Tank Reapers

[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

[spinn72]

Spinn do you not even bother to READ?  This isn't a damn always penetrating frontal thing, this is the back of a damn stug and having 3 squads all bounce 2 volleys.. so whats that.. 6 zooks x 2 being 12 shots. So yes, I've seen it and it's semi-reliable with the old TR stats.

Lawl, so SIX VOLLEYS consecutively failed to penetrate the back of a STuG WITH TR.
You're either the unluckiest player in the history of any computer game ever, or just trolling. Regardless, balance wont occur due to you lying about what may have happened.

I have seen Stickies miss, once or twice, and i've seen them fail to penetrate maybe ten times in 500 games of EIRR. I see no problem with that, it's bound to happen occasionally and should happen, this isn't a definite RPS game. I've used rangers without TR and hell, they don't seem to have any problems dealing damage to tanks as they are. If you want elite inf that can take on tanks reliably, play AB. Rangers already have their advantages and disadvantages, and you should know this more than anyone else.

[Tymathee]

I've seen stickies miss that's for sure, same with Ap rounds bouncing off the front of a King Tiger and Tiger (same armor) but zooks hitting the rear and bouncing 6 times in a row? Impossible, Stug rear armor is so weak either you were hecka unlucky or the game calculated it as a front short somehow instead of a rear.

[Demon767]

You should of gotten over it like when old HEAT and improved barrels were change... .. .... oh thats right TR been the same for 6 + months since the old doctrines got overhauled 

[Mysthalin]

An AP Rounds ATG could only bounce off the old German Steel KT at absolute maximum range...

At a 4.8% chance of deflection.

That was very, very long ago.

Tigers were never capable of bouncing an AP-rounds ATG, period (KTs have an inherent 0.8 pen modifier in-built).

A zook can NOT bounce off the rear armour of the StuG, period either. If it does, the game engine mis-interpreted a shot that hit the rear as if it had been a shot that hit the front(AKA : a non-RGD based bug)

Stickies are able to miss because they are technically a grenade with a "sticky" property. But due to their speed and large lock-on radius this is an exceedingly rare possibility (I've seen it happen 4 times in my entire time playing EiR - twice this happened to a P4, twice to a Puma.)

[Demon767]

He might infact be getting a 5% bug. maybe all zooks were hitting EXACTLY at the same moment, resulting in a Insta Death but got the 5% bug so it all deflected!!!
LUDICROUS I saw a M18 Deflect 6 Panzershrek shots from Stormies, due to the 5% bug. true story

[LeoPhone]

shells still penetrate when 5% bug.

[Mgallun74]

wow, all i asked was stats lol.

should give the jumbo and pen and dam bonus

TR zooks are uesless now...

ATGs with AP still rock, but die too easy, old TR gave ATG a health buff too, that could be a good idea since ATGs now will be the main weapon of choice with this t4.

[nugnugx]

He might infact be getting a 5% bug. maybe all zooks were hitting EXACTLY at the same moment, resulting in a Insta Death but got the 5% bug so it all deflected!!!
LUDICROUS I saw a M18 Deflect 6 Panzershrek shots from Stormies, due to the 5% bug. true story

This one time mp44 was penetrating my sherman and picked up zooka not penetrating back of puma because game was interpreting it as KT armor due to 5% bug  1 out of 10 like dice roll  7 times in a row not an RGD thing or bug.  true story i have witnesses and replay but battle file dissapeared from my folder 

[Groundfire]

Here's the thing guys, in the current doctrine drafts, no doctrine choice is supposed to provide enough buffs to allow a unit to win a fight it would normally lose; only to allow it to preform it's role better. (TR, HEAT rounds, etc.)

Even if it may not pan out the same for every doctrine choice, in the terms of stat buffs, this is the template, hence why TR zooks can no longer take tanks on and live and why we gave the TR player more options in terms of upgunned jumbos and super mines.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Here's the thing guys, in the current doctrine drafts, no doctrine choice is supposed to provide enough buffs to allow a unit to win a fight it would normally lose; only to allow it to preform it's role better. (TR, HEAT rounds, etc.)

Even if it may not pan out the same for every doctrine choice, in the terms of stat buffs, this is the template, hence why TR zooks can no longer take tanks on and live and why we gave the TR player more options in terms of upgunned jumbos and super mines.

Your biggest flaw is that the doctines called, TANK REAPERS not tank ticklers

[Mgallun74]

My infantry company, that i just deleted, i tried both top tier 3 and tier 4s..

and well, they are underwhelming to be honest...  iam having a hardtime finding anything allied fun to play with atm...  trying brit again, see how it goes..

[DarkSoldierX]

Your biggest flaw is that the doctines called, TANK REAPERS not tank ticklers

Your biggest flaw is that
1. The doctrine is called INFANTRY
2. were trying to NOT be OP.

[lionel23]

Here's the thing guys, in the current doctrine drafts, no doctrine choice is supposed to provide enough buffs to allow a unit to win a fight it would normally lose; only to allow it to preform it's role better. (TR, HEAT rounds, etc.)

Even if it may not pan out the same for every doctrine choice, in the terms of stat buffs, this is the template, hence why TR zooks can no longer take tanks on and live and why we gave the TR player more options in terms of upgunned jumbos and super mines.

What?  Bazookas rape tanks from behind, it's not an inherant weakness of the doctrine choice and your argument is flawed.  Look athe Blitz 'defensive' Elite armor, my grens become super humans, I wiped the floor with 3 british callins with a single LMG gren squad.

The point of the doctrines should be mastering one area while being weak in another.  US infantry you have an AI inf path (via sherman mobile cover and +1 smgs), the Tank Reaper path was anti vehicles yet left you very vulnerable to heavy anti-inf companies, and then well locked and loaded is a meh support, sucks currently.  Same thing with Armor, is armor now flawed under your twisted logic? No offense, but you got the Anti Armor HVAP path, the anti inf path which adds HE rounds... that's what doctrines are and should be about, otherwise what's the point?

@ Dark - And old TR was just fine for bazookas, and so what if its called Infantry? It doesn't mean it only fights infantry, it means its infantry based ><

[Spartan_Marine88]

Your biggest flaw is that
1. The doctrine is called INFANTRY

infantry stands for the fact you are using infantry

[Groundfire]

What?  Bazookas rape tanks from behind, it's not an inherant weakness of the doctrine choice and your argument is flawed.  Look athe Blitz 'defensive' Elite armor, my grens become super humans, I wiped the floor with 3 british callins with a single LMG gren squad.

No, I dont think you get it. The old TR gave enough stat buffs to bazookas where you could muscle it out with tanks from the front and have a reasonable chance of winning or putting the tank out of commission. Especially the med. tanks, like the P4, and infantry counter tanks like the ostwind. Stat buffs are not supposed to buff your units so they can nuke it's counters even if rear armor is never exposed to you. +33% pen, +25% acc. and +20% dmg zooks did this far too often. They became viable as mainline AT at 80 munitions which is not supposed to happen.

Your comparison of Elite armor blitz troops is not accurate to this discussion as it too falls under the criteria of how stat buffs should correctly effect units. Yes, generic recieved accuracy buffs help in absolutely all situations, but it does not allow you to absolutely overwhelm counters on a regular basis. For example, charge a machine gun with 1 rifle in support and you are still going to lose that battle no matter what type of armor you have. That or a croc, go charge a croc and see what happens.

So, you could've killed 10 british call ins for all that matters. Perhaps the players were shit and you killed sappers. Circumstantial evidence aside, Elite armor troops do not allow you to overwhelm counter cost effectively. It follows the rules, Old TR didnt follow the rules for zooks.

The point of the doctrines should be mastering one area while being weak in another.  US infantry you have an AI inf path (via sherman mobile cover and +1 smgs), the Tank Reaper path was anti vehicles yet left you very vulnerable to heavy anti-inf companies, and then well locked and loaded is a meh support, sucks currently.  Same thing with Armor, is armor now flawed under your twisted logic? No offense, but you got the Anti Armor HVAP path, the anti inf path which adds HE rounds... that's what doctrines are and should be about, otherwise what's the point?

Im going to let you know right now that picking a doctrine spec line to pursue in no way exposes your weaknesses but only seeks to specialize a company in a particular form of combat.

I can tell you right now that me going Tank Reapers does not make my company weak against AI by any stretch because I still have access to BARs, Quads, MGs, snipers, etc which is all you feasibly need. Those of you that think like this and have your company set up like that are just fools.

Again, most of the armor T4s fit into this doctrine buff design. 1 HVAP upgunned sherman will never beat a tiger or a panther in one to one combat, but the buffs help in the matchup and it does nothing to help the sherman against Paks, therefore you cant cost effectively overwhelm counters with these buffs.

Do you see where Im coming from?

[Demon767]

Hope he does, because none of SE doctrines buff any AT capabilities.


Im assuming this is what your trying to say simply Ground. Is that the doctrines will buff your playstyle, Meaning your doctrine doesn't necessarily dictate how you set up your company. It only helps in the areas of your playstyle, so if you use alot of Rangers you go TR and they will be buffed abit, helping your playstyle.

In short-er: Your doctrine is based on your needs.

[lionel23]

No, I dont think you get it. The old TR gave enough stat buffs to bazookas where you could muscle it out with tanks from the front and have a reasonable chance of winning or putting the tank out of commission. Especially the med. tanks, like the P4, and infantry counter tanks like the ostwind. Stat buffs are not supposed to buff your units so they can nuke it's counters even if rear armor is never exposed to you. +33% pen, +25% acc. and +20% dmg zooks did this far too often. They became viable as mainline AT at 80 munitions which is not supposed to happen.

Your comparison of Elite armor blitz troops is not accurate to this discussion as it too falls under the criteria of how stat buffs should correctly effect units. Yes, generic recieved accuracy buffs help in absolutely all situations, but it does not allow you to absolutely overwhelm counters on a regular basis. For example, charge a machine gun with 1 rifle in support and you are still going to lose that battle no matter what type of armor you have. That or a croc, go charge a croc and see what happens.

So, you could've killed 10 british call ins for all that matters. Perhaps the players were shit and you killed sappers. Circumstantial evidence aside, Elite armor troops do not allow you to overwhelm counter cost effectively. It follows the rules, Old TR didnt follow the rules for zooks.

I'm afraid you just don't get it Groundfire, and it leads into the general feeling in the community the dev's don't play the game and know what the heck is going on.  Remember before with ASW and having to be SHOWN that ASW was originally allowing more than 5+ grenades to be thrown?  And us being told 'no it isn't coded like that' until video proof (easy to produce) showed that someone made a mistake in the coding side and apparently never actually used it.  That's just one example of many.

My comparison to Elite armor is accurate and does fall into the discussion as I was fighting Spartan's british Coy and he had Tommys with Brens backed up by a LT and a Captain.  And you know what?  The Elite armor allows me to crush him.  I use Elite Armor grens to bum rush MGs (other than Vickers with instant pin) and I can overwhelm them from the front, I am not worried about suppression with my Gren army because of this.  Now that sounds like it's helping me overcome an inherant flaw that they shouldn't be, but then at the same time it puts me on par as being like rangers and not having to worry about suppression.  My Blitz company has gone more than a 2:1 win/loss because the only 'effective' counters against my grens are tanks.  I can floor any infantry unit being I have super tough 'german rangers'.  I laugh at riflemen trying to fight me, and I will still insist Grens are the mainline german infantry despite what some devs cannot see.

Also your example of the one rifle in support of an MG is flawed, perhaps showing you do not play this game enough, but I have no problems using a pure gren army to overwhelm a supported MG short of a tank like a Churchill or Jumbo or something, which is what my 3 panthers are for to back up my 23+ elite armor grens.

EDIT: And let me add, as we're talking here.. ASW covered a inherrant weakness of Airborne.. assault grenades to counter all infantry, and the half strengths bazookas which let vanilla unarmed squads counter vehicles that are immune to small arms fire...

[Demon767]

LIONEL GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. THE BUFFS ARE NOT MEANT FOR YOU TO TAKE ON WHAT YOU COULDNT WITHOUT BUFFS. IT ONLY MAKES IT BETTER ON WHAT IT COULD KILL BEFORE. NOT CREATE MORE OPTIONS TO KILL MORE UNITS.

[lionel23]

So explain old Airborne where it has mass damage and penetration, the need for Airborne Rifles, ASW T4 which let it counter things that would rape the hell out of Airborne.  Tank Reapers buffing the Jumbo... does that not cause a problem for Medium armor as well?  Isn't that contradicting yourself Demon in that it's not buffing what the unit could do better (ie the Jumbo is anti-inf) and now you gave it more options to kill things that it couldn't kill before... being Medium armor and panthers (though I wouldn't push it against super heavies).

Maybe you need to get it through your own head Demon and actually play the game and learn how things are actually being played and not theoretical stuff that sounds good on paper but isn't working out in game.

Also, I don't know why you have to be pretty rude going ALL CAPS TO GET MY POINT ACROSS BECAUSE MY ARGUMENT IS DEFEATED, and I don't mean to be rude but dude chill out.

[Killer344]

I find hilarious that most of your argument relies on something that was removed ages ago.