Where has the MK4 gone?

[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

[nugnugx]

I just noticed that RE don't have  church mk 4 anymore,  planned ?

[CommieKiller]

why would anyone get mk4 when you can get mk6?

[nugnugx]

because someone wants to ?

It's like asking why there is  1l coca cola bottle when there is 2l coca cola bottle.

[Smokaz]

Well the obvious answer is: the unit has been removed? So dumb thread title for sure.

Why has it been removed? Better question for sure.

What I heard was that the devs considered the MK4 to be overlapping with mk6 and that it also was bad.

Another thing to add is that they shared the same model, so basically making either mk6 or mk4 boring.

Another argument I think was lent weight was how it was assumed to perform "poorly". I think several players would disagree with this, it was a specialized tank but it was a cheap one. It was also able to get a lot of good doctrine buffs, even more so in the most recent edition of RE.

The MK6 is basically a armored sherman. What was the original Relic thing with the mk4?
- Tank shock
- Early game presence (Translates to cheapness in EIRR)
- Good modifier vs bunkers
- Good tanking power.

Without knowing the motivation or idea behind the majority of changes in eirr (assuming they exist ) its hard to understand why something like the MK6 was introduced and the Mk4 removed. One was unique, the other one was bland.

[Mister Schmidt]

Basically, it was removed because the general consensus was, it was shit.

Personally I liked it, they were cheap so you could spam a lot of them, and with these new RE buffs, Smokaz is right, they would be much more useful.

In vcoh, the Mark IV was just a cheap 2CP(?) tank to bridge the gap between the croc.

In EIRR, that's irellevant, so it's been removed. You never know, it might come back, but with the AVRE in its place, I aee no reason for the time being.

[Hicks58]

The Mk.IV was utter shite on the level of it's main gun having next to no splash and mediocre accuracy against infantry. Couple that with the penetration to only penetrate light vehicles...

Basically it only existed to absorb damage - Something the Mk.VI was more than capable of, with the added benefit of being able to do something offensively.

[Smokaz]

The Mk.IV was utter shite on the level of it's main gun having next to no splash and mediocre accuracy against infantry. Couple that with the penetration to only penetrate light vehicles...

Basically it only existed to absorb damage - Something the Mk.VI was more than capable of, with the added benefit of being able to do something offensively.

Yeah when you think of it like - Either/Or. Either the mk6 should be there, or the MkIV. But we have something called pricing in EIRR which means that a worse unit will cost less than a good one.  Its pretty much integral to the game being enjoyable or not massively predictable at least, that units have different performances in different situations.

Look at how upgun has been handled for the sherman. Its completely displaced the 75mm outside ONE single doctrine T4, HE rounds. What happened? You made a better base version of the same unit. Guess which one people will choose 

They key argument for removal seems to have been that it was overpriced or impossible to price at any rate because of its stats, but that is something I think a small group of players who actually played a lot with it would disagree with.

If it was brought back today with (a good version of) tank shock and its 180 fuel price and its good modifiers vs bunkers and marders, it would be a great unit. What happened with it was that it was changed to be a bland unit somewhat good at everything.

[spinn72]

In vcoh, the Mark IV was just a cheap 2CP(?) tank to bridge the gap between the croc.

For 600mp in vCoH (which is only 150mp more than infantry section) you get a crush-mobile with tank shock(!!) which can be called on before axis get ANY AT if you're doing well, or can soak more hits than the axis AT can throw at you in the early game. I never looked at it as a bridge unit, crocs are 800 and by the time you get them they're useless (and you'd have ALL your fuel left!) .

tbh if they were in the game now and they had +300hp.. well, that'd just be stupid.

[shockcoil]

Everything slower than a p4 should be removed tbh

[Smokaz]

But a Mk6 with +300 health and the other buffs won't be stupid?   Or Crocs or whatever else gets affected? Yeah I can see why they keep you around lol. Way to mix in doctirine buffs being specificly retarded for just the mkIV and ignoring that its the doctrine buff itself being retarded.

Base Mk4 was a fine specialist before he got changed and changed and now resurrected to something completely displacing the cromwell from the RE doctrine.

[Mister Schmidt]

It's the same as the vcoh one.

[Smokaz]

Not really, first of all the MkIV has been changed into the MK6 in all essence.

And before that MkIV had its tank shock changed to something less powerful, so it definitely wasnt true to vcoh for a period of time. Which was lame because it was okay at some jobs, could have been given a lower pop value (not with retarded doctrine buffs making it godly of course) and kept the good tank shock as a selling point.

[Mister Schmidt]

Like what? And you realise the Mark VI is something we made.

[Smokaz]

The unit names are kinda confusing.

What Im saying is it was unneccessary to remove the churchill unit based on the vcoh one with the same stats. It was a good unit with some weird stats that doctrine buffs, pricing and the tank shock ability could have maintained as useful

The improved churchill with the good AI gun displaces the "old" and "crap" churchill and also makes the cromwell less apt to pick. With cromwell and old churchill there were choices to be made. Mobility vs survivability. Good AI vs circumstancial, supporting AI.

[Mister Schmidt]

The Cromwell and 'old' Churchill (Mark IV), use the same gun, a shitty six pounder, the AI is the same.

[Smokaz]

The Cromwell and 'old' Churchill (Mark IV), use the same gun, a shitty six pounder, the AI is the same.

Since when? Its hard to track all changes but the old churchill used to have worse  base accuracy modifiers vs inf (you cannot ignore this when we talk about a unit gun) and I believe did not get the moving accuracy buff that the cromwell got.

[EliteGren]

The MKVI doesn't make the cromwell any less attractive. The cromwell is a hit and run unit while the churchill is just a bigger armoured sherman and meatshield. Even if the MKVI does seem more powerful in comparison it can't do things that the cromwell can which is harrasing infantry hard and finishing off or flanking armour with flank speed.

[Hicks58]

The Cromwell and 'old' Churchill (Mark IV), use the same gun, a shitty six pounder, the AI is the same.

This, is BS.

75mm on the Cromwell is leagues ahead of the 57mm on the Churchill Mk.IV. This is in both AI and AT.

Go check the RGD's.

In fact, the *Only* thing that the Mk.IV gun has over the Cromwell gun is that the Mk.IV has 0.75 accuracy against infantry against the Cromwell's 0.65. However, this gets more or less completely ran-sacked by the fact that the Cromwell is going to be a *lot* better with it's 3 splash radius over the Churchill's 1.

The 75mm on the Cromwell and the 75mm on the Mk.VI however, are fairly comparable.

[EliteGren]

From what I can remember the 6 pounder had some very good modifiers vs light vehicles but it sucked shit when you tried to hit infantry. It didn't suffer from 0.5 accuracy modifer vs moving infantry after some patch because it was so bad.

[Tymathee]

you could give the churchill a king tiger gun and i still wouldn't use it, it's just frustrating to me

anybody think the mk4 should be replaced by the black prince

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince_%28tank%29