Only nubs use Heavy & Super Heavy Tanks!

[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]

Tank micro requires more effort and nurturing than infantry. Inf are more point and click, press stop once they reach their destination etc.

With tanks, you're frantically clicking to avoid obstacles, turning front armour, kiting from range etc. Try a 2 sherman start and you'll know what I mean. I really hope Raid comes back on AB. It's the end of an era however, when atg's were 4 pop I was always using 2 shermans, 1 atg and 1mg.. Now I don't know what to do

[cloud234]

With regards to your entire point, I'm not sure how to begin Malgorath... which is why I didn't really want to enter this "minefield" of thinking about what units people will have.

I personally think most games are decided at the 20 min mark. When you hit 40 popcap, you're pretty much winning most of the time and it is very rare when both sides have 40popcap. At least in all the game I played, I've never met the scenario where I have 40popcap and I'm losing... except in a 3v3.

My opinions are based on the period where popcap is 30 - 35, at around the 15 min +/- 5 min mark.

My thoughts are more along the lines of.

Medium Tank 12 Pop
MG 3 pop - To stop elite inf pushes
2 or 3 Basic Inf 10/15 pop - Versatile
ATG 5 pop - To assist against tanks

Making up 30 or 35 popcap.

Alternately, if you went infantry heavy, it would go along the lines of:

2 ATGs 10 pop - Needed to at least hold off heavy tanks. 1 ATG is suicide in the current metagame
1 MG 3 pop - Hold of elite inf push... not very helpful nowadays actually
2 Inf 10 pop - Versatile

12 pop left over to distribute into a variety of things, such as mortars, flamethrowers, light vehicles and what nots.

All these combinations are easily countered by say...

KT - 18 pop
4 man KCH x 2 w/ Assault - 12 pop
MG42, Pak or whatever.

Thats just 3 or 4 units to micro... much easier than organising everything from the top to be honest.

Anyway as stated previously, much better to just put up a replay highlighting the usage rather than debate on ages on this.

Tank micro requires more effort and nurturing than infantry. Inf are more point and click, press stop once they reach their destination etc.

With tanks, you're frantically clicking to avoid obstacles, turning front armour, kiting from range etc. Try a 2 sherman start and you'll know what I mean. I really hope Raid comes back on AB. It's the end of an era however, when atg's were 4 pop I was always using 2 shermans, 1 atg and 1mg.. Now I don't know what to do

Hmm, I find microing a single super heavy (i.e. pershing/KT) much easier than microing say its popcap equivalent in infantry.

Obstacles = heavy crushed... front armour is fast to turn. I do run 2 sherman starts as well and I think its one of the best starts around.

[Malgoroth]

Enkk...
I beg to differ. Point and clicking infantry = dead infantry. Getting them in cover and telling them to prioritize the biggest threat plus using whatever special abilities they have (nades/health packs/suppression fire/whatever) and maneuvering them into more advantageous positions if the battle looks like it's going to go poorly has its own flavor of "frantic" just like tanks do.  

And since you only have 2 heavies and can't afford for one to be ninja'd by jackassery you're frantically microing that unit way more furiously than if you're spamming disposable mediums/tank destroyers.

PS: Don't even lecture me about double sherman starts. I ran double P4 starts before. Nowhere near as cut-throat as a Tiger/Pershing start (which is a huge HUGE gamble). Ya know what happens if you need to pull a sherman/P4 back to repair? If the other one still has decent health left then you have half your starting firepower left to deal with little bastards running around while the other repairs relatively quickly due to less health than a heavy. If that Tiger/Pershing goes back to repair, that's the majority of your firepower gone for what seems like god damn ages.      

Cloud, it seemed like you were talking about a single heavy as opposed to two mediums ("Microing a single unit as opposed to multiple units"), as if the heavy was the ONLY unit you were considering and not all of its support (which is more than likely completely dedicated to supporting that ONE unit). Hence the basic idea I was getting at which was 1 heavy is less pop than 2 mediums - therefore more free pop = more units on the field = more micro if you're running a heavy.

If you want to see mediums used more widely then petition to have their munition costs SERIOUSLY lowered. It's not that heavies are too cheap, it's that mediums are so expensive that it's detrimental to your company to get them. The idea that it's the heavies fault is silly at best.  

BTW - bringing up the KT doesn't help your point. It's a POS pop black-hole that moves as if it was powered by snails fucking. Repairing it is a death sentence since that 18 pop will be sitting there picking its ass for what feels like an hour. It's a shit terrible unit and I hate it. I miss the Ace...

[NightRain]

All medium armor works better on Allies than on Axis. The only reliable medium Axis can toss is the StuG. P4 is a munition hog and loves anti tank guns and can't stand fighting vs other mediums. Well maybe vs Cromwell...if it isn't RCA buffed. XD

[RikiRude]

man, i have to say mal provides a great argument, i have been pushed to the fence.

but i think the idea of lowering muni costs on mediums over all is a good idea, id love to see them used more. and i feel like if sherman upgun was an FU cost, you could balance P4s and shermans better.

[Poppi]

Ive been a victim in a few games where either on purpose in pre- planning or by pure coincidence, axis brought out (3v3 or 4v4) serious amount of the super heavy armor. And honestly our team was setup with a good ATG defense line and held up maybe one wave with serious casualties but couldnt hold off a second. And then that became an obvious loss once we lost ground.

Some people here could argue about better defense strategy, but when dealing with KT, Tigers, Jagdpanthers, Jagdtigers, etc. all at the same time and in constant waves, no there is no stopping them. Rip through tanks and ATGs very easy. Show me a video that proves others wise. Luckily only happened about  a few games, and i respect any player who doesnt use spams of blobs.

[Demon767]

challenge accepted.

[smurfORnot]

well cloud,if you bring KT going against 2 atg's(I saw even 2x 6 pdrs doing like 50-60% or more dmg to KT) is not smartest thing to do,they will cripple you,and if you have to repair,you can either repair closer to spawn,which means that you need to leave some protection for him,cause there is a good chance something like m10 will appear and pummel you,or leave him at front lines,which is 18pop less to defend from incoming allies attack,cuz they know that you need to repair.

KT start can be very viable depending on your teammate,but also it can fail very bad.

and tiger as night rain stated is bad,sometimes he can be good,but I saw too many tigers just fail,move,get hit by few atg shot's and then going to repair, doing nothing 

[Sachaztan]

well cloud,if you bring KT going against 2 atg's(I saw even 2x 6 pdrs doing like 50-60% or more dmg to KT) is not smartest thing to do,they will cripple you,and if you have to repair,you can either repair closer to spawn,which means that you need to leave some protection for him,cause there is a good chance something like m10 will appear and pummel you,or leave him at front lines,which is 18pop less to defend from incoming allies attack,cuz they know that you need to repair.

KT start can be very viable depending on your teammate,but also it can fail very bad.

and tiger as night rain stated is bad,sometimes he can be good,but I saw too many tigers just fail,move,get hit by few atg shot's and then going to repair, doing nothing 

Hehe....tripple KT start can be rather amusing =)

[smurfORnot]

newer tryed one,but I am up for a shoot 

[spinn72]

Enkk...
I beg to differ. Point and clicking infantry = dead infantry. Getting them in cover and telling them to prioritize the biggest threat plus using whatever special abilities they have (nades/health packs/suppression fire/whatever) and maneuvering them into more advantageous positions if the battle looks like it's going to go poorly has its own flavor of "frantic" just like tanks do.  

I don't feel like i'm the only person who thinks microing cromwells is harder than infantry.. If i was then more people would actually be able to use Fireflies rather than be like 'hurr, i'm gonna walk up to you and w8 for u to kill me lawl'

Super heavies are easy to micro, my other post was in reference to medium tanks, sorry for not specifying that! But otherwise I agree with all of your points Mal, well said.

If you want to see mediums used more then maybe Sherman upgun should be nerfed :\D. If p4's can beat croms and be on par with shermans, it's only a matter of time before people start to adopt them again. Just because something isn't being used doesn't mean there's something wrong with it, it's just not right for the meta game atm. When most allied companies are packing 4-5 atg's, I can't blame axis players for not wanting to field them.

[Mister Schmidt]

Again Cloud, I don't get the point of this post. It just seems like you're whining about the fact that companies built around heavy tanks work. Which, to be frank, is pointless. You're just campaigning for heavies to be nerfed because they don't suit your playstyle. In fact the nature of this post reminds me of some of the crap nugnug was posting before he got banned from balance.

Also, don't write in such a pretentious fucking manner, it's incredibly frustrating to see you writing as if you're so much better than these "certain people" who are apparantly "unable to hold their own" without using heavy tanks. Newsflash - If they ARE able to hold their own with a heavy tank, then tbh, more power to them. They're focusing on that one unit doing a lot of work, whereas you're complaining they should have a lot more infantry all fighting more in order to be able to create an equivalent scenario. In essence, you're saying:
It's unfair that heavy tankers can rely on one powerful unit when I have to use lots of smaller units to achieve the same outcome.

I got nothing against you, I just fully disagree with this post, and, like Mal, 8th, etc, think you're completely wrong.

[Mysthalin]

I might post a functional cost-efficiency cross-comparison analysis of heavy tanks as opposed to mediums once I'm done with my exam tomorrow to try and shed some objective light on the issue.

Emphasis on MIGHT.

[cloud234]

Again Cloud, I don't get the point of this post. It just seems like you're whining about the fact that companies built around heavy tanks work. Which, to be frank, is pointless. You're just campaigning for heavies to be nerfed because they don't suit your playstyle. In fact the nature of this post reminds me of some of the crap nugnug was posting before he got banned from balance.

I played super heavies before, they were really easy to use thas why I don't use them? Like I've said I have a pershing company right now, I just don't use it as much.

I'm not really campaigning for heavies to be nerfed. I'm just pointing out that it is not munition intensive, which allows for the current meta game. Learn the difference between observation, and pushing for nerf.

There's a reason why I posted it in General Discussion as well (and not balance).

Also, don't write in such a pretentious fucking manner, it's incredibly frustrating to see you writing as if you're so much better than these "certain people" who are apparantly "unable to hold their own" without using heavy tanks. Newsflash - If they ARE able to hold their own with a heavy tank, then tbh, more power to them. They're focusing on that one unit doing a lot of work, whereas you're complaining they should have a lot more infantry all fighting more in order to be able to create an equivalent scenario. In essence, you're saying:
It's unfair that heavy tankers can rely on one powerful unit when I have to use lots of smaller units to achieve the same outcome.

I got nothing against you, I just fully disagree with this post, and, like Mal, 8th, etc, think you're completely wrong.

1. I wouldn't state that if I didn't experiece it myself.
2. You're perfectly free to disagree with me = ) if you like to, just write an article stating your views lol.

I don't feel like i'm the only person who thinks microing cromwells is harder than infantry.. If i was then more people would actually be able to use Fireflies rather than be like 'hurr, i'm gonna walk up to you and w8 for u to kill me lawl'

Maybe it's just me but I think fireflies are easier to micro than cromwell.

If you want to see mediums used more then maybe Sherman upgun should be nerfed :\D. If p4's can beat croms and be on par with shermans, it's only a matter of time before people start to adopt them again. Just because something isn't being used doesn't mean there's something wrong with it, it's just not right for the meta game atm. When most allied companies are packing 4-5 atg's, I can't blame axis players for not wanting to field them.

Hmm, People were fielding 4-5 atgs since ages ago. Nothing really changed, except for addition of new units and the Upgun sherman been buffed to be AI as well. It used to be pure AT only upgrade.

[cloud234]

If you want to see mediums used more widely then petition to have their munition costs SERIOUSLY lowered. It's not that heavies are too cheap, it's that mediums are so expensive that it's detrimental to your company to get them. The idea that it's the heavies fault is silly at best.  

If you did that... why would you even bother buying BARs or LMGs? Just spam medium tanks and ATGs counter. As mentioned in earlier posts, super heavies are able to tie up the munition resource of the enemy while freeing munitions for the user to buy upgrades and elite inf.

BTW - bringing up the KT doesn't help your point. It's a POS pop black-hole that moves as if it was powered by snails fucking. Repairing it is a death sentence since that 18 pop will be sitting there picking its ass for what feels like an hour. It's a shit terrible unit and I hate it. I miss the Ace...

Hmm, I disagree with that. You can't use it like a heavy tiger thats for sure, but I use it like a moving wall... or a huge battering ram.

[Unkn0wn]

I had an armor company and had a lot of shermans for support (all upgunned and with a .50 and two repairs), the company did not do too well. i switched over to 2 pershings, I had so god damned much munis left over I was able to give a ton of rifles stickies/nades/bars. needless to say the two pershings lead to me winning every game I played til I got bored and switched up my company and doctrine choices.

While I agree running double pershings is easier, running sherman spam with OBM and Crew efficiency (or just T4 mobile warfare) is amazing. Just takes more skill to pull off, but damn it's probably one of the most fun armour builds I've ever played.

[Mister Schmidt]

1. I wouldn't state that if I didn't experiece it myself.
2. You're perfectly free to disagree with me = ) if you like to, just write an article stating your views lol.

You fail to understand. What I'm saying is you don't need to write in such a pretentious style. You come across as thinking you're better than everyone, especially people who use heavy tanks. It's not a nice thing to read.

[Sachaztan]

You fail to understand. What I'm saying is you don't need to write in such a pretentious style. You come across as thinking you're better than everyone, especially people who use heavy tanks. It's not a nice thing to read.

Are you implying cloud isn't a pretentious asshole?

[cloud234]

LOL. Well, so its wrong to think you're better than them?

You come across as thinking you're better than everyone, especially people who use heavy tanks.

Personally I don't like people who can't play well without super heavies (like a clutch) and when they win with a clutch, they think they are really pro.

The reality is (from my perspective), give anyone who is not an utter noob a super heavy/heavy tank and chances are, they'll suddenly do very well.

[NightRain]

Cloud, try running a Tiger company. I recommend it.

Nothing makes you want to shred your hair from ya head more than a Tiger does. Not only is it slow but its piss poor accuracy makes you want to smack your head on the desk. Trying to path the being makes you want to squeeze your mouse into pieces after the M1 button cracks open from the franctic clicking of the damn thing. Then praying for improvement as the thing ends up fighting a single Anti tank gun that chips off half of the Tiger's health before the Tiger even manages to hit the damn thing. You will hit your keyboard eight times if by any chance you have to fight a Firefly in Close quaters only to see tiger POUNCE its shell from the thing's frontal armor. You want to smash your Screen when a tiny eetty peetty Tetrach comes by and starts to play fool on the Tiger. God have mercy if you happen to cross a MINE or a STICKY bomb while on Green health.

Then what breaks your heart is that you only have 2 Tigers and perhaps a P4 or a StuG to accompany it and everything else is infantry.

Your Worst enemy: Anything on wheels (includes atgs), Sticky bombs, button, piat, AP rounds, Recoiless rifles...
Your Loved Enemy: riflemen, tommies, mgs, mortars, jee- nvm you can't hit them, Sten Commandos, non upgraded commandos,