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

[Smokaz]

If you by field presence mean that the sherman is more mobile around the map, joke is on you.

If by field presence you mean that sending a sherman is less of a commitment, joke is on you.

If by field presence you mean it's somehow more prevalent having a sherman on the flank harassing and killing cappers.. Fool me thrice.

As for your humpty dumpty about AT capability, the sherman is far less capable of dealing damage without taking it back while the stag is awesome at needling enemy vehicles and tanks.

For price, I will take the hound. If there's some schlumm dumm enjoying afk slugouts with his med armor vs my upgun or normal sherman (they will hit each other unlike the vile flanking bite of the Hound), who also cannot be bothered to use 2 more pop to field a panther, sure thing boss.

[lionel23]

If you by field presence mean that the sherman is more mobile around the map, joke is on you.

If by field presence you mean that sending a sherman is less of a commitment, joke is on you.

If by field presence you mean it's somehow more prevalent having a sherman on the flank harassing and killing cappers.. Fool me thrice.

As for your humpty dumpty about AT capability, the sherman is far less capable of dealing damage without taking it back while the stag is awesome at needling enemy vehicles and tanks.

For price, I will take the hound. If there's some schlumm dumm enjoying afk slugouts with his med armor vs my upgun or normal sherman (they will hit each other unlike the vile flanking bite of the Hound), who also cannot be bothered to use 2 more pop to field a panther, sure thing boss.

You pretty much nailed it on the head there Smokaz, great to have you back ^^

[Smokaz]

Throw down your false gods.. worship me again.. show your loyality by printing out a picture of wind and throwing dart arrows at it, and i will be your brother in all things

[CrazyWR]

so basically you're saying Stag is OP, and needs price nerf AT LEAST to t17 levels, if not more.  I think we can all agree medium armor is priced effectively and is rather balanced. 

[Smokaz]

nah i like the hound, its a good dogg

[AmPM]

Medium armor is "ok".

Problems, Axis Medium Armor gets roflstomped by ATGs (at least 5 per allied coy) and M10/M18/Upgun Sherman. Allied Mediums lose to the shitpile of schreks available and Panthers that cost a little more fuel and only 2 more pop...

This does not include the more obvious issues of Shermans vs Tiger/KT or P4's vs Pershing that come up.

The fact is, you are more often better off with a "Heavy" (Panther and bigger) or TDs (STuGs, Hetz, Marder, M10/18, etc).

Increase costs of Heavies slightly, and dedicated heavy AT slightly. That or decrease the costs of medium armor a slight amount. Either way it works out. The are only slightly (About 10% or so, just by feel) less efficient than taking one of the other options cost efficiency wise. Basically, I rarely find myself in a situation where I can say "Damn, I'm glad I took these 5 Shermans over 7 M18's.."

[Smokaz]

If bigga is betta argument really was so linear, KT's would be really popular. But tigers are more popular right? At some point increased strength becomes less interesting than a mobility. The point of note is that blitz can buff the mobility of panther/tiger while def and terror canæt. And whats the problem with medium armor? 2-3 P4s can take on a pershing and shermans can dent a tiger, its all about the positioning of units against each other. Double sherman starts can be awesome.

[CrazyWR]

pick a side smokaz, pretty soon you're gonna fall off that fence you're sitting on

[TheWindCriesMary]

Medium armour (P4/Shermans) is priced appropriately for its current capabilities and role within an army. It is a solid AI platform, but not the best, on a sturdy platform that is capable of taking some punishment before being down and out. ON top of that it gets medium AT capabilities that, while not the best, give it the ability to at least deter and/or counter LVs and other medium tanks. So why exactly are so many people worried that something called a "medium" tank is moderately effective in a few areas and exceptional at none? All the people I've heard complaining about the Sherman and the p4 seem to be complaining about the very concept of medium tanks in the first place. A moderately priced unit with moderate armour, moderate firepower, moderate speed, moderate hitpoints and moderate AI capability.

Right now the problem we have, and it's the problem so much of EiR balance methodology has, is that we balance up. We look at how easy units like Staghounds/TD's are to use and instead of making them more reasonable we figure that everything else should be brought up to their level of absurdity. Why? So that mediocre players don't have to worry about their poor micro/laziness putting them at a disadvantage with a unit. No, instead they want every unit to be just as good as a Staghound or a t17 is right now. They want every unit in their army to be so easy to use, that it's practically on autopilot on the time. If it isn't, that unit becomes a "suicide investment".

I'm so tired of hearing mediocre players complain that a unit "isn't worth buying" if it doesn't walk on water, hit like a freight train, and have the abillity to charge into withering anti tank fire and waltz right out again relatively unscathed.  Also, if you don't think something is a "good investment", do us all a favour and don't buy it. But don't ruin it for the competant players out there who actually enjoy playing with units that don't do everything well.

Medium armour isn't the problem. People who are so used to playing with units like the Staghound and the t17 all the time are the problem. Good players do just fine with p4's and shermans. Mediocre players on the other hand want something to blame for why they do so well with an overpowered stag or t17 but fall so short with a medium tank like a sherman or P4.

[lionel23]

And to add to that argument Wind, good players do fine with P4s/Shermans, but good players use M10s/M18s way better.

The Medium tank as it is (especially the P4) is just not cost-effective currently and needs some change.  The sherman not so much (in that you can upgun it to deal with tougher targets, while the P4 cannot).  I can take 6-7 M18s and do more infantry killing with cheap .50cals, better AT and mobility capability for a lot less than how much I'd spend investing in say a squad of P4s.

EDIT: Or might I add taking a Stag or T17.  There are many other better, cheaper, and more effective units than Medium armor currently.  Want to roflstomp infantry?  Nothing does it better than a Stag.  Want to own armor?  Get a TD with their high damage guns.

A lot of fights come down to 'hard' counters and the ability to eliminate the opposition quickly and effeciently.  I love my SMG Rangers just because they can waste many times their numbers before you can even blink.  Or those 'shot gun' engineers before who were excellent at clearing buildings or why 4man KCH are the ultimate axis assault squad compared to Volks with MP40s or Pgrens with G43s.  Yes, they are all 'anti inf' for example, but some are just way more effective for their cost and what they do on the field (wittle the guy down over 60 seconds of firefighting or instant kill him with SMGs and nades?).  That's the point I'm making.  The Mediums aren't completely bad and unusable like the Puma or Ostwind, but they definitely aren't on par with where they need to be for their cost.

[CrazyWR]

so nerf m10s/m18s...medium armor is balanced currently, theres no need to buff it...

[TheWindCriesMary]

so nerf m10s/m18s...medium armor is balanced currently, theres no need to buff it...

Exactly.

Saying medium armour needs to be buffed because TD's do the things medium armour does just as well is essentially saying you should unbalance two types of units because one type is already unbalanced.

If a unit is doing something too well, don't buff everything else up to it's stupid level instead of making that first unit reasonable. It's the same problem we had with Terror a few months ago where instead of making it more reasonable, a bunch of idiots were running around the balance forum crying bloody murder about how every other doctrine needed to be made just as stupidly overpowered so that there would be incentive to pick things other than terror.

The "there is absolutely no reason to pick X because C is so overpowered" argument is so incredibly stupid and overused on these forums, and its high time we held a funeral for that nonsense kind of argument and put it to rest for good. As if all EiR players are helpless OP junkies who are completely incapable of picking anything sensible if there is a broken and completely non-challenging alternative...

-Wind

[lionel23]

And by nerfing TDs, you strengthen heavy tanks like Panthers and Tigers and make it harder to counter.

At issue is that TDs are needed to counter Heavy Tanks, but strong TDs and the wall of ATGs (needed to counter said heavy tanks) results in overkill for Medium armor.  If you weaken TDs, you need to weaken Heavy tanks to compensate or give allies additional AT other than the basic ATG.

[TheWindCriesMary]

And by nerfing TDs, you strengthen heavy tanks like Panthers and Tigers and make it harder to counter.

Actually no, that isn't true.

You said TD's are just as effective (if not more so than) shermans at the role a sherman is supposed to fill: AI. So if you nerf TD's Ai abillity, you are not strengthening heavy tanks or panthers. If you nerfed their AT capability, then yes you're argument would be applicable. But as no one has suggested that, your argument is not applicable.

TD"s are tank destroyers. Medium tanks are primarily meant to be infantry support and medium AT. If you have TD's that do AT really well AND AI really well, then they have a problem.

Get it: THEY have a problem. Medium tanks don't have a problem.

[AmPM]

so nerf m10s/m18s...medium armor is balanced currently, theres no need to buff it...

EXCEPT that heavy armor is still a better choice than Medium armor, it costs less MP, and MU by FAR, and in most cases is more pop efficient.

On top of that, things that kill heavy armor kill medium armor, only better. And there is no shortage of easy to get heavy AT.

[lionel23]

Exactly as AmPm says, also by nerfing them I will assume it is a price change?  So you reduce the amount of TDs in your company to deal with armor threats, giving Heavy Tanks an easier time of stomping across the battlefield.

The problem still lies with Medium tanks being 'overkilled' by other units that are needed: ie TDs to deal with Heavy tanks and that puts medium tanks in the uncomfortable position of being caught in the middle... they get owned by heavy tanks (making them incompatible to fight heavies) while getting demolished by TDs (who can slug it out harder than they can).

There are many things being discussed about this, mainly the pricing of Medium tanks might need to come down or if TDs 'lost' their speed and became like Fireflies (long range AT, too 'slow' to run infantry over) but you have to agree that a TD, in its current state, is hands down way better than medium armor.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Exactly as AmPm says, also by nerfing them I will assume it is a price change?  So you reduce the amount of TDs in your company to deal with armor threats, giving Heavy Tanks an easier time of stomping across the battlefield.

Why would you assume it's a price change when the specific problem with TD's that has been discussed here is that they overperform in the AI role. Would logic not dictate that it would be in the form of decreasing their AI capabilities (so that Hellcats don't reliably snipe infantry out of buildings, or m10s reliably snipe infantry in the open)?

TD's have a problem right now. That problem is that some people allege that they perform the AI role of a Sherman better than a Sherman does. I personally think that is nonsense and is deliberate bullshit being passed off as a belief in order to lobby unecessary buffs to a unit that doesn't need it, but even if it were true it would still logically require the AI power of TD's to be decreased rather than uneccessary fiddling with Medium tanks which perform their role perfectly fine at the moment.

If a unit is too good, you don't buff other units to balance it out. You work to get that unit back in line.  It's simple, basic, logical balancing 101

[TheWindCriesMary]

EXCEPT that heavy armor is still a better choice than Medium armor, it costs less MP, and MU by FAR, and in most cases is more pop efficient.

Can you please provide me with an example of a Heavy Armour unit that costs less MP and MU by "FAR" than a medium armour unit?

I'm really curious to hear the name of this mysterious Heavy Armour unit that is cheaper than a Medium Armour one...

[CrazyWR]

Yea I'm gonna have to second everything Wind said here...

[AmPM]

Sure, lets break it down for you.

Lets say you want to get 3 Panthers. 600mp, 450fu, plus upgrades.

So 3 Panthers will cost 1800mp, 1350fu, plus upgrades.

2 Tigers will run even less, being 650mp and 550fu, so 2 for 1300mp, 1100fu.

2 Pershings will run about the same.

OR I can get 5 Shermans/P4's.

2 Tigers or 3 Panthers or 2 Pershings are all more efficient than 5 Mediums. Especially on the Axis side.

So for comparison, with upgrades.

3 Panther = 1800mp 270mu 1470fu with all upgrades.

5 Shermans with all upgun, .50 and repair (since it has way more upgrades) = 1975mp, 500mu, 1350fu.

The 3 Panthers is a much much better deal, leaving you with more MP and MU even AFTER calculating in the tier 3 FU advantage requirement. Meaning you can fit more AI upgrades and AT upgrades if you want as well as giving you extra MP and a much more pop efficient vehicle on field.

2 Tigers costs a combined total of 1300mp 220mu 1100fu, you can throw a P4 on to fill it out even and come out ahead over 5 P4's.

Pershing is much the same.

Those are all much more pop/cost efficient units to use currently if you are half competent and not just playing lol suicide.