Addressing the viability of medium armour

[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

[nikomas]

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.

[PonySlaystation]

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

[nikomas]

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)

[PonySlaystation]

They are not that much slower and M10 crush can be countered easy by just having some AT on the field.

[tank130]

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

[PonySlaystation]

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.

[Groundfire]

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.

[PonySlaystation]

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

[Spartan_Marine88]

- 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.

[Groundfire]

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.

[Groundfire]

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.

[NightRain]

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

[Groundfire]

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.

[CrazyWR]

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.

[NightRain]

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.

[pqumsieh]

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

[HairyPothead]

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.

[pqumsieh]

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.

[CrazyWR]

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

[Mysthalin]

*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.