Home
Forum
Search
Login
Register
Account
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email?
September 07, 2024, 07:09:56 pm
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Resources
Leaderboards
Unit Price Lists
Map List
Launcher status:
Players in chat: 1
Battles in progress: 0
Battles waiting: 26
Download the mod from Steam
Join our Discord server
Recent posts
Please don’t open this th...
by
Shabtajus
[
Yesterday
at 11:58:09 am]
50 minutes cap victory
by
Olazaika1
[September 05, 2024, 01:54:13 pm]
Feedback
by
Olazaika1
[July 16, 2024, 11:30:34 pm]
Anyone here still alive?
by
Olazaika1
[June 22, 2024, 06:49:40 am]
very glad to be signing u...
by
Olazaika1
[March 08, 2024, 12:13:38 am]
EiR:R ACA (Art Credits Ar...
by
Olazaika1
[March 08, 2024, 12:12:54 am]
Hello, New guy in the mod
by
Olazaika1
[March 08, 2024, 12:09:37 am]
CoH 3 Old Guard
by
chefarzt
[December 30, 2023, 08:00:58 pm]
KT got buffs, Rug stop hi...
by
LittleJoe
[February 04, 2023, 11:46:41 am]
13 years ago
by
tank130
[December 25, 2022, 11:36:26 am]
Awards
2007
Mod of the Year
Editor's Choice
2008
Most Innovative Multiplayer
Nominee
Want to help promote Europe In Ruins? It's as easy as clicking here once a day!
Why?
COH: Europe In Ruins
>
Forum
>
EIR Main Forums
>
Balance & Design
>
Addressing the viability of medium armour
Pages: [
1
]
2
3
...
11
Go Down
Print
Author
Topic: Addressing the viability of medium armour (Read 48097 times)
0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.
Hicks58
Development
Posts: 5343
Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
on:
March 26, 2012, 12:17:45 pm »
Alright, we all know that medium armour is currently getting the shit kicked out of it. It's application is sparing in the current environment of EiRR where low cost high performance counters are abundant. The only reason they are currently in play at all is due to the lack of high level players, but as soon as they kick it up into full gear, they'll become fully redundant once more.
So here's what I suggest. First off I'll quote what I said in an alternate thread:
Quote from: Hicks58 on March 26, 2012, 11:40:38 am
Tbf consider the following:
Increasing the price of ALL dedicated AT pieces so that they cost a substantial amount more than medium armour. This should leave them at the 250 - 300 Fuel range.
Then, alter crushing mechanics so upon ramming into a guy, the vehicle's speed is reduced to 0.
Finally, make said AT pieces lethal and specific at their jobs.
If you run medium armour, you've got flexibility, and a LOT of it. You run TD's primarily, then you'll need to find an alternative for your AI. Running one or two TD's will still be pretty viable as support for man packed/pushed AT options.
Also, with the crush mechanic alteration, you won't be able to run current style TD spam companies that will lolwut crush their way to victory after bagging every tank in sight.
This will form a base line. Mobile armoured based AT pieces will be costly, but efficient in their task. Medium armour will be capable of engaging other medium armour, and getting the drop on TD's with clever play. However, these TD's wont constantly be in their face, and their application will be more cautious.
One thing I will have to add is something AMPM said. A pop decrease to 10 for medium armour would make them less of a pain in the arse to put into play early on while pop is lower.
Oh, and as far as increasing the lethality of AT pieces go - High penetration, good reload, good accuracy. No damage changes, and for some, reduced accuracy vs infantry.
Feel free to add to this. I want to see medium armour worth something more than being a part of EiRR's signature bread and butter core.
Logged
Quote from: brn4meplz on November 05, 2012, 10:45:05 am
I mean I know Obama was the first one in EiR to get a card. and tbfh the Race card is pretty OP. but Romney has the K.K.K., those guys seem to camo anywhere. So OP units from both sides.
Quote from: Mysthalin on March 27, 2014, 04:57:09 pm
At the end of the day, however, stormtroopers finally got the anal invasion with a cactus they have richly deserved for years.
tank130
Sugar Daddy
Posts: 8889
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #1 on:
March 26, 2012, 12:37:56 pm »
Quote from: Hicks58 on March 26, 2012, 12:17:45 pm
A pop decrease to 10 for medium armour would make them less of a pain in the arse to put into play early on while pop is lower.
P4 - Anti Inf / LV = 12 Pop
Pak - AT = 5 Pop
Gen / Shrek - AT / Support - capping = 5 Pop
HMG - Suppress Inf for P4 - capping = 3 Pop
That's a good call-in for only 25 Pop
Two types of AT
Two AI
The only issue I see right now is the spamming of M10/M18, and that most of PE AT is fuel based and not affected by the Muni drop. (exceptions - 50MM and Tankbusters)
Logged
Quote
Geez, while Wind was banned I forgot that he is, in fact, totally insufferable
Quote from: Hicks58 on June 05, 2013, 02:14:06 pm
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.
CrazyWR
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3616
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #2 on:
March 26, 2012, 12:52:08 pm »
well that makes up for the fact that PE was the faction most raped by the previous resource drop, which was a fuel drop.
Logged
Quote from: Ununoctium on September 03, 2009, 07:45:25 am
1. New tactics? it's like JAWS, first one in the water dies
Quote from: jackmccrack on February 09, 2012, 12:47:54 pm
RCA-land where shells fall like raindrops and the Captain is an invincible god
tank130
Sugar Daddy
Posts: 8889
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #3 on:
March 26, 2012, 01:20:50 pm »
I disagree PE was raped....
But even if it was - Two wrongs do not make it right.
Logged
CrazyWR
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3616
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #4 on:
March 26, 2012, 01:27:05 pm »
I agree, reset muni and fuel price to old numbers and remove pool and weapons cache ideas from your brains and things will be much improved.
Logged
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #5 on:
March 26, 2012, 01:29:07 pm »
the issue with medium tanks is the viability of heavy hitting counters that all can field.
there's a lot of at that can be fielded and with med tanks only having 600 and it taking 500 to cripple, it only takes a few hits.
to be honest...i dont really know a way to fix it all. One of the biggest issues is because of the abundance of heavies, both sides became very good at fielding heavy counters, thus when meds come on, they're absolutely raped.
So, what to do? :shrug:
Logged
Quote from: nikomas on October 04, 2012, 09:26:33 pm
"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"
Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
Hicks58
Development
Posts: 5343
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #6 on:
March 26, 2012, 01:34:12 pm »
Heavy AT is cheap, and it's efficient. One of these things has to change for medium armour to stand a chance.
Logged
TheVolskinator
Administrator / Lead Developer
Posts: 3012
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #7 on:
March 26, 2012, 01:40:59 pm »
There are too many heavy armor fanbois out there; I don't this idea will fly. But I myself support it; I detest heavy armor coys o TD spam companies and feel pretty put out that I'm one of only a few players that bothers to use Mediums--not to mention I usually get wtfpwnd because of it. I'm not so sure that the AT changes would be easy to add, since the US relies on its ATGs to reliably fight off tanks. The sheer variety of long-ranged Axis (fuel based) AT is also a monkey wrench.
This might also be the meta; very heavy support spam with dedicated AT/AI rather then a compisition of infantry and mediums backed up by a few sparse support weapons. The support heavy environment is very harsh towards infanty-and-mediums-companies.
Logged
Quote from: tank130
I want to ensure we have a 100% decision on the process before we do the wipe.
If not, then I wipe, then someone gets something they shouldn't, then it gets abused, then the shit hits the fan and then I ban shab.
Getting EiR:R Released on Steam
Forum Rules & Guidelines
NightRain
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3908
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #8 on:
March 26, 2012, 02:09:42 pm »
Medium armor needs more viable buffs through Doctrines too is what I'm thinking.
Logged
Quote from: Unkn0wn on June 05, 2011, 04:01:40 am
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.
aeroblade56
Development
Posts: 3871
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #9 on:
March 26, 2012, 02:37:12 pm »
The reason i do not bring shermans is because yes it will deal damage to a p4 but most axis carry a panther or two. or maybe even a super heavy. what good is a sherman against those?? last 5 games i played all had a panther maybe saw 2 p4s max from some guy. and their are also harder things for the sherman to dodge for instance.
schreks are much more dangerous then bazooka.yes if you hit its rear it does great damage. assuming the player is going to be a noob and let you see his back to zooks.
Logged
Quote from: Hicks58 on January 08, 2016, 05:47:37 pm
You are welcome to your opinion.
You are also welcome to be wrong.
3rdCondor
Donator
Posts: 1536
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #10 on:
March 26, 2012, 02:46:21 pm »
The sherman tank is definitely fine where it is because it's already extremely useful. The P4 just suffers from not being worth the cost. If I can buy 2 panthers, and still have enough wiggle room with fuel, then why would I invest in a P4. I'm not suggesting a price change on the panther (because it was lowered for a good reason), but a pop, price, or some other type of patch modification for p4s should be tested and considered (which probably has already happened by the devs).
Logged
Quote from: Alpha TIG on August 08, 2012, 11:55:14 pm
No tits, but i will bake a cake then eat it in honour of Sir Condor The 3rd
Quote from: Smokaz on August 14, 2012, 04:15:58 pm
fuck the pgren rifle, fucking dogshit weapon
Quote from: TheIcelandicManiac on November 28, 2012, 04:04:22 pm
My beautiful black pussy won
8thRifleRegiment
EIR Veteran
Posts: 2210
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #11 on:
March 26, 2012, 05:16:53 pm »
Quote from: tank130 on March 26, 2012, 01:20:50 pm
I disagree PE was raped....
But even if it was - Two wrongs do not make it right.
PE needs as much marders as possible as all ranged at is vulnerable to atg creep vs PAKs, PE is fine as is now, nothing needs to be chanegd from PE.
Logged
I will never forget the rage we enduced together
Quote from: brn4meplz on March 08, 2013, 12:46:54 pm
Ohh Good, AmPm can pay in Doubloons.
Demon767
Warmap Betatester
EIR Veteran
Posts: 6190
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #12 on:
March 26, 2012, 06:38:13 pm »
buff hetzer penetration. meant to be a TD, but bounces alot
Logged
Generalleutnant of The Reichs Wolves
Nevergetsputonlistguy767
CrazyWR
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3616
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #13 on:
March 26, 2012, 08:14:37 pm »
Quote from: aeroblade56 on March 26, 2012, 02:37:12 pm
The reason i do not bring shermans is because yes it will deal damage to a p4 but most axis carry a panther or two. or maybe even a super heavy. what good is a sherman against those?? last 5 games i played all had a panther maybe saw 2 p4s max from some guy. and their are also harder things for the sherman to dodge for instance.
schreks are much more dangerous then bazooka.yes if you hit its rear it does great damage. assuming the player is going to be a noob and let you see his back to zooks.
you're doing it wrong...Allied vehicles are for killing infantry(except m10s, m18s, and FF's), while Axis armor(except the p4 and the ist and ost) is generally for killing vehicles.
Logged
Poppi
EIR Veteran
Posts: 1080
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #14 on:
March 26, 2012, 08:19:01 pm »
Quote from: 3rdCondor on March 26, 2012, 02:46:21 pm
The sherman tank is definitely fine where it is because it's already extremely useful. The P4 just suffers from not being worth the cost. If I can buy 2 panthers, and still have enough wiggle room with fuel, then why would I invest in a P4. I'm not suggesting a price change on the panther (because it was lowered for a good reason), but a pop, price, or some other type of patch modification for p4s should be tested and considered (which probably has already happened by the devs).
i dont know. i think the sherman is far from fine. i think the p4 and sherman find themselves in the same spot as it can become useless really fast. Ive seen p4s in many games and ive seen them get more inf kills than a 76mm Sherman by alot. Infact i dont see Shermans perform that well. Only in rare cases do they do damage and live to tell the tale. Maybe med armor is something that requires more skills than a LV or a H tank.
You cant waste it and you just cant send it in. If P4 gets some kind of price reduction i think sherman should too
And about the ATG price increase. It was already much lower before and took a drastic MU and POP increase. As volks mentioned increasing that alone puts a damper on US (especially TRs), since there are no long range FU based AT options for US.
Logged
smurfORnot
EIR Veteran
Posts: 4715
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #15 on:
March 26, 2012, 11:17:33 pm »
you call 1 pop raise drastic?
Logged
HairyPothead
EIR Regular
Posts: 38
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #16 on:
March 26, 2012, 11:27:10 pm »
it also dampens usa due to the fact that USA has no lesser options for instance. axis can pack g43-65 munis or Mp40's mp44. usa just gets the bar at 80 munis unless you go infantry doctrine. so axis can have more spread out muni option.
Logged
kwiatekkek
okultysta, mistyk, szachista i alpinista.
Posts: 702
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #17 on:
March 27, 2012, 02:21:13 am »
allied tank destroyes (m10/18) are way underpriced imo.
how many m10s can u get max? 8 ?
and on top of that ure still able to field round 5 atgs , and 5 stikie sqds...
that is just sick amount of at , that'll go throught any
heavy/super heavy axis any day, witout any support.
+1 to Hicks ideas.
Logged
Quote from: Smokaz on November 22, 2011, 04:36:05 am
"L2P" is like a Auswitcz tattoo on your arm, a mark of the survivor.
Quote from: EIRRMod on October 17, 2011, 05:40:08 pm
*cough* Team Lead is Allied bias, just FYI
CrazyWR
EIR Veteran
Posts: 3616
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #18 on:
March 27, 2012, 02:42:24 am »
used to cost 160fuel, now m10 is 200 and m18 is 210, so 7 max
Logged
skaffa
Honoured Member
Posts: 3130
The very best player of one of the four factions.
Re: Addressing the viability of medium armour
«
Reply #19 on:
March 27, 2012, 05:22:40 am »
This just shows EIR has too much fuel. Why try to preserve units when you can have so many.
Logged
Quote from: deadbolt
bad luck skaffa> creates best and most played eir maps
> hated for creating best and most played eir maps
Quote from: Tachibana
47k new all time record?
Quote from: deadbolt
Don't knock it til uve tried it bitchface, this isn't anything like salads version. Besides u said a semois conversion would never work, now look that's the most played map, ohgodwhy.jpg r u map lead
Pages: [
1
]
2
3
...
11
Go Up
Print
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
-----------------------------
News & Introductions
-----------------------------
=> Updates & Announcements
=> EIR Boot Camp
===> In Other Languages
=====> In Chinese
=====> In German
=====> In Spanish
=====> In Polish
=====> In French
=====> In Norwegian
=> New Players
-----------------------------
EIR Main Forums
-----------------------------
=> General Discussion
=> Tactics & Strategy
=> Balance & Design
=> Broadcasts & Replays
=> Projects & Mapping
=> Technical Support
===> Bug Reporting
-----------------------------
General Forums
-----------------------------
=> General Discussion
=> Other Games
TinyPortal v1.0 beta 4 ©
Bloc
Loading...