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]

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.

But not more numerous than TDs, and you have yet to prove me wrong on that.  I never said the Sherman wasn't a viable choice as in that it is useless, but there are better options which makes the Sherman and P4 the least effective and worst route you can take.

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.

Personally I hate TDs, I run armies of Jumbos now because the Jumbo is way more effective than a Sherman and considering what you 'get' for a normal Sherman, the Hellcat/Wolverine perform and add way more to a company.  I would love to see Shermans given more love personally, but I'm resigned to the fact the M18 - despite how much you hate it - is still the better choice unit.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I have small but still viable proof. The Cost

Nightrain, we are in agreeance that TD's likely require a nerf of some kind.

With that being said, your cost only shows that a person can buy more TD's than Shermans. However there is no evidence that shows that a 7 TD's would "provide" more than 5-6 Shermans. Provide more what?

More AT capability? Absolutely they will.  More AI? Absolutely not.  You can't compare apples to oranges. 7 TD's is a completely different playstyle and objective than 5-6 Shermans. The two units perform different roles. If TD's are able to perform part of the Shermans role, that is a fundamental conflict with the very definition of what a TD is supposed to be. However Shermans as they currently exist perfectly perform the definition function of medium armour.

Therefore, TD's might be in need of adjustment but Shermans certainly are not.

[lionel23]

7 Hellcats can get the exact same .50 cal as the Sherman (but at cost, stat-wise it is the same).  Their guns are not that bad, having a 1/3 chance of instant gibbing a guy as well as having a longer site range and gun range than a Sherman.  And with the Relic patch, the Hellcat gun is way better against infantry than it used to be.  And I wasn't the only person to notice this: Brn4MePlz noticed this too and had the team look into it, but it all came from Relic's normalization of the Hellcat gun to bring it on par with the M10 with some buffs.

[TheWindCriesMary]

But not more numerous than TDs, and you have yet to prove me wrong on that.

First off, you added two units together. You took ALL American TD's, and then you took ONE medium armour tank and then made the massive leap of saying "TD's are more numerous than Medium armour". 

Do you see how unethical, illogical and downright fallacious that kind of argument is? Not the least because leaderboards DO NOT provide an accurate understanding of how many types of units are in the game.

On top of all that, it absolutely matters not at all how many TD's are in the game vs medium armour. EiR players are not omnipotent, objective computers. Furthermore, the discrepency you're talking about with your "leaderboard" evidence is not even a 3:4 ratio. If you had a 2:1 ratio, or a 3:1 ratio MAYBE I could see some value in it... but that simply isn't there.

there are better options which makes the Sherman and P4 the least effective and worst route you can take.

You have yet to prove this. Your support to this statement thus far has been personal opinion and preference, backed up with completely unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence.

You know what the first criteria of a bad argument is? Whether or not it is falsifiable.

You making that statement, and using personal opinion/anecdotal evidence is called unfalsifiable argumentation.

[lionel23]

First off, you added two units together. You took ALL American TD's, and then you took ONE medium armour tank and then made the massive leap of saying "TD's are more numerous than Medium armour".

Do you see how unethical, illogical and downright fallacious that kind of argument is? Not the least because leaderboards DO NOT provide an accurate understanding of how many types of units are in the game.

No, I do not see. The M10 and M18 are identical is almost all respects except sight range and the addition of upgrades.  They are both used in exactly the same role since the Hellcat's gun normalization, hence why the hellcat went from being cheaper than the M10 to being 10 fuel more now.  For the US it's pretty much the same unit just with extra sight.  It is still the same unit as the M10 for its role on the field and its weapon/HP/stats (both are paper thin, both are fast, both are primary AT).

[NightRain]

Nightrain, we are in agreeance that TD's likely require a nerf of some kind.

With that being said, your cost only shows that a person can buy more TD's than Shermans. However there is no evidence that shows that a 7 TD's would "provide" more than 5-6 Shermans. Provide more what?

More AT capability? Absolutely they will.  More AI? Absolutely not.  You can't compare apples to oranges. 7 TD's is a completely different playstyle and objective than 5-6 Shermans. The two units perform different roles. If TD's are able to perform part of the Shermans role, that is a fundamental conflict with the very definition of what a TD is supposed to be. However Shermans as they currently exist perfectly perform the definition function of medium armour.

Therefore, TD's might be in need of adjustment but Shermans certainly are not.

Cost efficiency is what I was more aiming for. If you manage to kill with a tank destroyer something you get its worth paid back. It is exactly why it performs well in its role but my main issue would be the hellcat.

It has higher accuracy versus infantry targets than M10 and therefore snipes infantry relatively well (If only we get hicks here to show). It also gets the same 50 cal as Sherman as pointed out by Lionel and 46 line of sight.

But, lets hit few things on the table.

Mediums might be good, but there are other alternatives that outperform them in their role. Namely light vehicles. In Armour company if you choose to go M8 company rather than Sherman one, you get good AI, somewhat popshot AT, Mines, and a territory capper for <insert M8 Price here>. It'd be 4 pop less than a Sherman too.

[AmPM]

First off, you added two units together. You took ALL American TD's, and then you took ONE medium armour tank and then made the massive leap of saying "TD's are more numerous than Medium armour".

Do you see how unethical, illogical and downright fallacious that kind of argument is? Not the least because leaderboards DO NOT provide an accurate understanding of how many types of units are in the game.


You have yet to prove this. Your support to this statement thus far has been personal opinion and preference, backed up with completely unfalsifiable anecdotal evidence.

You know what the first criteria of a bad argument is? Whether or not it is falsifiable.

You making that statement, and using personal opinion/anecdotal evidence is called unfalsifiable argumentation.

I would say we could grab the stats from teh SQL, but that doesn't count out inactive companies sadly...though I suppose they might be able to query for such and such unit in companies with more than 10 games or something.

And Wind, can say the same for your argument, you have yet to prove that Mediums are worth their current costs. If anything they should come down a slight amount in FU and MP.

[TheWindCriesMary]

No, I do not see. The M10 and M18 are identical is almost all respects except sight range and the addition of upgrades.  They are both used in exactly the same role since the Hellcat's gun normalization, hence why the hellcat went from being cheaper than the M10 to being 10 fuel more now.  For the US it's pretty much the same unit just with extra sight.  It is still the same unit as the M10 for its role on the field and its weapon/HP/stats (both are paper thin, both are fast, both are primary AT).

And yet, even though it is two different units, it's not even a 2:1 ratio to Shermans even if you combine them both.

I mean even if it was it still wouldn't mean anything to your argument, but the fact that you're not even making a convincing case with me letting you use something as absurd and barely applicable as the leaderboards is already a huge red flag.

[CrazyWR]

You can buy more stugs than p4s too nightrain, that doesn't mean we need to nerf stugs(although I do believe stug MG needs looked at).



Can we all agree that all Anti-Tank Tanks should be brought in line with the firefly in terms of gun killing infantry ability?



And finally, the following are things we do NOT balance on:

Doctrine abilities
Leaderboard
Personal Playstyles

[TheWindCriesMary]

And Wind, can say the same for your argument, you have yet to prove that Mediums are worth their current costs. If anything they should come down a slight amount in FU and MP.

Actually no, the burden of proof is on the people who are trying to argue that something should be changed.

If you want to change something, you have to argue and prove why it should be done. You have to provide evidence to support your claim and that evidence has to be falsifiable. I'm arguing for no changes to be made until they are clearly and effectively demonstrated to be neccesary.

If you say "there is a toaster orbiting Jupiter" and I say "you haven't proven that yet", it is not an acceptable response to say "WELL, you haven't proven there ISNT one there". Why? Because your claim is unsubstantiated until proven. Otherwise people could just say whatever they want, such as "3 staghounds can beat 2 p4s" and get away with it.

[AmPM]

You can buy more stugs than p4s too nightrain, that doesn't mean we need to nerf stugs(although I do believe stug MG needs looked at).



Can we all agree that all Anti-Tank Tanks should be brought in line with the firefly in terms of gun killing infantry ability?



And finally, the following are things we do NOT balance on:

Doctrine abilities
Leaderboard
Personal Playstyles

Crazy, the problem of TDs being better is only part of the problem, the other part is the amount of AT being used (rightly so) to counter the high number of "Heavy" tanks. This creates a field that a Medium tank just cannot enter.

Reducing Medium tank cost reduces the impact of the of their loss, ALTERNATIVELY you could raise TD/Heavy/AT costs a slight amount to make them have a HIGHER impact on the companies using them.

[lionel23]

And yet, even though it is two different units, it's not even a 2:1 ratio to Shermans even if you combine them both.

I mean even if it was it still wouldn't mean anything to your argument, but the fact that you're not even making a convincing case with me letting you use something as absurd and barely applicable as the leaderboards is already a huge red flag.

It's the same unit for crying out loud, just the hellcat has a better gun against infantry and more sight.  Its essentially an 'upgraded' version or a basic bare bones versions.  Is that so hard for you to fathom?

Also, I understand you can't use the leaderboards to make an argument about the power of a unit (look a Vet 3 tiger, it's too powerful), but it can be used for a basic count of units, anything with vet.  I'm not pointing out the Vet 3 M10 is better than a Vet 3 sherman, but for any unit over 1XP it will show.  And it should be COMMON SENSE that there are more 0 XP tank destroyers (due to their disposability) than 0XP medium tanks in people's companies because due to what many others have said, with how much MU/MP/FU you invest in a Sherman or P4, you aren't throwing them away willy-nilly which gives the current Sherman numbers a fair estimate number range of how many are in this game.

[AmPM]

Actually no, the burden of proof is on the people who are trying to argue that something should be changed.

If you want to change something, you have to argue and prove why it should be done. You have to provide evidence to support your claim and that evidence has to be falsifiable.

If you say "there is a toaster orbiting Jupiter" and I say "you have to prove that", it is not my job to prove that there isn't a toaster orbiting the Jupiter. Why? Because your claim is unsubstantiated until proven.

And yet, you are claiming that there is no problem with Mediums.

If I claimed that there is a toaster orbiting Jupiter, and you claimed there was not, you could not decide either way without proof. If you prove nothing, your side of the debate is just as meaningless as you say our side is.

This is not the US Judicial system, nothing is innocent until proven guilty. It's literally a drunk Leophone away from being changed.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Crazy, the problem of TDs being better is only part of the problem

Again, this hasn't been proven. You've said you think they're better, but your only support has been anecdotal preference and your personal playstyle.

Shermans are superior at AI. That is the role the tank is meant to fill, and that is what its stats say in the game. If you feel that isn't the case, and you take issue with the game's classification of the SHerman as inferior in its AI capabilites to a TD then you had best provide evidence.

[NightRain]

You can buy more stugs than p4s too nightrain, that doesn't mean we need to nerf stugs(although I do believe stug MG needs looked at).

Doctrine abilities
Leaderboard
Personal Playstyles

I've also said about this Crazy You can get 10 StuGs without skirts and 8 with skirts. Though I said it much earlier that would 5-6 Skirt/Unskirt P4s be better than said units.


I'll once again lean on the terms of cost.

The ammount of mediums will rip off more general resources from your pools and leave you to hang out with certain ammount of stuff. While thinking "Yeah Mediums do slightly good in both ranks but are weaker in AT" which means remaining resources will be even more depleted to Anti tank guns. What would be a decent number of anti tank guns in a Medium armor company? I'd say 3-5. Everything else will go to infantry to hold in capping power but those infantry aint gonna carry many bars or stickies, mainly grenades or similars.

If player went TD they'd have much more general resources and could afford more than a medium user. More resources left, more stuff available.

I ALSO WANT TO ADD

Armour is only viable doctrine that offers something for Mediums in terms of abilities while rest of the doctrines offer little to nothing. Therefore choosing TD is also more viable if you play say: Infantry.
Airborne is different, it can either roll with crocs or TD but generally they have higher Light vehicle pool (which is to be said- weird).

[TheWindCriesMary]

And yet, you are claiming that there is no problem with Mediums.

Yes. You raised a claim that deviates from the status quo. Therefore you need to prove why the status quo is insufficient. That puts the burden of proof on you. Me saying "you have not proved that a change is neccessary" is not the same thing.

If I claimed that there is a toaster orbiting Jupiter, and you claimed there was not, you could not decide either way without proof. If you prove nothing, your side of the debate is just as meaningless as you say our side is.

What you have just done, is demonstrated the exact meaning of the Burden of Proof Fallacy. Look it up.

If you say there is a toaster orbiting Jupiter, the other side does not need proof to say that you lack evidence to make that claim.

[CrazyWR]

Crazy, the problem of TDs being better is only part of the problem, the other part is the amount of AT being used (rightly so) to counter the high number of "Heavy" tanks. This creates a field that a Medium tank just cannot enter.

Reducing Medium tank cost reduces the impact of the of their loss, ALTERNATIVELY you could raise TD/Heavy/AT costs a slight amount to make them have a HIGHER impact on the companies using them.

I've already suggested that in this thread, people just ignored it.

1.  Raise Panther fuel base price by 15, thus removing the option of 3 panthers with skirts.
2.  Increase Heavy tank repair prices to help counterbalance the high munitions investment mediums require(20 munitions more? 30? I don't know.)
3.  Remove the .50cal from the Hellcat and the move the Stug MG in line with the other Axis tanks MG
4.  Bring the main gun for the M10, Panther, M18, Stug, Hetzer, and Jagd in-line with the Firefly in terms of anti-infantry capability.
5.  Raise the price for Brit Stags to 120, bringing them in line with their American counterparts, the t17, and keep an open mind about raising it further to Ostwind levels in the future if still not balanced (in stages, not all at once).
6. Increase the price of the 6pdr and the pak to 180, to bring it in-line with the cost of an Ami ATG with APR, as right now they effectively get cloak for free/10muni, whereas Amis must pay for their ATG buff.
7. Discuss reverting the munitions pool change if necessary.


I believe those changes would help the environment quite a bit.

[CrazyWR]

And yet, you are claiming that there is no problem with Mediums.

If I claimed that there is a toaster orbiting Jupiter, and you claimed there was not, you could not decide either way without proof. If you prove nothing, your side of the debate is just as meaningless as you say our side is.

This is not the US Judicial system, nothing is innocent until proven guilty. It's literally a drunk Leophone away from being changed.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

[TheWindCriesMary]

AMPM, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

When you're done you'll know that you need to prove that there is a toaster orbiting Jupiter. It's not our job to prove that there isn't.

[CrazyWR]

I ALSO WANT TO ADD

Armour is only viable doctrine that offers something for Mediums in terms of abilities while rest of the doctrines offer little to nothing. Therefore choosing TD is also more viable if you play say: Infantry.
Airborne is different, it can either roll with crocs or TD but generally they have higher Light vehicle pool (which is to be said- weird).

Infantry Doctrine has a t4 that buffs the Sherman I believe?