are KT's and Tigers OP???

[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

[BigDick]

I don't quite see the logic in nerfing non-OP Tigers and Pershings to try and force people into using mediums. Coercion isn't a good way to influence company composition. I think the better way to do it would be to make mediums more attractive; as in lowering the munitions cost of upgrading those tanks (especially the P4) like AmPM suggested.

ok maybe there are different understandings in the phrase - OP

in your definition of OP i need to call them OP then because i'm of the opinion they are to cost effective

i (my definition of OP) consider units op that are really broken and need some changing to unit its-self (like stats or pop or upgrades or doctrine abilities buffing that unit to retarded state)
the need of changing pricing slightly i don't consider OP its just fine-tuning

some upgrades of medium armor may be to expensive (like skirts on P4 or mg for P4/Sherman) but e.g. repair is not and the sherman upgun i would price using fuel with all the buffs it receive in eir (no reload penalty no splash penalty)

the logic is:

what is more effective - 2 p4 or a tiger (even considering you won't pay munitions for the p4 and a T3 unlock for tiger)

what is more effective - 2shermans or a pershing (ok that is harder to tell because the upgunned shermans are generally much better at AI and AT than the P4s bu i still would get the pershing)
 
what is more effective - a panther or a pershing (which are almost same pricing)

[Demon767]

Why cant Tigers, Pershings, etc be more cost effective. They are the next generation of tanks. You dont see Americans using the Pershings when they can have the M1A2 Abrams. Why cant you guys see that its meant to out play earlier tanks.

[Kruno]

Kinda wanted to ask, will, if anyone know, terror doctrin have some buffs for KT, like armour has for Pershing...

Maybe some flamethrower for pointblank which would replace kt' mg. With activate button

[Demon767]

only rolling thunder

[BigDick]

Kinda wanted to ask, will, if anyone know, terror doctrin have some buffs for KT, like armour has for Pershing...

Maybe some flamethrower for pointblank which would replace kt' mg. With activate button

oh YES please

me as pyromaniac would make that jerking off

[AmPM]

Who knows, they might get some actually good T4 for armor...

[Demon767]

lol ampm dont get the common masses happy for something that aint gonna happen. slack es.

[Malgoroth]

I was responding to your statement that tigers and pershings should be made more expensive to encourage more use of medium tanks. You know... coercing players. You didn't mention that tigers or pershings were too cost effective in that post.

But now that you mention it...
No. I don't think they're too cost effective. You could easily argue that 2 P4s are just as useful as a single tiger. With good use you could get just as much out of either of them. Even in terms of AT 2 P4s can beat any other tank out there. Against a pershing it'd be close... but it's close with a tiger as well. The only thing keeping people from choosing P4s is how cost prohibitive it is. If the skirts came down in price that'd help, but mostly the thing that keeps me from using them more is the fact that 2 repairs with the T3 unlock in blitz is ludicrously expensive.

[Tymathee]

maybe slightly cheaper med tanks? and no kt's don't need doc buffs, they're hard enuff to beat already. Yeah you can get a stick on them quite easily but they have a longer range, faster rof and higher damage than a tiger so that makes up for it.

[Jodomar]

Airborne!!!!! 17 punders!!!!=dead heavies everywhere. My airborne nom nom all tanks, but it takes combined arms to do it. So if you are with fail team mates then you will die to uncoordinated assaults on these beasts of steel. I do not find them op but if used correctly with support they are hard to kill. With that said the counter is to work together as a team to take it down. Remember that it can only shoot one target at a time, so you swarm it with tanks, at guns, hand held at and say bye bye kitty cat.

[AmPM]

KT's are easy to beat, it's their support that gets you.

The KT's purpose in life is to get you to use all your heavy AT assets on it.

[BigDick]

maybe slightly cheaper med tanks? and no kt's don't need doc buffs, they're hard enuff to beat already. Yeah you can get a stick on them quite easily but they have a longer range, faster rof and higher damage than a tiger so that makes up for it.

don't think that medium tanks need to be cheaper (some upgrades maybe) its imho to cheap heavies (but not the KT)

 actually i consider the tiger as better than the kingtiger....even when the KT would be priced the same...
the pricing is currently something like 920MP 680 fuel 18pop KT and 640mp 550fuel 16pop Tiger - what make the tiger clearly better as package than the KT

[skaffa]

KT is pretty shit , Tigers are fine

[Tymathee]

don't think that medium tanks need to be cheaper (some upgrades maybe) its imho to cheap heavies (but not the KT)

 actually i consider the tiger as better than the kingtiger....even when the KT would be priced the same...
the pricing is currently something like 920MP 680 fuel 18pop KT and 640mp 550fuel 16pop Tiger - what make the tiger clearly better as package than the KT

I agree, there's nothing a KT can do that a tiger can't, the KT just has a better gun and more health with the same armor. mp and fuel can do down but pop should stay high like ampm said, its the support that makes KT's hard to beat.

[Hicks58]

As well as Tiger armour it also has -20% inc recieved penetration btw.

[BigDick]

the KT just has a better gun

it does not has a better gun

the KT gun is awful against infantry or AT guns

if you think it has a better gun we should test the KT with tiger gun for a week

[deadbolt]

it does not has a better gun

the KT gun is awful against infantry or AT guns

if you think it has a better gun we should test the KT with tiger gun for a week

new unit anyone? tbfh/

[NightRain]

new unit anyone? tbfh/

Give Tiger armor -20% less penetration from all weapons and you get yourself a Tiger that is a worthy foe

[Tymathee]

it does not has a better gun

the KT gun is awful against infantry or AT guns

if you think it has a better gun we should test the KT with tiger gun for a week

you seriously think that?

Tiger Gun - 137.5 dmg, 6 sec reload, 40 range,
KT Gun - 165 dmg, 5.5-4.5 reload, 45 range,

both same accuracy, Tiger has larger AOE, but KT has larger AOE damage.
Tiger 1.5 ready aim time
KT .5 ready aim time
Tiger has slightly better penetration but the penetration modifiers of the KT aare so high it doesn't even matter. also vs AT guns, it doesn't matter, same acc, higher damage so it takes 2 hits for a tiger to kill the gun and two for King Tiger. So while a Tiger may recrew with one or two hits, the king tiger will destroy the gun in 2 hits.

KT has lower acc vs infantry but the aoe is so high it doesn't matter, if the KT even hits close it's over because of the higher aoe damage.

Give Tiger armor -20% less penetration from all weapons and you get yourself a Tiger that is a worthy foe

and it's not already? smh

[Jokee]

Hey....I read the headline of this topic and im going like...whaaaat? You mad bro?

Check out the real data on WW2 and Tiger/KT and you will see that they arent OP...they are like they were in Real world...To take out a tiger, one needs on average 5 shermen tank. Infantry AT weapons are completely useless, unless they just rip its threads to shreds.

In one of the battles preceeding Caen, British column was ambushed by a tiger and in 20 minutes the column was a smoking heap of twisted metal. I think there might have even been a mission about this in one of the old Call of Duties.

Its all about class me thinks. Tiger is a heavy tank, King Tiger super heavy tank so obviously, they are tough to beat...

and note I say this as US AB doctrine which means that I have not the best chance of actually defeating KT on my own.