*

Account

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2024, 10:22:57 am

Login with username, password and session length

Resources

Recent posts

[June 14, 2024, 01:23:36 pm]

[May 28, 2024, 01:28:23 pm]

[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]

[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]

[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]

[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]

[December 25, 2022, 11:36:26 am]

[December 14, 2022, 12:10:06 am]

[September 22, 2022, 06:57:30 am]

[August 22, 2022, 05:10:35 pm]
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Addressing the viability of medium armour  (Read 45719 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2012, 07:23:48 am »

Rather, why try to preserve vet when allies can pop out 3 M10's and rape pretty much any unit if they are in the mood for some heroics?

Just sayin', whenever people say it's easier to preserve vet as axis I almost die of laughter, it's way way easier to get vet 3 comets than say, a vet 3 tiger ace... It's not because the comet is tougher, it's because there are more ways to jihad that Ace.

Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I fully support any change that makes medium armor more viable, when I started out most of my armored force was panzer 4's and maybe a panther. I really liked using shermans to.

These days? Stug are more cost effective for AI and the panther can do that to, LV's are more cost effective than shermans at taking out infartry...


Bottom line, you dont need a jack of all trades when you can have masters for everything.
Logged

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else."

Quote from: PonySlaystation
The officer is considerably better than a riflemen squad at carrying weapons. Officers have good accuracy so they will hit most targets.
PonySlaystation Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4136



« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2012, 07:25:43 am »

You do realize that a Geschutzwagen or a Marder could do the exact same thing.
Logged

Sharks are not monsters Henley, they are cute, cuddly and misunderstood. They love humans. sometimes they love TOO much. They love people so much that sometimes their kisses separate people into two flailing pieces which are consumed by other sharks in a frenzy of peace and joy.
nikomas Offline
Shameless Perv
*
Posts: 4286



« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2012, 07:29:54 am »

Maurders and Gechutz are way easier to stop than M10/18's, it would take a lot more effort to hunt a fairly fast tank down with them, and they dont even have the lolcrush to take care of any handheld at in the open.

Not saying it ain't possible, just saying I've been able to get a vet 3 comet more than once and vet 3 LV's even, but a vet 3 axis tank? Never...

(I find it funny actually, I am better with axis)
Logged
PonySlaystation Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4136



« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2012, 07:37:17 am »

They are not that much slower and M10 crush can be countered easy by just having some AT on the field.
Logged
tank130 Offline
Sugar Daddy
*
Posts: 8889


« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2012, 08:16:37 am »

M10 crush can be countered easy by just having some AT on the field.


That has got to be the most fail argument I have seen on these boards yet.....LOL


Logged

Quote
Geez, while Wind was banned I forgot that he is, in fact, totally insufferable
I'm not going to lie Tig, 9/10 times you open your mouth, I'm overwhelmed with the urge to put my foot in it.
PonySlaystation Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4136



« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2012, 08:21:27 am »

That has got to be the most fail argument I have seen on these boards yet.....LOL

I disagree, It takes only about 2 Pak shots to kill or disable an m10 and you should always have some form of heavy at (marder, GW, pak, 88) and handheld at (at nades, faust, shreck) on the field also you usually have some form of mines. So if you just keep your infantry supported by AT like you always should then that m10 will die without having even touched a tank. Even if it does manage to run over 1-2 grenadiers then that's still not even close to the cost of an m10.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 08:24:12 am by PonySlaystation » Logged
Groundfire Offline
EIRR community manager
EIR Veteran
Posts: 8511



« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2012, 08:27:32 am »

So medium armor is unviable because M10s can crush infantry?

You people cant be using only schrecks, lets get back on topic.

Personally, I wish the launcher incorporated a tiered system like vCoH. (Early war -> Late War) Where heavy tanks were not unlockable until your faction as a whole teched to a certain level, but that requires launcher coding. It would create an environment where for a long stretch of time, medium tanks would be king.

Working with the system that we have, I would say a step in the right direction would be:
- a 10% increase in fuel to all tank destroyers including Mardars.
- ~10% increase in fuel for Tiger, Pershing and ~15% for KT, Jadg and Super Heavy Reward units.
- Pool and minor price increases for ATGs
- another weapons cache like system for upgrades.
- more doctinal upgrades for medium tanks

I think these will level the playing field enough for medium tanks to flourish.
Logged

Latest Shoutcast:
EIRR Groundcast 11 "The Super Dev Showdown!!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOGm79rXWhU (full version)

PonySlaystation Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4136



« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2012, 08:38:30 am »

The problem with medium armor is still pop, not costs.
Logged
Spartan_Marine88 Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4838



« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2012, 08:39:30 am »


- another weapons cache like system for upgrades.


No groundfire never bring this back.

Weapons cache is NOT a good idea, will NEVER be a good idea. Its just another stupid price when you already got 5 others you can adjust. You would be smart to never ever suggest this again.
Logged

Yes that's me, the special snowflake.
Groundfire Offline
EIRR community manager
EIR Veteran
Posts: 8511



« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2012, 08:40:41 am »

The problem with medium armor is still pop, not costs.

Explain please.

Cause im quite sure that the problem is that the environment is saturated with good AT counters, not how many medium tanks + support you can field.

You can only drop medium armor pop so much before it becomes broken.
Logged
Groundfire Offline
EIRR community manager
EIR Veteran
Posts: 8511



« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2012, 08:42:09 am »

No groundfire never bring this back.

Weapons cache is NOT a good idea, will NEVER be a good idea. Its just another stupid price when you already got 5 others you can adjust. You would be smart to never ever suggest this again.

Fair enough. I swore I would never touch this type of system again, so whatever if anything you guys get in the future, avert your wrath away from me.
Logged
NightRain Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3908



« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2012, 08:47:31 am »

We can do so that we can only buy limited ammount of troops so that we have resource leftovers cause we can't spend it all.

That is pool and Weaponcache
Logged

Because a forum post should be like a woman's skirt. Long enough to cover the subject material, but short enough to keep things interesting.
Groundfire Offline
EIRR community manager
EIR Veteran
Posts: 8511



« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2012, 09:00:03 am »

Not getting into this..

The WC was not fully realized. If you buy 15 schrecks and then suddenly dont have enough WC for other upgrades, unable to spend the rest of your resources on other upgrades even if you have a substantial amount left over, then dont you think that you might have too many schrecks?

Just because you are unwilling to spend your resources to fit the framework doesnt mean that there is something wrong with the system. It does mean that there's something wrong with you tho.

What I keep on hearing form everyone is their problems, but you are unwilling to take restrictions across the board.

"Dont touch my shit, but impose restrictions on everyone else"

What a cluster fuck that was. I will not be apart of it again.
Logged
CrazyWR Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3616


« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2012, 09:56:34 am »

there shouldnt be restrictions on anyone.  period.  Resources should be set, and thats all.  Fitting a framework means fitting into an idea of a certain type of company others want us to build.  Perhaps I don't want to play the company the same way you would.  But I have little choice at the moment.
Logged

1. New tactics? it's like JAWS, first one in the water dies

RCA-land where shells fall like raindrops and the Captain is an invincible god
NightRain Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3908



« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2012, 10:49:33 am »

there shouldnt be restrictions on anyone.  period.  Resources should be set, and thats all.  Fitting a framework means fitting into an idea of a certain type of company others want us to build.  Perhaps I don't want to play the company the same way you would.  But I have little choice at the moment.

Agreed It is killing the liberity of company building and therefore forcing people to do a company they don't want to use, aka kills freedom, kills fun.
Logged
pqumsieh Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 2367


« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2012, 11:19:36 am »

Just to weigh in a bit; it seems a few concerns have been brought up, so I will summerize and address.

Medium armor is not effective in the current meta game. Some people believe reducin it's pop, cost, or increasing the cost of all other at will be a solution.

Typically when someone says to fix one problem we should make a big change like increase the cost of a shit load of other units red flags go up in my mind. You are just begging for knock on issues if you do that. Seems we should look at the simplist solutions first.

A few questions to consider:

Is medium armor still cost effective? Or is it still cost effective but not as cos effective as other choices. Making it a less desirable choice over other options is a balance problem.

Based on what I have read, people feel there are significantly better options than medium armor in the current meta game. Some have actually suggested buffs to TDs but that would only strengthen the problem.

The solution will then be making medium armor more desirable as opposed to AT less desirable. It's the easier of the two solutions and will likely result in fewer knock on issues.

I would personally try to focus the role of medium armor to taking out infantry and light vehicles. Increasing their AI capacity fine tunes their role and represents a meaningful difference between picking a M4 or M10. Similarity, picking a P4 over a Panther.

What I wouldn't do is increase medium armors penetration. That overlaps their role with dedicated AT making the choice less clear to players.

You could increase their accuracy, their resistance to hand held AT, their rate of fire, their splash, etc.

The risk IS over doing it making infantry the next problem. In his regard, it takes a skilled balancer to discern how much and of what values to increase.

edit: last paragraph, removed not
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 11:33:44 am by pqumsieh » Logged

Common sense is not so common after all.
HairyPothead Offline
EIR Regular
Posts: 38



« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2012, 11:42:03 am »

Like i said axis have the bigger tanks so what good is a sherman vs a tiger. sometimes those extra tank destroyer can provide a offensive boost a atg cant do with its speed it can keep up with advancing infantry. But as i said its because a sherma is kinda useless vs a panther.
Logged
pqumsieh Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 2367


« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2012, 11:49:41 am »

I don't think you really read my post Hairy...

Medium armour shouldn't be designed to fight a tiger. You have to remember that a big part of EIR is picking the right unit to field at any given time. Balancing the game involves ensuring the choices available to the player are meaningful and similarly beneficial. Strengthening the AI capacity of medium armour makes them a stronger choice when their are a lot of light vehicles and infantry on the field. Similarly, I would bring out a TD if I saw heavy armour on the field.

I think all axis players would love it if their P4 was a counter to infantry and light vehicles in the same way a Panther or Pershing is a counter to a M4/P4.
Logged
CrazyWR Offline
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3616


« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2012, 12:17:31 pm »

Like i said axis have the bigger tanks so what good is a sherman vs a tiger. sometimes those extra tank destroyer can provide a offensive boost a atg cant do with its speed it can keep up with advancing infantry. But as i said its because a sherma is kinda useless vs a panther.

you're doin it wrong.  Shermans are for fighting infantry, not tigers...use 57s for fighting tigers
Logged
Mysthalin Offline
Tired King of Stats
*
Posts: 9028


« Reply #39 on: March 27, 2012, 12:24:51 pm »

*Yawn* Medium armour is awesome for it's price - always has been.

The problem is that the M10 and M18 are both too cheap, which makes P4s hard to use, and for the Allies the horrendously OP greyhound and staghound is just so much a simpler and better choise than the Sherman that it's not even funny.

But hey, what could a vehicle whore such as myself ever hope to know about vehicle dynamics.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 12:35:53 pm by Mysthalin » Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 © Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 35 queries.