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

[lionel23]

Okay I lost my entire post when I hit submit cause my 'session' timed out, gay stuff.  Let me rewrite this... let's see..

What I was talking about was TDs being cheaper than Medium armor, while Heavy Armor is generally 'better' for their cost compared to a fleet of P4s.  Two Tigers in competent hands will cause way more destruction than a squadron of P4s.

Look at the leaderboards for a glimpse of this:
Firefly: 39
Cromwell: 16

M10/M18: 28/35 (63)
Sherman: 40

Wehr/PE Panther: 50/15 (65)
P4: 31

Granted this is only experienced units, but that would still heavily favor the numbers for TDs (being they are expendable while Medium and Heavy armor people will try to keep alive and not just 'throw away').

Now I'm not saying these numbers are entirely accurate, but it does paint a significant picture of the 'vet' game.  More people rely on Panthers than the P4.  More people use a combination of US TDs than the Sherman, and the Cromwell is just outranked by the fly (and given Brits have staghounds which are better than Cromwells in the anti inf department and cheaper, are also highly effective throw-away units).

The problem still is, TDs are needed to kill Heavy Tanks.  Heavy tanks destroy medium tanks and infantry better than a medium while being extremely resilient. Medium armor is stuck in the middle as a more 'jack of all trades' units, not having the superb power of the TD to fight other tanks and not having the staying power of a heavy to survive on the field for long, and being the field is heavily biased against heavy tanks (lots of Allied AT in TDs and ATGs), it creates a killing field of OVERKILL for the P4, while being sufficient to counter the heavy tank groups.  And if someone brings out a Tiger or King Tiger, I sure am not throwing '5 shermans' at it when I can get '6-7' Hellcats or M10s to beat them down hard.

So it still comes down to that while Medium armor isn't useless, it's still not cost-effective and really a wise and viable choice to choose in the current meta game when there are better, more cost-effective and efficient units.

[NightRain]

Personally I'll say in all honesty that Mediums while not bad aren't exactly a viable option.

Why would I pick up something to 1 role when I can buy a entirely dedicated light vehicle in that role? For example why you'd pick up a Sherman instead of a M8? M8's cheaper, comes with a good main gun and has the same 50 cal as Sherman, can lay mines and even CAP TERRITORY and is cheaper on pop and you can get them in larger quanities.

then when it comes to anti tank duty- why would you take a Sherman, in which case you lose some of your AI with the 76mm when you can buy M10 OR a Hellcat which perform well in their anti tank role, comes in cheaper in every possible way and you can get more of them too.

Same with British. Why take Cromwell when Staghound is better- and cheaper? Staghounds, fireflies and atgs. That is a solid combo in terms of AT and AI.

Mediums might be 'good' but the other units outperform their role in many ways.



On the other hand on the Axis side. If we think from their view point the main target for all Axis is Anti tank guns. So we thinking of P4. Yes it can soak extra hits unlike StuG but then it goes down to M8s or M10/M18s so far I've never seen anyone use a P4 effectively and I've came to conclusion that It is a GOOD unit but no one knows how to USE IT. Therefore Heavy vehicles outperform their mediums in effectiveness and are cheaper while less in numbers. I mean 6 Unskirted P4s or 5 skirted P4s versus 3 Skirted/Unskirted Panthers or 2 Tigers? Or vs 10 non skirted StuGs?

Gentlemen.

In Summary:

Mediums might be good but all the available options Outperform them making them obsolete when it comes to terms with effectiveness.

[TheWindCriesMary]

First off, using leaderboards for balance arguments is extremely muddy water. In fact, even the evidence you did bring up shows that there are more Shermans with xp than any other tank on the allied side. You had to combine m10's and m18's just to get a higher number. This clearly defies the logic that Shermans are "not worth getting" because as we can see from your evidence (dubious as it is because leaderboard is evidence means next to nothing) they are the most numerous allied tank with more than 1xp. Sounds like people are using them to me.

As for the idea that two tigers in competent hands will cause way more destruction than 4-6 p4s, I'd say that is both extremely circumstantial and highly subjective testimony. Worst of all, it's not even relevant because a Tiger is a doctrine specific unit that requires a t3 unlock. You're now comparing a Medium tank to a doctrine specific, T3 unlock Tank. The conclusion? That analysis does nothing to show why a medium tank is not a worthwhile investment, or properly balanced.

As to your argument that TDs are needed to kill Heavy Tanks, you are wrong. You may personally like TDs and they may play a role in your strategy vs heavy tanks, but the very notion that they are "needed" to kill Heavy Tanks is unsupportable and illogical. Many players, including myself, play American companies that have 0 TD's in them. We manage to kill Heavy Tanks just fine... somehow.

Medium armor is stuck in the middle as a more 'jack of all trades' units

You have just succesfully described the intuitive definition of a medium tank. It is, by the very meaning of the term, a middle option that has medium AT and medium AI.

The problem you keep raising about the P4 and the Sherman is that they are Medium tanks that perform the medium tank role. If you don't like the idea of medium tanks, don't play with them. But please don't try to ruin them for the rest of us.

And if someone brings out a Tiger or King Tiger, I sure am not throwing '5 shermans' at it when I can get '6-7' Hellcats or M10s to beat them down hard.

If you are using shermans to fight a Tiger/ King Tiger, then you don't understand medium armour and shouldn't be using it in the first place. Stick to Hellcats/m10s.

EiR is about choice and picking the units you like to do the job you feel your company is lacking in. If you're company is low on AT, you would pick m10s/hellcats. If you want more AI, you'd buy a sherman. You wouldn't fault an ostwind for not being able to kill a sherman, so why would you complain if a Sherman can't kill a KT as well as an M10? They are different units with different roles.

So it still comes down to that while Medium armor isn't useless, it's still not cost-effective and really a wise and viable choice to choose in the current meta game when there are better, more cost-effective and efficient units.

Medium armour has consistently shown itself to be cost-effective in the hands of good players. It has also been proven, even by your own evidence from the leaderboards, to be a viable choice for many players. In fact, the Sherman is the most popular Allied tank in the game at the moment from your evidence.

You're argument that it is not often chosen, and is not efficient, has yet to be proven in any substantive way.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Sure, lets break it down for you.

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

Which means you are sacrificing a significant amount of AI power in your tanks in favour of using your munition/MP savings into more numerous/upgraded infantry.

Ultimately, you are making a decision to have your armour be solid AT with mediocre AI capable and your infantry handle the bulk of your AI. This would be in contrast to the many players in this mod who run P4's instead of panthers and thus rely on their armour for solid AI. Personally I would rather have 5 p4's than 3 Panthers because I like to have a medium tank on at all times with my WM because it suits my playstyle. I also know that I rely on my paks/infantry for my AT, which gives me the luxury of investing my fuel in additional AI. Some people prefer it the other way around.

You have a certain playstyle, you like it. Many other players prefer to invest their armour in AI instead.

Your personal preference is not grounds to tamper with medium tanks. It is grounds for you to buy 3 panthers instead as clearly P4's are not for you.

[CrazyWR]

First off, leaderboards are NEVER a guide for balance.  Ever.  

Secondly!  TDs are in no way REQUIRED to kill heavy tanks.  You keep saying this like it is fact.  It is how you choose to kill heavy tanks, and is indeed one way, but it is not the only way.  If TDs were removed from the game entirely, heavy tanks would not suddenly become invincible.  A healthy dose of ATGs + stickies + mines are perfectly capable.  Also, there is no way you should be fighting heavier tanks with medium armor except as auxiliary fighters when the heavy tank is pointing its boomstick elsewhere.  You definitely would not throw shermans at a tiger or king tiger unless you were terrible.  That would be stupidity to the extreme, and that is NOT how we balance units.  We balance at the highest common denominator of gameplay, not the lowest.  

In a perfect storm of combined arms, Shermans role, and indeed all medium tanks' roles are to kill infantry and keep them off of the ATGs and other anti-tank units, while occasionally providing support in that department if necessary, but not as a primary role.  This is not to say that medium tanks are meant to shred infantry, they are indeed supplemental in this role as well.  What medium tanks provide is a unit that can do many things well, but nothing exceptional.

Basically what you seem to be boiling the problem down to is this: In the current metagame, where resource pools keep getting lowered farther and farther, resources are at an absolute premium, and so you are only picking units that do on specific role exceptionally instead of having units that are capable of performing multiple roles well.  That is a players personal preference.  However, it throws into stark relief what units are overpowered and need nerfed, not what units need buffed.  

Finally, in reply to AMPM's post, don't select the upgun or skirts for a p4, and you can get 6 shermans or p4s, which I would gladly take over 2 pershings or 2 tigers or 3 panthers.  Panthers are hard-countered by infantry with AT or ATGs, and 6 medium tanks will outperform 2 heavy tanks in the hands of competent users.  While it is true that they require a higher munitions investment, I'm not sure how you plan to rectify this?  I think the prices are currently just fine, although if you want to bring other tanks in line with the munitions investment of mediums, we could raise repair prices for other things.  

Also, you keep saying AT hurts medium armor more than heavy armor due to lower HP, what about light vehicles, do they not get hurt even more?  Jeeps get one-shotted.  What should we do?


TL:DR; I think the problem here is not medium armor, but the prices of TDs and heavy tank repairs along with the AI capabilities of TDs.  Also, Stags need nerfed.

[AmPM]

The issue is NOT the role of a medium tank, it is the efficiency of said medium tank vs its available counters and opponents.

[NightRain]

The only reason there aren't many TDs in the leaderboard is that they aren't worth to vet up and therefore can be thrown to the wolves to kill that lone repairing tank and come on top of cost.

The issue is NOT the role of a medium tank, it is the efficiency of said medium tank vs its available counters and opponents.

+ this

[CrazyWR]

The problem you keep raising about the P4 and the Sherman is that they are Medium tanks that perform the medium tank role. If you don't like the idea of medium tanks, don't play with them. But please don't try to ruin them for the rest of us.

This.  Exactly this.

[TheWindCriesMary]

First off, leaderboards are NEVER a guide for balance.  Ever.  

Precisely the point.

Secondly!  TDs are in no way REQUIRED to kill heavy tanks.  You keep saying this like it is fact.  It is how you choose to kill heavy tanks, and is indeed one way, but it is not the only way.

Right on again. Tons of allied players, including myself, do not use TD's at all. My last 3 American companies (and all of my current American companies) use absolutely 0 TD's. I use Shermans, Calliopes and Pershings. Do I throw up my hands in the air and admit defeat whenever an opponent brings on a heavy tank? No. I do what people have been doing since COH came out: move up my ATG and shoot at it.

The idea that TD's are needed to fight heavy tanks is a notion so bizarre to me that I almost can't fathom it.

[AmPM]

This.  Exactly this.

Yea, because my Sherman company is never used....oh wait, it is. Again Crazy, the role is not the issue, the issue is the cost/benefit of getting a unit to fill two roles at a mediocre level vs getting 2 units that do it well for the same or less.

Can you use Mediums right now? Yes. Are they as efficient as the other available options? No. Hence my suggestions of lowering their price a slight amount to bring them inline.

Wind, TDs are not required to fight heavy tanks, you can just spam ATGs and mines. But again, using Mediums impacts your Munitions and Reserve Pool more heavily, both of which can go towards those ATGs and mines.

Can you beat Heavies with Mediums? Yes, but not without extra AT support (aka, at least 1 ATG), which is expected and fine. However, it's still more cost/pop/pool efficient to just use a Heavy or TDs for that same role of stopgap/supplemental AT. Hell, with a Hellcat, as long as you can keep the Stormies away with scouting Jeeps you are golden. Jeeps that you would need with your Sherman anyway to keep it from getting gibbed.

[TheWindCriesMary]

The issue is NOT the role of a medium tank, it is the efficiency of said medium tank vs its available counters and opponents.

There has been absolutely 0 evidence provided which shows that medium tanks are inefficient vs their counters/opponents.

In order to prove that a unit needs to have changes made to it, you have to make a case showing why that needs to be done.

Right now we have overwhelming evidence that a large number of EiR players currently employ medium tanks. A number of these players can safely be described as highly competent. Conversely, no evidence which demonstrates that they are not effective or cost-efficient has been put forth.

Sure we've have the argument made that people could buy 3 panthers instead of 5 p4s or 7 TD's instead of 4-5 shermans, but that is simply player preference for fast mobile AT vs moderate speed AI/ medium AT.  That is not an argument that one is better than the other, that is an argument that one might suit specific playstyles more than the other.

[AmPM]

There has been absolutely 0 evidence provided which shows that medium tanks are inefficient vs their counters/opponents.

In order to prove that a unit needs to have changes made to it, you have to make a case showing why that needs to be done.

Right now we have overwhelming evidence that a large number of EiR players currently employ medium tanks. A number of these players can safely be described as highly competent. Conversely, no evidence which demonstrates that they are not effective or cost-efficient has been put forth.

Sure we've have the argument made that people could buy 3 panthers instead of 5 p4s or 7 TD's instead of 4-5 shermans, but that is simply player preference for fast mobile AT vs moderate speed AI/ medium AT.  That is not an argument that one is better than the other, that is an argument that one might suit specific playstyles more than the other.

Except both Panthers and TDs are competent AI, especially with that extra pop/resource you save from being able to drop an extra ATG.

[lionel23]

First off, you can use the LDs for a glimpse as I said, it's not my fault you fail to bother reading Crazy.  And with TDs being 'expendable and not worth vetting up', it goes to show that there are simply way more TDs than Tanks, period; proving my point.

Also another stupid and flawed argument, you said this: Also, you keep saying AT hurts medium armor more than heavy armor due to lower HP, what about light vehicles, do they not get hurt even more?  Jeeps get one-shotted.  What should we do?

As anyone who plays EIRR can easily answer your question, LVs have dodge which is a huge reason the Stag outperforms the Sherman in an AT tank role as well as all LVs generally have more speed than a medium tank to do 'hit and runs' while the tank is forced to take all the hits (with the exception of a Overdrive Speed Cromwell).

Medium armor yes it counters infantry, but still no where near as well as a LV or Heavy tank and a TD can be used in the exact same role with much better effectiveness: pushing and crushing.  The Sherman/P4s come into issues and I have never once been stopped by Medium armor when I assault with infantry due to their main guns and semi-okay HMGs, but a LV like armored cars or a Tiger will hard stop an infantry rush from taking out your precious ATGs.

2 heavy tanks will also rape the hell out of the supposed '6 medium tanks', but every heavy tank user knows that its the '6 m10s/m18s' waiting in the wings that could cause them the most hurt, not shermans or cromwells.

And just because you choose not to use TDs winds doesn't make your method the right one.  You're just choosing the least effective option.  I can make an entire army of mines and Stickies if I wanted.  It still would not be as effective as having 6-7 TDs.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Except both Panthers and TDs are competent AI, especially with that extra pop/resource you save from being able to drop an extra ATG.

Panthers are competent AI, but TD's are not reliable AI. Also, 3 panthers is SIGNIFICANTLY less AI power than 5 p4s.

As for TD's, some people in this thread have argued that TD's are effective at AI, and while I disagree, even if they were right logic would dictate that means the AI capability of a TD needs to be toned down. Medium tanks have terrific AI capabilities right now, that means the TD problem is a TD problem... not a medium tank problem.

[lionel23]

There has been absolutely 0 evidence provided which shows that medium tanks are inefficient vs their counters/opponents.

In order to prove that a unit needs to have changes made to it, you have to make a case showing why that needs to be done.

Right now we have overwhelming evidence that a large number of EiR players currently employ medium tanks.

Leaderboards is a glimpse at any unit with over 0 XP.  Unless you are conceding there are competent players who use Medium armor as throwaway units like greyhounds and Tank Destroyers, the numbers are there that there far more Panthers and TDs in the game than Medium tanks.  It seems that alone is more than enough evidence to disprove your statement that there is more medium armor in the game.  And granted the fact even if some people use them as suicide units resulting in 0 XP tanks in a company, you can still get 7+ hellcats as opposed to 5 shermans, meaning there will always be more TDs which is evidenced on the Leaderboards.

[TheWindCriesMary]

First off, you can use the LDs for a glimpse as I said, it's not my fault you fail to bother reading Crazy.  And with TDs being 'expendable and not worth vetting up', it goes to show that there are simply way more TDs than Tanks, period; proving my point.

No, you can't use the leaderboards for glimpses. ESPECIALLY when you then try to use that "glimpse" as evidence of your point. Why? Because it only takes into account units with xp. You don't get to say "the LB is evidence" and then say "oh but it's not really evidence, plus TD's arent worth vetting up" in the same sentence. That's called trying to have your cake and eat it too.

As anyone who plays EIRR can easily answer your question, LVs have dodge which is a huge reason the Stag outperforms the Sherman in an AT tank role as well as all LVs generally have more speed than a medium tank to do 'hit and runs' while the tank is forced to take all the hits

I reiterate my challenge for you to face my p4 with 2 staghounds. I'll give you 5 chances to pull it off and then when we've proved it once and for all I can stop having to hear the ludicris assertion that a Staghound outperforms a Sherman in the anti tank role.

And just because you choose not to use TDs winds doesn't make your method the right one.

Didn't I just say that it is a different playstyle choice? That some players prefer to invest their fuel in AI rather than AT, and rely on ATG's instead? You are arguing that your choice is more effective, but you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support that contention other than your own personal opinion and completely unverifiable subjective anecdotal evidence.

You can't just say "7 TD's is more effective than 5 shermans" and expect it to hold water as a balance argument. It's two completely different, highly subjective playstyles -- not a zero sum game.

You have all your work ahead of you still in trying to prove the contrary.

[CrazyWR]

Panthers are not competent AI except insomuch as they are capable of running units over.  M10s are similar, and this goes back to a crush discussion, which has me leaning towards flipping to removing crush...anyways, you keep saying things like, shermans can't take on tigers, like A) this is news, or B) anyone would want to use them in that role.  

Again, Shermans can help take on tigers, if the tiger is looking the other way and facing its rear, but generally, I don't see many competent sherman users going toe to toe with a tiger...

You keep saying things like TDs are  better at AT than medium tanks.  We know this.  They are supposed to be.  That is not in question.  I think the best thing to do here is to nerf panther fuel price by 15, thus reducing them to 2 per company in line with other heavies, and move supposed anti-tank tanks in line with the firefly in terms of AI.  

Also, move staghound fuel price in line with other staghounds-t17s-120 fuel, for a start, and see if that is more balanced.  If not, we move the price farther up.  

[NightRain]

I have small but still viable proof. The Cost


300 manpower 210 fuel Hellcat 10 pop (35 mun MG, 30 mun repair 15 mun hawkins mine)
300 manpower 200 fuel M10 10 pop (30 mun repair)

395 manpower 240 fuel Sherman 12 pop (50 mun mg, 50 mun repair, 30 fuel upgun, 20 smoke, 30 crabflail)
Upgun Sherman 395 manopower 270 fuel. 12 pop

400 manpower 250 fuel Panzer 4 12 pop (50 mg, 50 repair, 30 fuel skirts)
400 manpower 290 fuel Skirted P4. 12 pop.

600 manpower 450 fuel Panther 14 pop (30 MG, 60 repair, 40 fuel skirts)
600 manpower 490 fuel Skirted Panther.

At max fuel(1500 fuel) you get:
7x Hellcats
7x M10s

6x Non-upgun Shermans
5x Upgun Shermans

6x Non skirted P4s
5x Skirted P4s
3x Skirted/Non-skirted Panthers.

Just by looking this I can already guarantee that 7x Hellcats or M10s will provide you more than those 6 or 5 Shermans. Just by thinking all the resources:

6x Standard upgraded Shermans= 100x6 (Some people use smoke but I didn't count it in, if you buy smoke add 120 mun more to it) 600 munitions on those Shermans. With M10s? 30x6 = 180 mun.

Lets see a 7x Standardly upgraded M18s and M10s in total resource cost and compared it to mediums.

7x M18: 2100 manpower  360 munitions 1470 fuel
7x M10: 2100 manpower  180 munitions 1400 fuel

6x M4 Sherman: 2370 manpower 600 munitions 1440 fuel (if smoke included + 120 munitions)
5x Upgun M4 Sherman: 1970 manpower 600 munitions 1350 fuel (if smoke included + 100 munitions)

6x Panzer 4: 2400 manpower 600 munitions  1500 fuel
5x Skirted Panzer 4s: 2000 manpower 600 munitions 1450 fuel.

For Panthers

Skirt: 1800 manpower  270 munitions  1470 fuel
Non-Skirt: 1800 manpower 270 munitions 1350 fuel

Now look at these numbers and you will automatically see that TDs are just cheaper than the mediums and therefore requires a price nerf. I rest my case.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Leaderboards is a glimpse at any unit with over 0 XP.  Unless you are conceding there are competent players who use Medium armor as throwaway units like greyhounds and Tank Destroyers, the numbers are there that there far more Panthers and TDs in the game than Medium tanks.

The leaderboards are not an effective balance argument tool. It's been said a thousand times in these forums so I assumed it was common knowledge.

Secondly, even if you absolutely insist on using them for your argument, the Sherman is still the most numerous tank of all the allied tanks on the boards. That clearly and definitively contradicts your claim that the Sherman is a) not a viable choice, or b) not used frequently or effectively.

 

 It seems that alone is more than enough evidence to disprove your statement that there is more medium armor in the game.  

This was not a statement I have made. Even if I did have access to the database and was able to tell you exactly how many shermans were in the game, it would be completely irrellevant for a balance argument. Not many people in EiR play with berg tigers, but that doesn't mean that the Berg Tiger is not an effective unit. It means that EiR's community isn't very familiar with the unit or its capabilities and thus doesn't choose it.


There is a huge divide in your argument between what is objectively demonstrable and what you personally feel based on your specific playstyle and preferences. If you were simply saying you like TD's more than Shermans, it'd be fine. But when you try to make an objective statement about the efficiency or capability of a Sherman, with nothing to go on but your opinion, you've got all your work ahead of you to actually support it.

[lionel23]

No, you can't use the leaderboards for glimpses. ESPECIALLY when you then try to use that "glimpse" as evidence of your point. Why? Because it only takes into account units with xp. You don't get to say "the LB is evidence" and then say "oh but it's not really evidence, plus TD's arent worth vetting up" in the same sentence. That's called trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, I can cause it shows a MINIMUM count of units in the game, which are those that have XP, and being you can buy more TDs in a company and that there is a more TDs than shermans currently, you can't argue against that.  So take that cake and shove it if you dare try to say Im trying to argue two points which you can't seem to connect the dots on.

I reiterate my challenge for you to face my p4 with 2 staghounds. I'll give you 5 chances to pull it off and then when we've proved it once and for all I can stop having to hear the ludicris assertion that a Staghound outperforms a Sherman in the anti tank role.

And Smokaz has already backed me up on this, and I can easily bring Puddin in on this as I myself hate LVs, I prefer infantry and will leave it to a LV player to show you his stags will whip the hell out of your P4s and still deals with infantry easily.

Didn't I just say that it is a different playstyle choice? That some players prefer to invest their fuel in AI rather than AT, and rely on ATG's instead? You are arguing that your choice is more effective, but you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support that contention other than your own personal opinion and completely unverifiable subjective anecdotal evidence.

You can't just say "7 TD's is more effective than 5 shermans" and expect it to hold water as a balance argument. It's two completely different, highly subjective playstyles -- not a zero sum game.

You have all your work ahead of you still in trying to prove the contrary.

I can run a Space Marine army with purely scout squads.  Is it an option I can choose to do?  Yes.  Is it the most effective option?  No.  TDs are hands down better due to cheaper costs, cheaper upgrades, they excel at killing tanks and have mobility, while at the same time being decent against infantry.  The sherman is not 'excellent' against infantry, it is also 'decent'.  Excellent would be a Stag or Tiger.  And other than ATGs and TDs, there is no other viable strong AT counter for US.  That is a fact my friend, as in every post that people whine 'My RRs just cant stop tanks', the first replies in those threads are 'Use your primary AT weapon, the ATG'.