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

[TheWindCriesMary]

Medium tanks are not underpowered. They do not cost too much. They do not have armour that is too weak, or guns that don't hit hard enough. They do not take up too much pop, and they are not too "fragile" in the current metagame.

If you think the above things are true, it is because you are using them wrong.

[Hicks58]

Personally, I've NEVER argued that any of those points are true.

The only points i've ever argued are the abundance of it's hard counter, and hell, in the case of the Sherman, I've argued that the 75mm with .50cal is a beast of an AI platform.

But hey, people will do as people do.

[tank130]

You are 100% correct Wind (that was really hard to say BTW)

The problem is there are units that are capable of doing what they do as well as other important duties for relatively the same cost. Therefore becoming the better investment.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I see your point, but I don't think there are units that perform the specific vehicle role of a Sherman or a p4 better than a Sherman or P4 can do.

When I say vehicle role, I mean the middle-of-the-road tradeoff of AT, AI and field presence of a medium tank.

In the case of a Sherman, there are units that can perform the vehicle role of countering light vehicles and tanks better (TD's), and there are units that can arguably perform against infantry and support weapons better (T17), but there are no units that can perform both of these roles simultaneously while also offering the additional advantage of field presence and damage soaking.

The same goes for the Axis. In fact, I'd say the upgraded P4 is hands down one of the best anti-infantry platforms in the game for its cost and durability.

With all that being said, I would agree that allied TD's are at the moment slightly too effective (speed, firepower, uncanny infantry sniping capabilities and disposable rogue repair/artillery harassment capabilities) for their relatively low cost.

[lionel23]

There is a unit that does that Wind, the Staghound, which is pretty powerful against infantry and can make a mess of LVs AND armor, especially when used in hordes and against turret-less tanks (Stugs) the Staghound can be a very powerful force and chase off Medium armor.

But I do agree that its reliance on the 'hard' counter of walls of ATGs which genuinely makes fielding Medium armor a suicide choice and a terrible waste of an investment (in terms of cost) compared to the reliability of heavier armor.

[TheWindCriesMary]

There is a unit that does that Wind, the Staghound, which is pretty powerful against infantry and can make a mess of LVs AND armor, especially when used in hordes and against turret-less tanks (Stugs) the Staghound can be a very powerful force and chase off Medium armor.

The staghound is not an effective counter to P4's or IST's -- the two definitive examples of WM and PE medium armour. The staghound is extremely effective vs infantry and support weapons, and decently effective against LV's, but  by absolutely no means is it a reliable means of "messing up armour". I should know because I actually play Brits, and use 2 staghounds in my company.

As for a stug, it is true that if used in "hordes" staghounds could very easily tear a stug to pieces. But that is a bad balance argument because it suggests that there is something wrong with a low cost unit such as a stug being countered by multiple units which, combined, would constitute a far greater cost. Even just 3 staghounds is a significantly greater resource investment than a single sherman. Also, last I checked, this argument was about medium tanks vs staghounds and not about light-medium SPG's such as a stug.

So no, you have not demonstrated that there is a unit which can perform the same function as a Sherman. You have reiterated the point that I made originally, however, which is that there are some units which outperform a sherman in portions of its role but none which can replicate it's full range of utility. The staghound fits the criteria of performing the sherman's role of AI/anti-support weapon, but it is not a deterrent to medium armour nor does it afford the damage-sink role, or the field presence roll.

But I do agree that its reliance on the 'hard' counter of walls of ATGs which genuinely makes fielding Medium armor a suicide choice and a terrible waste of an investment (in terms of cost) compared to the reliability of heavier armor.

Medium armour is not a suicide choice. A significant amount of players in EiR currently employ shermans and P4's to no small degree of success, which is a fact that automatically disqualifies and argument which states that medium armour is a suicide choice.

I will absolutely concede that there are many players who are very poor at using Medium armour (and thus are far more inclined to lobby for it to be made more accessible and easier to use), but there are significantly more who continue to be able to employ it competently and effectively.

-Wind

[lionel23]

The staghound is an effective counter to P4s when used in groups, I've seen may players use Staghounds to rape the hell out of P4s, so don't go saying they can't.  Unlike the T17, they have penetration and is available to every British faction, that's why I use 6+ of them to counter medium armor as well as being nigh invulnerable to infantry due to their guns and .50cals.

So yes, I do think I've demonstrated that the Staghound, due to its overall lower price and pop value, can function just as well if not better than a sherman (especially considering it can get dodge while a Sherman can't).

And medium armor is still a suicide choice, I have yet to see a game (currently on a 26+ winning streak with my Allies and Axis) and I have smoked the hell out of mass P4s with just mass ATGs.  You end up wasting way more MU and MP and if you want to take an inferior choice, you can go right ahead.  But everyone knows that the P4 is just not 'cost effective' in the current meta game, it rarely pays for itself, especially if you lose 4-5 of them in a game while a Tiger (if properly used and not suicide charged into stickies, etc) is a much better investment in terms of cost and how much you get out of it.  When I see people using medium armor, I konw immediately their company is subpar due to the amount of resources you put into them for what you get.  I'm pretty sure most people will agree with me on that.

For further proof of this, check the leaderboards, there are more Shermans than P4s, and way, way more panthers than P4s.  The P4 is just not cost effective for what it does and how much you pay for.

[TheWindCriesMary]

The staghound is an effective counter to P4s when used in groups, I've seen may players use Staghounds to rape the hell out of P4s, so don't go saying they can't.

This is the definition of a bad balance argument. 3+ units (930 mp, 240 fuel, 200+ munitions and 24 pop) can be used to counter 1 unit (400  MP, 250 fuel, 80 munitions) so therefore staghound = the same as that unit? That is bad logic, bad balance, and just a bad argument in general.


Does that argument mean that a Staghound fills the same role as a Sherman? Nope. That means 3 staghounds do. Which again, given the investment on both sides, is exactly the way it should be. Conversely, 1 staghound absolutely cannot counter a P4 singlehandedly if both players are equally skilled, nor can 2 if both players are equally skilled.

Therefore you still have all your work ahead of you in proving how a Staghound can fill the role of a Sherman. For it's cost and for it's pop, a there is no unit that fills the entire role of a Sherman. There are units which can do parts of it's role as good or better (AI in the case of Stags, AT in the case of TDs) but none than can do both to the same relative degree. It is as simple as that.

 

As for your winning streak, that means nothing to me nor does it mean anything to anyone in EiR. Any clown in EiR could get a 50 game winning streak if they really wanted to. Hell it's not hard with the current pool of players EiR has who don't mind getting stomped if it means a game. No, instead I'm more impressed by Heartmann's 26-16 score than I am by your 26 game winning streak. Why? Because it's not how many times you win, it's who you play against that matters.

Your score means nothing when it comes to lending credibility to a balance argument that is otherwise illogical.

[lionel23]

I've seen 3 stags counter 2 P4s, I never said it was just one.  If you look at the pop cost, that is the the equivalent (8x3=24, 12x2=24).  And I just remembered who did it too, Puddin (check his Leaderboard units).

The cost of those 3 stags is 310x3 (930MP), 80x3 (240 fuel)
The cost of the 2 P4s is 400x2 (800MP), 250x3 (750 fuel)

The advantage is to the Stags in this case, and if they win they more than make up their cost in they made the axis pay 3 times the fuel cost, which is a more restricting factor than the MP.  No one ever uses 'just one Stag', they always are used in groups of 2 or more, and I've seen pudding deal with 6+ P4s with his 6+ staghound company with absolutely no issue.  The P4 is an underperformer for its cost and role.

And sorry if you are too blind to say my 26+ game winning streak is an example of someone who doesn't try, which is a flawed argument in itself.  When I can play a game poorly and still come out ahead due to the strength of some units, there is clearly something wrong.  I also don't just play stack games like I've seen you do countless times when we throw up a 3v3 and you and your buds refuse to come over and play easy games against noobs, so I think that alone disqualifies you from even suggesting that I don't play 'real games'.

[Smokaz]

tankedit: Useless information removed

[TheWindCriesMary]

I've seen 3 stags counter 2 P4s, I never said it was just one.  If you look at the pop cost, that is the the equivalent (8x3=24, 12x2=24).  And I just remembered who did it too, Puddin (check his Leaderboard units).

3 full health stags will not counter 2 full health p4s. There is no logical balance argument you can make if you are under this impression.

And sorry if you are too blind to say my 26+ game winning streak is an example of someone who doesn't try, which is a flawed argument in itself.  

I didn't say that and I'm not sure why you think I did.

I said your winning streak doesn't mean anything to anyone in EiR, or to this balance issue. Why? Because anyone can farm a 26 game winning streak if a winning streak is important to them. Also, how good you are at playing easy games has absolutely no bearing on your abillity to make good balance arguments.

You are a semi-decent player at best -- you have good games and you have bad ones. If you have a 26 game winning streak, that tells me you are playing joke games consistently and I don't put much stock in it. Hell I can name 15 players that are active right now and who are better than you but have siginficantly worse leaderboard stats. Why? Because leaderboard stats don't mean anything in the world.  As a result, when I look at the leaderboard I am more impressed by Heartmann who has 26-16 than by you because I've seen the kinds of games he plays, and while sometimes he has to settle for ones that aren't great, he will gladly jump in an extremely tough game when the opportunity presents itself. He will play with untested new guys as well, and he will fearlessly face me or anyone else in the pursuit of a challenge.

Heartmann's 26-16 leaderboard stats are better than yours.

So here is my challenge to you:

1) I will play you in a 2v2 or 3v3 five times in a row with a team of your choice vs a team of my choice. You can then use your "winning streak" from that to support your arguments. I believe that you will have a 5 game losing streak all of a sudden, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

and/or

2) I will get 2 p4s, and you will get 3 staghounds. We will do the matchup 5 times in a row. We will use that information to support this argument. I will also accept 2 stags vs 1 p4.

-Wind

[tank130]

This topic has potential.

Lets not fuck it up with an Epeen derailment.

[aeroblade56]

I think There are alot of usefull good points on this thread. I agree with mary for the most part. Medium Armor performs its role as a support unit pretty much it isnt made to go off by itself and fight other tanks but it can handle infantry and protect ATGss very well, they are more defensive units in most cases and arent very stable in prolonged combat. What most of it boils down to is luck and user error.

People say the P4 sucks, i have seen a mediocre player johny austin get 20+ kills in even grounds
People say that sherman get derped to easily, yet i see lionell with a 200+xp sherman and gets 18+ kills a game

I say a cromwell sucks But occasionaly me a terrible player by all accounts can get more then 15+ kills with this tank. It really boils down to the user and doctrine choices. What does baffle me a bit is how the Best Tank doctrine for Brits is RCA. and RE hardly has any bonuses, buffing normal tanks.

[CrazyWR]

Thank you for this thread Wind.  Definitely on point. 

[Smokaz]

Staghound has a bunch of stuff that the sherman doesn't that make it the better unit.

Mr staghound takes less damage from some AT stuff while shermans has more and lose more health. Meaning longer repair for the sherman while stag is back in action quicker. Staghound won't lose it's "50 unless its dead, while a sherman can lose its "50 at half health. Stag deals constant DPS with its mg vs inf, while even a well microed sherman has a decent chance of missing vs a lot axis infantry, and when that fucking sherman misses the gren squad rushing your atg it's a disaster while the stag will steadily start ripping them to pieces from the moment it targets them.

I bet that if it was compared the stag would have higher dps vs charging infantry than the sherman at short/med range. Even if it isnt better, it will probably turn out very even which is sad considering the price of the sherman vs stag.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I say a cromwell sucks But occasionaly me a terrible player by all accounts can get more then 15+ kills with this tank. It really boils down to the user and doctrine choices. What does baffle me a bit is how the Best Tank doctrine for Brits is RCA. and RE hardly has any bonuses, buffing normal tanks.

You make a good point about Cromwells Aero. I can't tell you how many times I've had EiR players give me a sermon about how bad the Cromwell is as if it's common knowledge.

Well it's not, because the Cromwell is one of my absolute favorite tanks in the game. It has terrific splash, good speed, and with the subtle touchups that EiR has given it it's a fantastic ai/anti LV tank for its cost. THe RCA t3s just make it even better.

What it isn't, however, is a p4 or a sherman. It's not supposed to be. It's a very delicate weapon that requires a lot more patience and careful micro to perform. To 95% of the EiR community, that makes it useless in favour of Staghounds which a baby hammering on their keyboard could get to perform well.

The great tragedy of EiR is that the most mediocre players have the loudest voices when it comes to balance, so we just get increasingly dumbed down gameplay thanks to their incessant lobbying.

[CrazyWR]

This is why we need to realize the balance team should consist of high level players who play all 4 factions rather than mediocre players who limit themselves to one or two factions.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Staghound has a bunch of stuff that the sherman doesn't that make it the better unit. 1) mr staghound takes less damage from some AT stuff while shermans has more and lose more health. Meaning longer repair for the sherman while stag is back in action quicker. Staghound won't lose it's "50 unless its dead, while a sherman can lose its "50 at half health. Stag deals constant DPS with its mg vs inf, while even a well microed sherman has a decent chance of missing vs a lot axis infantry, and when that fucking sherman misses the gren squad rushing your atg it's a disaster while the stag will steadily start ripping them to pieces from the moment it targets them.

I bet that if it was compared the stag would have higher dps vs charging infantry than the sherman at short/med range. Even if it isnt better, it will probably turn out very even which is sad considering the price of the sherman vs stag.

 I agree with your post on a number of counts. Especially that a Staghound performs far better as an AI platform for its resource and pop cost.

With that being said, the point I would make still stands that the Sherman has a broader role that is not encroached upon by the Staghound: medium AI and medium AT capabilities as opposed to great AI and light AT capabilities.

I think it is very valid that the staghound has a strong chance of outperforming a Sherman in AI, but that the sherman isn't bought solely for AI. It also has greater field presence, AT capabilities, and so forth.

[TheWindCriesMary]

This is why we need to realize the balance team should consist of high level players who play all 4 factions rather than mediocre players who limit themselves to one or two factions.

Holy shit Crazy. Amen to this. Amen so hard to this.

I mean, if we have people on the balance team who believe that 3 full health staghounds can beat 2 full health p4s (with competent players on both sides) then EiR has some serious freaking problems in its future.

[8thRifleRegiment]

Cromwell+RCA dual T3s+Good Micro.

Nuff said