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

[jackmccrack]

so what mystalin is proposing is changing the price of tank destroyers and light vehicles?

[Mysthalin]

As always.

[Mysthalin]

Most primarily I'd love to see Mobility go. Fuck capping greyhounds.

[nikomas]

Noooo, Poor capping T17's 

[Smokaz]

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:

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.

What is the point of frail AT units if they cannot combat medium armor for cost? Why give up AI power and a turret (axis) for a more expensive and less maneuvrable unit?

The problem in EIRR is the lack of no cost for doctrine buff, since it promotes spam for buff benefit.

[hans]

What is the point of frail AT units if they cannot combat medium armor for cost? Why give up AI power and a turret (axis) for a more expensive and less maneuvrable unit?

The problem in EIRR is the lack of no cost for doctrine buff, since it promotes spam for buff benefit.

hello, do u really believe ur own words?

[Hicks58]

What is the point of frail AT units if they cannot combat medium armor for cost? Why give up AI power and a turret (axis) for a more expensive and less maneuvrable unit?

The problem in EIRR is the lack of no cost for doctrine buff, since it promotes spam for buff benefit.

Really Smokaz? REALLY?

Are you that inept at reading entire posts?

I suggested that with the huge price increase, mobile AT becomes more efficient. Less of it, but with a bigger presence. If you fuck up and lose it than tough shit, but well micro'd it'll more than bring it's cost back.

The problem with AT at the moment is that it's too plentiful and too damned good at the same time. As I've been saying, one of these needs to be struck off, and I'm more inclined for expensive but efficient.

[AmPM]

Smokaz, the problem is that you rarely need that AI power, and if you do, more than likely its because a horde of schreks or ATGs are pushing at you. I mean sure, you could use a P4 or Sherman, but that means you are taking more hits than that M18/M10 or Hetzer that can kite.

Otherwise, that horde of Assault Grens or SMG Rangers dies just as well to an M10/M18/STuG/Hetzer as it does to a P4/Sherman. They can't harm it, so it has all day to kill them off through crush/MG/maingun.

Lets say you take a medium tank, you have decent AI and subpar AT ability with it, so you need to support it with an ATG/Schreks/RR as well as AI Infantry. You may or may not want a Mortar to kill enemy support with as well.

Or you can use a Hellcat/M10, which provides heavy AT and subpar AI, and then just use an HMG/AI Infantry and a Mortar and ATG. You get the same effectiveness of callin, for less pop. You also get much better AT capability.

It's like saying that instead of using specific clubs when playing golf, each with a different role, you will just use 1 club that tries to do everything. Which do you think is going to work better during 18 holes?

[pqumsieh]

I wouldn't go as far as saying you rarely need AI power...if anything having strong AI power is a necessity at all times.

In line with your golfing analogy, it makes sense then to focus the role of medium armour on taking out light vehicles and infantry. This really ties in well with what others have noted in the last few posts.

For axis, this means the P4 becomes a stronger counter to ally light vehicles, such as the M8. In line with what Myst was trying to say, this would increase the threats to light vehicles rendering them slightly less cost effective. Additionally, the P4 would be better able to handle infantry; in many regards it would be an improved Ostwind. Currently, many would agree that the Ostwind is the better pure AI choice, I don't believe this should be the case given this suggestion. They should be fairly equal with the P4 being a more survivability platform better capable of engaging light armoured units.

For allies, this means the cost of the M4 engaging a shrek squad goes down, making it far more efficient at its AI role. Additionally, against PE the M4 should outperform the M10/18 in most cases due to its ability to handle both AI/AT threats (since PE is more focused on light armour).

That is not to say the M10/18 would not be a viable options, they still represent better dedicated AT with their faster speeds, accel/decel, attack power, and range. But on a cost efficiency case, the M4 in many cases would be able to reach higher efficiency levels versus PE.

You have to imagine the changes that would actually occur to medium armour when addressing this suggestion. Going back to AMPM's golfing analogy, they are the goto club when you need to chip a ball out of the sand, but you wouldn't use them as a driver...

[tank130]

Should be:

LV's = AI
Mediums = Anti LV / AI
TD = AT
Heavies = Anti Mediums / so so AI
Super heavies = WTF pound

Right now we have TD with strong AI ability - that's fucking retarded.
Take the StuG for example. It sucks at taking on Shermans,  but people argue it has a great mg for infantry suppression......WTF kinda logic is that?
Take M10 for another example. Great at raping as a TD and can crush infantry better than any other unit on the field.

It would be so much simpler to balance and counter if the units did what they were supposed to do instead of all this cross over.

[Smokaz]

The big diff between ostie and panzer fourie is that the p4 can take on AT infantry much better than the ostwind. Sure the ostwind is great at mauling infantry without AT, but theres a difference between eating two rounds of recoilless rifle shots on a p4 and a ostwind.

[pqumsieh]

Stug actually performs pretty well versus most Medium armour Tank. That said, my statement takes into consideration the 8 pop value, the 1.5 damage modifiers, one of the best armour types in the game, and the 40-60% penetration rate.

One on one, a M4 should beat a Stug but that really is not a good way to view engage in balance discussion. You have to consider all of the above variables as well as the meta game.

[NightRain]

One on one, a M4 should beat a Stug but that really is not a good way to view engage in balance discussion. You have to consider all of the above variables as well as the meta game.

Circlestrafe = Win therefore a StuG can be defeated by a M4. In a similar fashion a P4 should defeat a M10 but it doesn't happen due to M10 having the range. Therefore STuG without that 5 extra range has a armor to compensate but has no turret in return so its at disadvantage when it comes to AT but it excells at infantry support- which it is designed to.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

It would be so much simpler to balance and counter if the units did what they were supposed to do instead of all this cross over.

The price associated with the game being a mod. I sincerely believe you should take the changes to infantry crush in particular into consideration, units being crushed by M10s just strikes me as absolutely annoying and uncharacteristic of the unit's actual role.

[Smokaz]

Its pretty boss when u crush noobguy's all inf core with ur m10 on the abbeville road tho

[Masacree]

I usually get wtfpwnd because of it.

You don't sound biased

[AmPM]

Stug actually performs pretty well versus most Medium armour Tank. That said, my statement takes into consideration the 8 pop value, the 1.5 damage modifiers, one of the best armour types in the game, and the 40-60% penetration rate.

One on one, a M4 should beat a Stug but that really is not a good way to view engage in balance discussion. You have to consider all of the above variables as well as the meta game.

Sadly, the metagame see's too it that STuGs just fail. If they were not facing down tons heavy AT it would be worth using. This has more to do with cost than a defect with the unit itself (though a bit extra pen vs heavy armor types would be nice). Right now it costs a lot of manpower and mu for the fuel that you use limits it.

7 STuGs eats up a ton of MP, MU and FU which is less efficient than using 3 Panthers or even P4's.

I loved STuGs, when they didn't gimp the MP that I could use for more infantry (back when you started with 10k MP instead of 8k) and they were more commonly fighting Medium armor.

[Demon767]

The price associated with the game being a mod. I sincerely believe you should take the changes to infantry crush in particular into consideration, units being crushed by M10s just strikes me as absolutely annoying and uncharacteristic of the unit's actual role.

That statement is absolutely absurd. fixed

[tank130]

Let's not try to be insulting; have a good discussion please.

[aeroblade56]

I think that crush is apart of the game they could have easily taken it out of the come and well it depends on the players skill to decide how good crush is.