take the thing out and then you usually exhaust a lot of it and then boom, here comes another one. I know you say "well sticky it and its useless" well, it's not so easy because if there's any type of AI around when you start to throw the sticky you start getting raped (it's kinda like you're building so it becomes like 100% accuracy it seems sometimes) also KT's tend to take out 2-3 guys in one shot, i've even seen it take out 4 on occasion. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: panzerman on November 05, 2009, 02:41:59 am i think possibly it should be a limit of 1 KT to a company...used well there a killer unit...
if u look at it's vet bonuses vet 1 Received Damage 0.9 vet 2 Accuracy 1.15, Health 1.1, Speed 1.15 vet 3 Received Penetration 0.9, Speed 1.15 so it take less damage and then it has more health and speed and then even harder to pentrate as well as even faster. i think they should remove the Health 1.1 and add maybe damage 1.2... or penetration 1.1. somthing like that...i mean it should still be hard to kill it but not as hard as it is... i remember 1 game we i was playing a gae and my teammate brought out a a KT (no vet) and it got immobilized very Early on by a stickie... and i sought out to have fun buy defending it with a panther vet 2 and some lmg grens for the heck of it...that kt plus my panther and the lmg grens got about 40 inf kills 6 or 7 tanks destroyed and numerous light vehicles and all this time there had at least been a constant fire on the frontal armour of the kt by an at gun the was recrewed several times... i guess that shows how good it is atm...(he had a second so when that died it pritty much came on and the allies couldn't be arsed to realy try to win this other that to try cap around) Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mukip on November 05, 2009, 03:01:03 am I thought the devs were talking about limiting the number of Jagds and KTs to one per player a while back, did they change their minds?
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: fallensoldier7 on November 05, 2009, 03:03:48 am KTs aren't really that great versus good players.. I find my KTs do better when people actually try to take it out. If people ignore it and don't suicide things chasing it then my KT will have to attack. Usually this is done by taking out the Axis mortars (aka the support for the KT). If you really want to kill a KT, kill the mortars and then the KT will be pretty much useless since it is pretty much forced to either sit there or attack. If it sits there, it's not doing any damage. If it attacks, the allies can engage it on their own terms and it would be easier to kill it.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Akranadas on November 05, 2009, 03:23:56 am The whole idea of the KT is to force the enemy to move to kill it, often losing part of their armies in doing so. On larger maps; players need to make the KT a 18 pop (iirc) waste of time by simply avoiding it. It's slow enough to be avoiding by majority of your forces, if its on the right of the map, attack the left. If it moves to the left, move back to the right.
Don't make the KT your focus and you'll do fine; you don't need to kill it in order to make it ineffective. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Two on November 05, 2009, 05:00:21 am Needs to cost a bit more but its ok tbh.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 05, 2009, 07:41:40 am KT is quite balanced, IMO.
It can win you the game, or it can die getting 1, single rifle guy kill. It's really hit or miss. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: shockcoil on November 05, 2009, 07:49:57 am The KT is a big piece of shit. You may get a lot of kills with the thing but its 18 bloody pop cap. You can get a lot more kills with 3 grenadier squads. And thats not taking into account the fact thats its fucking slow, you can literally just ignore it and destroy his woefully under-pop infantry on the field then cap around it. It can't do shit to you.
The problem I can see with the KT at the moment then, is that terror infantry is way too fucking good that you can take on someones full inf army with a few squads so you can afford that KT. Its not a problem with the KT, its terror inf. Namely intensity, zeal, ferocity etc. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: tank130 on November 05, 2009, 11:26:30 am The whole idea of the KT is to force the enemy to move to kill it, often losing part of their armies in doing so. On larger maps; players need to make the KT a 18 pop (iirc) waste of time by simply avoiding it. It's slow enough to be avoiding by majority of your forces, if its on the right of the map, attack the left. If it moves to the left, move back to the right. Don't make the KT your focus and you'll do fine; you don't need to kill it in order to make it ineffective. This is the best way to avoid it I agree. Unfortunately, the KT is used on all maps, so your advice is only usable on some of the maps. In the case of a 2v2, there is not a lot of room to avoid it. Keeping in mind, the unit does not take up all of his pop and he still has a partner. I will give you a couple of examples of imbalance. In a recent battle some axis players that will remain nameless unless they want their names added: Because we don't always know what our opponent is going to field at the start of a battle, it is wise game play to start with a balanced opening call in. In my case I start with Mortar, HMG, Bars, ATG, Rifle with stuckies, Flamer/mines. In most cases this serves me well. Now comes along a KT start. 2 shots and my ATG is down. If I'm lucky I get off a sticky. In most cases the rifle is destroyed before it can throw. I re-man the atg if it was not destroyed, but it is usually one shotted by then. Now the KT just destroys the rest of my callin. I retreat quickly and call in some AT. Meanwhile, my opponents other units cap the whole map as my AT slowly make their way up the field. Or, I could call in some infantry and try to back cap the map. This is easier said than done on a 2v2 map. My opponent under the cover of a KT just simply back caps me and we are back to square one. Now maybe its just me, but where is the skill and fun in this type of engagement. Play hide and seek getting nowhere and avoiding a battle.I could engage the KT, but this will result in massive loses on my side due to the insane HP of the KT. The KT sucks up all the AT resources in the first 10 min of the game. Then the partner comes on with his armor and its all over. It is not a balanced unit as it is now. I am not saying remove it from the game. I am saying it needs a nerf to make balanced in this environment. Make it 26 pop cap. It takes at least 26 pop cap to destroy it unless the operator is an idiot. ---Killer344:Chill out, go berzerk like that against someone else on this thread, and consider yourself banned from posting here; Leaf has played with/against KTs more than enough times to make his word count. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: sgMisten on November 05, 2009, 11:31:22 am What makes handling heavy tanks easier is having a spotter (jeep, recon section) spot for ATguns to make use of their 60 range. If you can get the first 1-2 shots, the heavy tank user will be down some life on the heavy tank, and gives you the advantage.
If you're engaging heavy tanks with ATGs at 35 range then the heavy tank is just gonna roll through the ATGs. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Smokaz on November 05, 2009, 11:32:08 am Aren't you planning airborne, tank? Even if you were playing airborne without recon ability, what possible excuse could you have for not scouting when your best AT option is on quick deploy and you can get it anywhere on the map?
Classic example of someone not scouting. Dont expect to beat something you dont even know what is. Drop your core, and begin a new streak of starting a game with a spotter and a single infantry squad for capping. Make sure you can combine two anti infantry callins and two anti tank callins from the rest of your company if you see something extreme from the enemy in the first minutes of the game, like a freaking king tiger or 5 volk squads. Assume you are calling on a rifle and a jeep as your startin force. The rifle caps the surrounding sectors and your jeep finds out what your enemy start with. No loss of early capping power worth mentioning, and TADA!! you also know what you are facing. You can then bring out a counter or a set of units that you think are optimal for fighting what the enemy brought out. Why...Do...People..Refuse...To..scout? Why do they refuse to scout? What is so terrible about knowing what the other guy has brought out before you make a decision about how to counter units you know nothing about? Not scouting is like walking into the game blind. Not scouting, and always bringing the same core is like walking into the game blind with the same set of cards each time. People will know when to fold, raise or bluff. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Smokaz on November 05, 2009, 11:52:19 am Clap clap, Baine..
Example starting callins that insure you against getting raped by a gimmick: Wehr - Swimmwagon/Bike + Grenadier w/shrek/medikit/nade (Move up bike, cap) Americans - Double flameengineers with mines/Riflesquad with sticky + jeep (Lay mines, Cap, move up jeep) British - Commandos have a jeep, send out a recon and a jeep, or do a recon - RCA can send out a recon section with their improved range PE - Start with a scout car and a shrek clowncar, both can cap Start with two infantry squads and a kettenkrad See, all the factions have options on how to spot something super gimmicky. The gimmick start is entirely reliant on you not scouting, you not expecting or you not having expendable units in the front to discover what kind of shenanigans they are up to. If I saw a KT in the starting callin, that leaves precious little infantry support. Mop up this with some kind of supression or sucide attack and then cap around it. Seeing as terror player will usually have firestorm, I will not call in five 57mms and line them up next to each other. Instead I might go for a sticky halftrack (any american company should have this) and a m10. With vet 2 and a proper flank, theres just no way a halftrack-delivered rifle squad cant get a sticky off on a KT without severe fuckup. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 05, 2009, 12:05:49 pm If someone did a KT start, I'd facepalm so bad the echo of it could be heard on jupiter.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: puddin on November 05, 2009, 12:06:54 pm The Kts are beasts yes... But like many heavies... Circling them is killing them, Any artillry, The 25 punder.. Captain arty, Howie arty and cali eliminate all supporting forces around it enough to dmg it more...
You can coem in from 1 side and hurt it and run away before it fires a shot. 1 bren carrier with a wsingle piat squad took down a KT.. Circle strafing for the win. Sticky, Button rapes Kts as well. Look people, ITs a beast, We all know it is... But its slow, Clumsy and lumbering to the point of shit at most times. When each player has 1 on a t a time its horendous. What i find to be the real PRoblem... 4 man KCH prtecting KTs with a Terror officer that slows. BEst combination to kill everything, Have yet to find a countwer to it, and never will Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Ununoctium on November 05, 2009, 12:12:58 pm Pudding, your forgetting the Jedi Highlanders that start the game and end as 1-2 men supporting the kt with their lightsabers
(zealed gren hordes) Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: tank130 on November 05, 2009, 08:58:52 pm Let me start here:
we have 17 posts. 6 say there is a problem with the KT, 8 say they are fine, 3 are about Recon, and one has nothing to do with anything, but is rather funny. To those who posted in regards to Recon; Perhaps you could start a thread on the merits of Recon. This was a discussion on the OP or not OP of the KT. Perhaps you could also note that I specifically requested not to give your advice on how to counter a KT. To smokaz; Thanks for coming out and sharing your vast knowledge of the game. If I choose to play airborne, I may look you up and ask for your advice. In the mean time, get your facts straight before you post. In regards to my "berzerk post" I do apologize if I offended anybody with the words I chose to describe my opinion. However, I do not apologize to the person to whom it was aimed at. If you tell me "wtfL2p" when you openly admit to not actively playing the mod, expect me to reply in kind to your insulting remark. To Killer344: While I respect your responsibility to ensure our posts are not out of line, I think it is equally important for a mod not to take sides in a dispute while threatening to ban someone. Your opinion of Leafs merit on the subject should be posted as a member, not as a mod. As an active participant ( daily ) of this mod, I feel my opinion on the subject would perhaps be more accurate than that of a member who does not participate. I don't post a whole lot in these forums. Sometimes I add a little joke comment, but generally I just read. Every now and then I get really tired of something I truly feel is out of line and I post about it. One thing you will never see me do is bitch about the devs and make comments about how shitty stuff is. Even when for a little while, things were not so good. I strongly dislike individuals who bitch and complain about a fee mod. I on the other hand, rarely bitch, but happily donated $200.00 to the development of this mod. When I decide it's time to speak up about a problem in a mod that I actually helped finance in a small way, the last thing I expected was someone to tell me WTFL2P and have a mod defend him. While I admit my use of language was not completely appropriate, could you explain how my words were any more insulting then those used by Leaf? I assume its not just because he used abbreviations. Hopefully we can all move forward and have a discussion about KT again. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Killer344 on November 05, 2009, 09:28:15 pm Honestly, common sense, "wtfl2p" is just ... "wtflearntoplayagame" basically, on the other hand "go fuck yourself if you aren't playing the mod, jackass".....speaks for itself.
The only thing that changed from the EiR days about the KT, is that thanks to the Brits and the ToV units, they're easier to kill now. I can't see why someone from the EiR days can't have a word about the issue, even if he isn't playing right now. Thanks for the donations.. but you can't ask amnesty for them. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Tymathee on November 05, 2009, 09:50:52 pm btw....most arty shots bounce off kt's.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: jackmccrack on November 05, 2009, 09:54:45 pm Is it possible to set up a 17pdr while buttoning a KT?
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Malevolence on November 05, 2009, 09:58:52 pm It was, Jack, I know because I used to do it when Brits had no 6 lbers. Button, set up 17, run another button into range and kill it.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: AmPM on November 05, 2009, 09:59:56 pm I find the KT simple to kill. Since it has no range bonus it can be outgunned by an ATG, or in my case M18's.
This if people paid for AP rounds they would notice how easy they go down. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Malevolence on November 05, 2009, 10:07:11 pm Its range doesn't need a bonus, it's 45 already. Chances are if you shoot at it with a tank it'll shoot back if the turret is facing the right way.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: AmPM on November 05, 2009, 10:28:19 pm Did you even read what I posted? I wasn't saying it needed one.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Tymathee on November 05, 2009, 10:44:06 pm I find the KT simple to kill. Since it has no range bonus it can be outgunned by an ATG, or in my case M18's. This if people paid for AP rounds they would notice how easy they go down. AP rounds are for suckers! J?k, now that i've got tank reapers on my inf account, I buy AP rounds (and have been buyin them more often lately btw) and then I've got the other AP ability and I ph33r kt's no longer, now they ph33r me! Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Smokaz on November 05, 2009, 11:00:55 pm To smokaz; Thanks for coming out and sharing your vast knowledge of the game. If I choose to play airborne, I may look you up and ask for your advice. In the mean time, get your facts straight before you post. You are largely ignoring the main suggestion here, and I'll refrain from entertaining your poorly veiled sarcasm. My post was primarily about spotting and without you specifying what situation you were in (what kind of company for example) I tried to recall from memory what type of american account I've seen you played, and I must have mistakenly recalled you playing AB. Not that it matters what doctrine you are for the purpose of scouting. Quote In a recent battle some axis players that will remain nameless unless they want their names added: Because we don't always know what our opponent is going to field at the start of a battle, it is wise game play to start with a balanced opening call in. In my case I start with Mortar, HMG, Bars, ATG, Rifle with stuckies, Flamer/mines. In most cases this serves me well. Now comes along a KT start. 2 shots and my ATG is down. If I'm lucky I get off a sticky. In most cases the rifle is destroyed before it can throw. I re-man the atg if it was not destroyed, but it is usually one shotted by then. Now the KT just destroys the rest of my callin. I retreat quickly and call in some AT. Meanwhile, my opponents other units cap the whole map as my AT slowly make their way up the field. Or, I could call in some infantry and try to back cap the map. This is easier said than done on a 2v2 map. My opponent under the cover of a KT just simply back caps me and we are back to square one. Now maybe its just me, but where is the skill and fun in this type of engagement. Play hide and seek getting nowhere and avoiding a battle.I could engage the KT, but this will result in massive loses on my side due to the insane HP of the KT. The KT sucks up all the AT resources in the first 10 min of the game. Then the partner comes on with his armor and its all over. It is not a balanced unit as it is now. I am not saying remove it from the game. I am saying it needs a nerf to make balanced in this environment. Make it 26 pop cap. It takes at least 26 pop cap to destroy it unless the operator is an idiot. See this is what I respond to, and I think what I responded with was sound advice. Your problem here was that you brought a regular core expecting a normal unit mix from your opponent. Or did you bring out this mix after realizing he brought a KT? In that case I again think a lot of players will claim that you brought too little AT. I dont think you will find a lot of players agreeing that you need 80% of your units (or your company? It's not specified) to take out a king tiger. I also think VERY few players will agree with you that against a KT alone (like you specify) 26 pop of units is required to deal with it. But since you are obviously not out for advice or discussion around how to deal with it, I'll convey it as simple as possible: No KT players will advance into a sticky bomb, and the KT is outranged by the 57mm. I'm sure someone at some point was equally pissed off when someone rammed 5 ranger squads down his wehrmacht maw and fired up on all his all-support weapon start, but scouting is a important part of the game that shouldn't be ignored. A lot of players can even differentiate units in the fog of war by unit sounds. If you see a KT coming, you'll be firing your 57mm from max range, your spotters might be safe behind a building and your sticky squad might be perfectly positioned between the KT and the 57mm. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Leafedge on November 06, 2009, 12:02:34 am A lot of players can even differentiate units in the fog of war by unit sounds. If you see a KT coming, you'll be firing your 57mm from max range, your spotters might be safe behind a building and your sticky squad might be perfectly positioned between the KT and the 57mm. There was a time when I did all of my scouting this way. Could identify every vehicle and most infantry. Now, I can't expect people casually playing the mod to rise to that level of nerddom, but there are certain key units that most people should be able to pick out even in the fog of war. Tiger and sherman should be the first ones everyone learns and they are also common. They're easy, and they're important to spot. KT is easy to learn but you don't hear it as often so that makes finding a time to actually do so difficult. Still, even if you have no idea what any of the vehicles sound like, the heavy tanks stand out quite a lot. Essentially, if you know what your opponent is fielding, you should be able to defeat him. If you can't learn to identify stuff by sound, ask your teammates. Most people can pick out some stuff. Or just scout. That works too. And by the way, asking people to not suggest counters in a balance focused thread is silly. I can claim that any random unit is overpowered - doesn't even need support to rape everything. For examples, engineers are overpowered. They have great AI with flamers, can lay mines to disable vehicles, and are quite cheap. Now, obviously someone would point out that they have low HP, they have shit suppression resistance, and have no direct AT. Bring anything with even lackluster suppression and they are down, or a vehicle. Saying something is overpowered without listening to counters...you can't expect people to take you seriously when you say that. No KT players will advance into a sticky bomb, and the KT is outranged by the 57mm. QFT. Yes, the rifles will be in danger. You have to use them intelligently too. Most units in the game can still beat their direct counter if the counteree is a pro and the counterer doesn't know what he's doing, but that's where micro and strategy come in. The game isn't quite rock paper scissors. Sometimes you can beat units you shouldn't be with even the most basic of techniques (like building cover, and wiring the cover they would be using). Give the rifles cover, have them behind hedges or buildings - use the magnetic and phasing properties of the sticky to your advantage. Go crazy. Lay a mine - most people use predictable routes of travel, especially with vehicles. KT's can get immob'ed at full health. I'm sorry if you were offended by the "wtfl2p," but seriously, 26 pop for one unit? I can kill a KT with no problem with an M8. Get an jeep and an ATG - block and shoot. Now, if you're factoring in his support as well, then he's using more than that 18, which means you should be using more as well. Most of the time a KT start is a really bad idea. As soon as you identify it, you should be thinking about how yo can best capitalize on your AT. You barely need to think about AI in that fight, so get creative and do some damage where he can't return fire. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 06, 2009, 12:08:49 am Quote Now comes along a KT start. 2 shots and my ATG is down. If I'm lucky I get off a sticky. In most cases the rifle is destroyed before it can throw. I re-man the atg if it was not destroyed, but it is usually one shotted by then. Now the KT just destroys the rest of my callin Then concentrate on the support of the KT, kill it, and once your core is dead, call on 2 M10s. Death for KT, profit for you - no matter how much your core cost, the KT likely cost just as much or more. Not to mention that you're actually implying we should be SURPRISED that your 9 popcap of AT, one of which is only a deterrent doesn't destroy an 18 popcap tank. Now if you used 4 ATGs and they lost to the single KT, without the terror player using firestorm, then it'd be something noteworthy. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: brn4meplz on November 06, 2009, 08:55:45 am KT is only an issue on a properly formed defnsive line, Granted some maps are restricted and dumb. But everyone always focuses on killing units, when doing the opposite will usually net you more wins. You don;t need to be a backcapping douche to do it, Just remember Territory is the game. Killing units is only a path towards that win, KT's on't cap, KT's don't run, KT's don't chase. They are heavy shock weapons for stemming the tide or breaching a gap on a defined line. They cannot act fast enough in a fluid combat environment
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Computer991 on November 06, 2009, 09:52:11 am The KT is like a cripple little muscle dog,slow big and dumb,but can bite hard.
all you gotta do is break its other legs(AKA destroy its support) i've lost so many vet 3 kt's to not being supported :[ If you see 3 panthers and 1 KT kill the panthers they will do more damage,that is all. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mgallun74 on November 06, 2009, 12:09:36 pm and you wonder why the mod is losing players with all this L2P stuff lol...
anyways, 2 per company is too much for normal players to deal with.. of course, if this mod is going to turn into a Eliest Player mod so be it, enjoy sitting in the launcher for hours waiting for a game.. it has too much health too, but thats relics crap... Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Wnb 1337 on November 06, 2009, 12:19:23 pm Well this is a surprise. Tank has something to cry about, yet again on axis side..
Have you by yourself, ever TRIED one in EiR? Sure, it is much much different in EiR than VCoh, but that doesnt mean that it means its BETTER.. Sigh... Halftrack full of rifles spamming stickiez, m10 rushes, fireflies... Button.. Mines, m8 mines.. Gah not even mentioning my arch enemy, the AB RR's Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: NightRain on November 06, 2009, 12:20:35 pm and you wonder why the mod is losing players with all this L2P stuff lol... anyways, 2 per company is too much for normal players to deal with.. of course, if this mod is going to turn into a Eliest Player mod so be it, enjoy sitting in the launcher for hours waiting for a game.. it has too much health too, but thats relics crap... Play Airborne and that KT won't be a problem ever again. The end. KT is a big, slow, ass, box of chocolate that it takes 2 mins to get from the spawn to the frontline. Its biggest problem is its sight. Firefly and few ATGs will neutralize the KT. Like everyone said, without support, its worser than a Tiger tank. Circle around it, that big ass thing takes so long to reach point A to point B that it would make everyone yawn at its speed. Hans would even ask from the driver "Can't you drive FASTER?!" but he can't. The KT just hit a big block. It tries to slowly accelrate around but it fails to decide which route to take. BANG Offmapped with a Typhoon run followed by a FOO and Bombing Run. BANG its practically dead Short story of KT Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Demon767 on November 06, 2009, 02:01:45 pm than axis pull out a 2nd n 3rd kt
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: deadbolt on November 06, 2009, 02:06:16 pm it only becomes irritating when you have to face like 4 KT's in a 2v2. Regular people will have like what, 4 ats in their company. Usually. With a couple of tanks. 1 KT with the right amount of luck can prob take them on, but if you left the vet 3 grensto deal with the at which you can guarantee the guy has then thats when it becomes annoying to face a KT cos when the at is dealt with, they bring a crand spanking new KT, in which case your truly fucked.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 06, 2009, 02:43:14 pm Deadbolt is absolutely right : it's not a problem with the KT itself, it's with the supporting zeal grenadiers, and dual KTs per company. Considering that KTs are to be limmited to 1 per company, and zeal is (hopefully) going to be nerfed as well, I think we'll see loads of improvement in the situation.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: tank130 on November 06, 2009, 04:33:06 pm Well this is a surprise. Tank has something to cry about, yet again on axis side.. Have you by yourself, ever TRIED one in EiR? Sure, it is much much different in EiR than VCoh, but that doesnt mean that it means its BETTER.. Sigh... Halftrack full of rifles spamming stickiez, m10 rushes, fireflies... Button.. Mines, m8 mines.. Gah not even mentioning my arch enemy, the AB RR's So here we go again. A poster makes a rude insulting jackass remark and I am supposed to just suck it up and not respond in kind. I have troubles understanding this forum mod thing, but perhaps I will figure it out one day. I do not understand your sarcastic surprise. I have only ever posted twice in regards to axis units. Storm troopers and the KT. I see a lot of posts on this forum by many members in regards to the same things as well as many others. If you are trying to personally insult me for posting about two issues, get a life. ( Killer please not my efforts to refrain from expressing how I really feel about this.......nvm ) So in short let me say stfu. I had an axis account. Yes I have used the KT. I do not play axis anymore, they are boring and simple. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: crimsonrabbit on November 06, 2009, 04:45:46 pm Well this is a surprise. Tank has something to cry about, yet again on axis side.. Have you by yourself, ever TRIED one in EiR? Sure, it is much much different in EiR than VCoh, but that doesnt mean that it means its BETTER.. Sigh... Halftrack full of rifles spamming stickiez, m10 rushes, fireflies... Button.. Mines, m8 mines.. Gah not even mentioning my arch enemy, the AB RR's So here we go again. A poster makes a rude insulting jackass remark and I am supposed to just suck it up and not respond in kind. I have troubles understanding this forum mod thing, but perhaps I will figure it out one day. I do not understand your sarcastic surprise. I have only ever posted twice in regards to axis units. Storm troopers and the KT. I see a lot of posts on this forum by many members in regards to the same things as well as many others. If you are trying to personally insult me for posting about two issues, get a life. ( Killer please not my efforts to refrain from expressing how I really feel about this.......nvm ) So in short let me say stfu. I had an axis account. Yes I have used the KT. I do not play axis anymore, they are boring and simple. I am not trying to insult you by-the-way but if i did anyway anyhow, I would like to apologize old timer :) Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: DuckOfDoom on November 06, 2009, 04:51:57 pm I think the only problem with KTs is that a KT requires a much stronger anti tank force to defeat it in comparecent to other axis armor, which means that a mere appearance of a KT will force a balanced call-in to retreat in order for the player to bring out heavy anti tank measures. The KT lets the axis dictate the terms of engagement and the call ins of their opponents from the point of its arrival, by the simple virtue of arriving the unit on the field. Assuming a balanced call in, the KT will automatically pay for itself in at least 50% pop as the opponents will withdraw their AI measures in favor of AT. No other single unit (not even the jagdpanther) will force the opponents to withdraw pop this way.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Killer344 on November 06, 2009, 05:05:56 pm Well this is a surprise. Tank has something to cry about, yet again on axis side.. Have you by yourself, ever TRIED one in EiR? Sure, it is much much different in EiR than VCoh, but that doesnt mean that it means its BETTER.. Sigh... Halftrack full of rifles spamming stickiez, m10 rushes, fireflies... Button.. Mines, m8 mines.. Gah not even mentioning my arch enemy, the AB RR's So here we go again. A poster makes a rude insulting jackass remark and I am supposed to just suck it up and not respond in kind. I have troubles understanding this forum mod thing, but perhaps I will figure it out one day. What he did there is just a basic example of what an ad hominem is, you should do like everyone else, ignore it, move on. Use PMs if you want to reply to this post. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: brn4meplz on November 06, 2009, 05:09:49 pm The only issue I have with KT's that i remember from when i was playing daily is that. When the Metagame relies heavily on super tanks the Allied Meta game begins to rely heavily on Large Anti tank companies. I found that when playing as PE i got WTF stomped by inordinately heavy Zook/RR/ATG companies.(like 4 of each + tanks) the advent of the 6lbr only made life worse in that regard. So an Armour heavy WM metagame forces PE players into an Infantry heavy role, which means they must usually forego light vehicles and support vehicles(if anyone knows me they know i love Tanks and vehicles) Thats the only real gripe I have with Multiple KT companies
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Leafedge on November 06, 2009, 05:50:20 pm That's all a good point, brn. It doesn't really relate to KT balance, but it is a good point. The overall design of the mod should attempt to enhance the metagame, and sometimes units have negative effects on their allies.
Personally, I don't think people should have multiple KT or Jagd companies either. Anything heavier than a Tiger deployed multiple times in one game by one player feels like griefing, but still, the fuel costs alone prevent them from doing this easily (or at least it did, I'm out of touch with pricing right now). Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: AmPM on November 06, 2009, 06:36:18 pm They can field 2 KTs in a company, is it hard to overcome? Depends, its a t3 supported by a t4. As Armor company I feel my T4 supported m10 and m18 handle them quite nicely.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: panzerman on November 06, 2009, 06:41:10 pm i think it is more the problem with new players and new accounts facing a t3 unlock which is a t3 unlock cause it is that good...or can be
it is hard for people with little or no doctrine abilities to win games against people who have lvl 6 - 8 accounts... or even lvl 3 or 4 Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: brn4meplz on November 06, 2009, 06:49:02 pm Well normally I'd agree AmPm. But the only reason you use a metric ass ton of M10/M18's is because of the metagame. If everyone fielded the basic P4's +Infantry/Support weapons you wouldn't take M10's as they would serve little more purpose then a barn... with treads.
Your massive TD spam, counters Heavy companies and PE pretty well most times. And any infantry caught by it will be crushed undertread. (Infantry are the support role in a Heavy centric company) The biggest Obstacle is obviously Hitpoints, the amount of damage these units absorb is quite high. While I DO NOT advocate a change in base stats, you could always find a medium between decreasing the HP's and upping the Deflection multipliers.(front armour) That way players are not awed by the Health total. and skilled players are rewarded more for flanking rear armour hits.(simply a suggestion) I think Making it so that a KT company comes just shy of the fuel required for 2 would be fine. Unfortunately that reduces customization but it means the individual would have a more diverse company, and the KT would be relegated to it's Shock/Stop gap role as intended. Instead of it's current AT sponge +2nd KT Mop up role Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: AmPM on November 06, 2009, 07:23:39 pm Brn, I use hardly any of my fuel for the TDs, I use 5 of them.
If I really wanted to focus on mass TD spam I would use fuel advantages and spam the hell out of them. Its not needed. Some sticky rifles + TDs and a pair of 57's has stopped all axis armor so far. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: brn4meplz on November 06, 2009, 07:29:22 pm Some sticky rifles + TDs and a pair of 57's has stopped all axis armor so far. Thats why I need my Tanks back. Well a working comp first Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: AmPM on November 06, 2009, 07:37:59 pm You have no idea how epic armor doctrine is right now vs axis armor if you choose to make it that way =)
You would love it. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: brn4meplz on November 06, 2009, 10:51:06 pm Ahhh Suffering Tank withdrawl. Maybe when i finally get my comp up and running i can get EiRRmod to give me the only Tiger ace in EiRR( he can make the stats the same but give me the badass skin) so people know when I roll into town I could have a company composed entirely of Tanks and enjoy every match(and probably win more then half of them) Anyone have an old AGP vid card i can use as a tester to problem solve? lol
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: CrazyWR on November 07, 2009, 03:49:19 am lol, you can run 30 tanks against a tricked out Armor TD company, you'll still lose em all.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 05:00:00 am lol, you can run 30 tanks against a tricked out Armor TD company, you'll still lose em all. Are you honestly implying 10 M10/1M18s will kill 30 hunter killer jagdpanthers? Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: NightRain on November 07, 2009, 05:06:54 am lol, you can run 30 tanks against a tricked out Armor TD company, you'll still lose em all. Are you honestly implying 10 M10/1M18s will kill 30 hunter killer jagdpanthers? Jagdpanther isn't a tank, its a Tank Destroyer Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: CafeMilani on November 07, 2009, 06:28:48 am use ap rounds
ap rounds (and vet3) rape any axis armor. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 08:33:37 am lol, you can run 30 tanks against a tricked out Armor TD company, you'll still lose em all. Are you honestly implying 10 M10/1M18s will kill 30 hunter killer jagdpanthers? Jagdpanther isn't a tank, its a Tank Destroyer It's armored, got threads and a big-ass gun. The definition "Angry metal house that moves" fits it. Therego, it's a tank. 30 german steel KTs wouldn't be too fun to fight, either, no? Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Ununoctium on November 07, 2009, 08:46:12 am lol, you can run 30 tanks against a tricked out Armor TD company, you'll still lose em all. Are you honestly implying 10 M10/1M18s will kill 30 hunter killer jagdpanthers? Jagdpanther isn't a tank, its a Tank Destroyer It's armored, got threads and a big-ass gun. The definition "Angry metal house that moves" fits it. Therego, it's a tank. 30 german steel KTs wouldn't be too fun to fight, either, no? AP>GS throw in a stun round and you are ass-raped. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 08:48:06 am 5 M10s and 5 M18s will not, ever, beat 30 KTs.
Not even with the doctrinal buffs. There's a limit to their capabilities :P. Heck, let's just grab panthers, not even the KTs. Or tigers with blitzkrieg, HR and Improved Barrels. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: shockcoil on November 07, 2009, 09:26:10 am If they were all vet 3 M18s who managed to get off first strike I actually think you can beat the jagds. Probably not the KTs though.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Killer344 on November 07, 2009, 09:35:29 am You guys are talking about something that isn't even possible to see at EiRR, why bother.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 09:55:38 am It's an existentialist question killer : what would if it were but isn't?
It MATTERS!!! Now, yeah, that was pretty pointless, I do agree. My apologies ;P. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Smokaz on November 07, 2009, 11:01:40 am I wonder how the ami TD's with AP rounds perform against tank hunter panthers or barrels/HR panthers.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: brn4meplz on November 07, 2009, 11:03:57 am Poorly i should hope. The Thought of Dedicated Tank hunter platfroms was an abysmal failure. They were not even used in their designed role because Allied strategic thinking never quite grasped the concept of Blitzkrieg
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: CrazyWR on November 07, 2009, 11:42:58 am 2 m18's with AP rounds and XP loaders and increased health can probably take down 2 panthers tbh...I know they can take out a vet3 HR/IB without losing a tank...
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 12:01:23 pm What if the 2 panthers pop blitzkrieg and just reverse out of the range of the M18s, then procede to kite them? Or panzer fear if with tank hunters?
I think there's just too many "what if"s for this to be a meaningful discussion. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Smokaz on November 07, 2009, 12:12:31 pm The what if's are whats making this discussion interesting. Im going to assume that facing a tank destroyer spammer using more than 1 TD at once against your panther, you would be backing up? Especially if you're a TD scoped PE panther or a barels. Thus the m18s have to charge, cause last time I checked the panthers with barrels. stilll outrange the m18. It will be a game of who is going in and who kites/ambushes the others. Panther ambushed by ap round m18s would probably be dead fast though.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 12:24:40 pm It would, indeed, be the ultimate "who's got better tank skill?" match-up. That's for sure.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: AmPM on November 07, 2009, 12:33:16 pm Simple, they pop blitz, you take some shots, they back up, you back up, recloak.
If they come forward again kill them, if they don't wait till Blitz is gone to push. Not everything in game has to be done within 30 seconds. Thats vs 2 Panthers, vs 1, well, depending on the vet of the M18's it should be at 1/4 HP or dead before it can get out of gun range. Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 01:01:46 pm The M18 can only reuse it's AP rounds after 4 minutes. Blitz is reusable every 30 seconds ;).
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: CrazyWR on November 07, 2009, 01:05:49 pm AP rounds are on cooldown and can be used all game, Blitz maxes at 3 uses.
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Mysthalin on November 07, 2009, 01:09:26 pm My point was that the 2 panthers can use blitz to gtfo from the AP rounding hellcats, then attack them again when the hellcats are recharging their AP rounds. Fairly useless without them ;).
Title: Re: It seems like we need another KT discussion Post by: Killer344 on November 07, 2009, 02:05:43 pm Well, it seems the KT's discussion ended some pages ago.
|