Medium Tank Misconceptions

[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

[AmPM]

I haven't read the whole thread so I won't comment on that but this part really bugs me. Innocent until proven guilty is one of THE fundamental principles of a modern democracy and it is an inviolable right for 99% of offenses in the EU and Commonwealth countries. I don't know how it works in the US but if what you say is true it is the US that has serious problems.

EDIT: Okay I've read the thread now and well... it's kinda dumb really.

If you ask me 10k manpower solves all this and related issues but hey no one listens to crazy old David and his insane ideas so let's break down the issues raised.

1. Medium tanks are not cost efficient compared to heavies - increase cost of heavy tanks so that 1 tiger = 2 p4s.

2. TDs are performing the hybrid role better than medium tanks - okay first this is not true and even if it was all this proves is that TDs need a nerf to their infantry sniping ability.

3. LVs are performing the hybrid role better than medium tanks - this is also not true, though we have shown the stag is too powerful for it's cost, it comes nowhere near the AT ability of the sherman. I also take Wind's point about field presence, I presume me means on the frontlines in terms of taking hits and dishing them out because LVs have greater field presence harassing from the flanks. However in every game, sometimes you need that unit that can just sit there on the front and take a few hits to perform a role, LVs cannot do this.

[on a side note: whoever thinks 3 stags can counter 2 p4s need to get themselves checked into their nearest mental institution]

4. More people are using TDs than medium armour - this proves nothing and this shows nothing but the preferences of the EiR community. No the amount of TDs doesn't hurt medium armour, p4s can take on m10s and win most of the time and especially with support as TDs are the offensive unit here.

5. TDs are needed to counter heavy armour - this is also just not true, pound for pound there is no better solution against heavy armour than atgs, TDs are good because they can apply the finishing blow but if I wanted to rush a position a TD wouldn't stop me, an ATG would.

10k manpower does not solve this issue, it just means more naked infantry roaming around.

1: Exactly what I was saying, however, with this change other forms of AT need to be repriced as well.

2: TD's are not as good at a hybrid role (a role that is generally less useful than having 2 specialists instead), but vs AT Infantry they will do about as well as Medium armor (M18 in particular because of .50), STuGs do just fine killing infantry too. This does not mean it is as good as a Medium at killing infantry, this means it is good enough at killing infantry to fill the gap.

3: Don't think I ever said that. However, the hybrid role is again, better filled by 2 specialists.

4: Yea, cool story, so what you are telling me is a 400mp 290fu medium tank MIGHT kill an M10 (300mp 190fu) IF it has supporting AT nearby to save it? Sweet!! So you have your hybrid vehicle + hard AT to counter 1 lower pop unit. Super efficient. OR you can get the TD for less, saving you MP and MU so you can have more of that supporting stuff + a highly competent armored vehicle.

5: Not needed, but more efficient than using Mediums for a couple reasons. 1 cheaper, 2 still able to effectively counter tanks and non-AT infantry just fine. Which is a bonus, because a Medium tank, especially for the Allies, can't counter AT Infantry at all! Give a Sherman skirts and it might get interesting but as is, no, Shermans suck for stopping schreks, better off using a 45 range vehicle that can pick people off every few shots.

[3rdCondor]

I think everyone is a little bit correct, but Shockcoil is definitely right about the cost efficiency issue. It's not that p4s aren't good... it's just that I'd rather buy a tiger or some panthers because they're the best value.

[tank130]

I choose M10's for a very simple reasons.

They are awesome mobile AT
They are pretty good at sniping infantry and awesome at crushing the rest.

The Snipe plus crush makes them almost as efficient as a Sherman for AI, not that same, but getting close.

So the logical chose for me is to get M10's for less resources. It can out perform the Sherman on AT and come in a close second for AI.

The problem is not Medium Armor. The problem is TD are capable of being used for AI too efficiently making them the logical chose for "Combined Arms".

[Tymathee]

how bout for EIR then, we make Tank destroyers be dedicated tank destroyers and just get rid of crush.

Axis TD's other than Stugs and both Panthers don't have that issue.

I'd love to see more mediums back on the field and be able to use them as well. I think if you fix the tank destroyer issue, you'll see more shermans, p4, ist's and cromwells.

Maybe the other issue is the risk/reward of all cheap td's. there's not  much of a risk of losing resources but there's a high reward of killing tanks.

Ok, forget about crush, maybe the best fix is this. Raise the pool cost of all types of tank destroyers by .5 their cost (if 8, then 12) that way it's harder to spam them, so instead of being able to get 3 for 24 pool, u can only get 2 and it gets lower the more you use.

If you have 48 pool, you used to get 6, now u can only have 4 and not only that, you limit the amount of other armor you can have, so you'll have a ton of left over fuel and no where to put it,maybe light vehicles but that still solves the issue.

[aeroblade56]

DOnt even talk about crush with a T3 terror get stug top mg panther,p4s. thats asking to be crushed and on stug tis like rofl 150 Fuel crush.

[8thRifleRegiment]

Tankedit: Useless information Removed

[Tymathee]

DOnt even talk about crush with a T3 terror get stug top mg panther,p4s. thats asking to be crushed and on stug tis like rofl 150 Fuel crush.

yeah, i didn't mention stugs or panthers at all!

Nor did I not talk about wm or pe takn destroyers, oh in no way was my post directed at the whole of EIR, no way.

I am such an axis fan boy, NERF THE US TANK DESTROYERS NAOW!

Read the entirety of my post please and don't just take the first 2 lines and jump on that when i spent good time forming a rather concise argument to help balance EIR.

[Mister Schmidt]

Tankedit: Useless information Removed

[smurfORnot]

Tankedit: Useless information Removed

[TheWindCriesMary]

The one salient point that has come up consistently in this thread is that Medium Tanks are not the problem. TD AI capability and Heavy Tank cost is the problem.

So lets stop trying to mess with the well balanced Medium Tanks and leave them out of the conversation entirely. Lets not blame them for the sins of their cousins.

I think mediums are fun to play, I agree with you there Wind, but I will disagree on your point about mediocre players not using them or only complaining.

This is actually the opposite of what I argued. I said that more people use medium armour than was being represented by people in this thread. The argument I was against was that "they are so inefficient that no one in their right mind would pick them". I like Ostwinds and Cromwells better than TD's and Panthers and there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that many players in this mod DO play with Shermans and p4's. I had two guys trying to tell me that P4's/Shermans were "suicide" choice and were "obviously" not worth picking, which to me is total nonsense.

Also, in reference to "mediocre players" there is a huge difference between "mediocre players" just playing the game having a good time and working to get better, and "mediocre" players deciding that they are great players and then lobbying to get units changed that have no business being changed because they have difficulty using those units.

In fact I even wrote an entire post in this thread about how the Cromwell is a great tank that gets a bad rap because it isn't overpowered like a m10 or Hellcat.

So yeah, you don't actually disagree with me. You disagree with what you thought I said =P

[Tymathee]

Ostwind <3 I looooev my Ostwinds. At my defensive companies height, i'd have 6-7, i even had a beautiful vet 3 one i kept around for end game scenarios when there was only infantry and he'd come on a shred 'em, so fun.

theres no other tank like the ostwind and keep it like that

although I find it funny that when other people use ostwinds, i laugh inside...

[Mister Schmidt]

Well, regardless, medium tanks are still fun

[TheVolskinator]

NugNug balance time.

50 range upgun Shermans pl0x.

[Tymathee]

Well, regardless, medium tanks are still fun

yeah they are, in an environment where heavy hitters don't rule the battlefield, the medium tank is prince.

[Poppi]

I choose M10's for a very simple reasons.

They are awesome mobile AT
They are pretty good at sniping infantry and awesome at crushing the rest.

The Snipe plus crush makes them almost as efficient as a Sherman for AI, not that same, but getting close.

So the logical chose for me is to get M10's for less resources. It can out perform the Sherman on AT and come in a close second for AI.

The problem is not Medium Armor. The problem is TD are capable of being used for AI too efficiently making them the logical chose for "Combined Arms".

Wow i disagree with that.
I could argue that med armor is useles b/c LV and HV rack up more heavy inf kills and you get a better bang for your buck.
the m10 "sniping" is rare to me.
the crush can rack up kills but people act like its not avoidable and m10s dont blow up in like 2 seconds. plus what the m10 might get like 4 inf kills. i dont see that replacing the shermans ability. No one will put a m10 to guard a ATG. Thats fail. But i still do think the sherman is useless. EXPENSIVE and fragile. Maybe needs better frontal armor. b/c to protect inf i use quad, m8, or t17. Cheaper and get sooo much more kills. Panther or pak comes along a sherman will be fucked. Rather have my LV to kill inf spams and glass cannon m10s to take out HV. Sherman cant fulfill any of that.

basically stated earllier ya  medium armor has its role, but that role can go away so fast and in so many different ways.

[pqumsieh]

Really good discussion in this thread, its been noted and passed onto the BT. Thanks for starting things up Wind, you have really been helpful; I think the BT needs to take your points under strong consideration in our current discussion.

[Smokaz]

hopefully dev laziness and coder afk will prevent stupid stufff like crush removal from m10 or all at tanks having inf accuracy of firefly

this thread has all the merit of this sentence:

No one will put a m10 to guard a ATG. Thats fail.

against what is it fail?

[Tymathee]

Really good discussion in this thread, its been noted and passed onto the BT. Thanks for starting things up Wind, you have really been helpful; I think the BT needs to take your points under strong consideration in our current discussion.

Keep it up, we may start getting more posts like Windy's and something will actually get discussed

[TheWindCriesMary]

Well, regardless, medium tanks are still fun

Agreed

Really good discussion in this thread, its been noted and passed onto the BT. Thanks for starting things up Wind, you have really been helpful; I think the BT needs to take your points under strong consideration in our current discussion.

Cheers

[AmPM]

how bout for EIR then, we make Tank destroyers be dedicated tank destroyers and just get rid of crush.

Axis TD's other than Stugs and both Panthers don't have that issue.

I'd love to see more mediums back on the field and be able to use them as well. I think if you fix the tank destroyer issue, you'll see more shermans, p4, ist's and cromwells.

Maybe the other issue is the risk/reward of all cheap td's. there's not  much of a risk of losing resources but there's a high reward of killing tanks.

Ok, forget about crush, maybe the best fix is this. Raise the pool cost of all types of tank destroyers by .5 their cost (if 8, then 12) that way it's harder to spam them, so instead of being able to get 3 for 24 pool, u can only get 2 and it gets lower the more you use.

If you have 48 pool, you used to get 6, now u can only have 4 and not only that, you limit the amount of other armor you can have, so you'll have a ton of left over fuel and no where to put it,maybe light vehicles but that still solves the issue.

Tym, if you raise their pool it also ruins peoples abilities to field 1-2 of them, which is not spam. 4 TDs and 2 Shermans and 2 LVs is not spamming anything, but would be nerfed because of this.

Again, issue is not crush, which is easily avoidable and situational, it is that Mediums are not efficient in an environment that does not care if you have 400hp or 600hp, you are going to either not take many hits or just explode.