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]

M10 murders inf, imo. I dont really care if someone can laugh at me with stats, my m10s seem to snipe other inf at range while crushing the one's next to them. But the thing is that m10s are also extremely weak to all AT fire so their vet is hard to attain and keep, while there's always been tons of vetted p4s (the complaints about this tank is astonishing considering how good it is vs infantry, sometimes it ignores a sticky hit and RRs hardly scratch it.)

What really changed? Is it considered wasteful to have p4s in your company just because the enemy has m10s? It's a game of bait & switch tbh. Your not supposed to win in company creation. The only medium that could need a buff is the 75mm sherman, and I don't know what could be done to it without a dumb stat change or make it even cheaper than the IST (which doesn't seem right). One thing that could be looked at is positive damage modifiers vs marders and inf hts which do way too well vs the sherman.

I dont think p4s are any less good now than they were when Dnice rolled around with his awesome vet 3 army of them, people's perspectives just change. P4 has a lot going to it with all the nerfs to handheld AT (including socks) vs p4 skirt armor. Thats something which seems ignored here. Sherman has to perfectly kite shreks because it can't take rolled hits from them. And you can say whatever you want about doctrine bonuses not meaning anything for balance (a statement that is elevated dumbness) but 3/3 wehr doctrines have awesome bonuses for their shreks that help deliver hits on armor. Pervitin pills / Zeal - Stormtroopers - Officer buffs. PE has 2/3, only SE can't buff shreks.

So we got this thing going where people are saying: TD's are OP, mediums are weak and that (of all possible units!) P4 needs a buff (herpaderp) even though:

- p4 and other skirted tanks are Stronger vs stickies and handheld AT than ever
- 5/6 axis docs can buff their handeheld at vs squishy armor like m10
- TH can get stickies (magnetic)
- PE can get thread breaker
- Allied doctrines have 1 single t4 that buffs handheld AT
- Nerfed stats on piats vs p4
- Button is gone (huge!)

And the only tank in the british arsenal that really beats the p4 has to be microed at range and provided a CCT. Spotted for hugged and protected. In the meantime PE chills with 1000 six pop marders which practically 3 shot tank destroyers.

Seriously if you make the p4 easier you can't really say its any different from a stag.. Only the 75mm sherman is ACTUALLY hard to play with. Not the stug, not the stuh, not the panzer 4, sherman only.  

A big fat L2p and L2Eirrstatshistory. See some of the bigger lines.

[lionel23]

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

-1s off reload time or 1/6th the upgun bonus on a Jumbo... that's all you get.

[NightRain]

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

Indeed it does, but it also buffs the Officer which makes you ask yourself: Do you want infantry build or medium build when you have access to 3x BARs when your ability to field both becomes effected by the lack of resources? Personal preference says I. I would go TD and spam BARs with officer buffs.

[AmPM]

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.

WTF are you even babbling about here? When did I say that a single M18 is better AI? It's competent AI, especially since it will lose to the same things a Sherman will lose to, Schreks. Cool! Both will ROFLSTOMP AI infantry ALL DAY.

What I said, was that Shermans are not as EFFICIENT in COST/POP to EFFECTIVENESS to an M10/M18/Pershing; LVs are a separate issue.

Perhaps if you paid some attention to what I was saying, you would see that I never said a Sherman was useless, and it can be decent at times. But that's it, it's never a great choice of unit. It's ok, it's "not bad", but I've never thought, "Shit, wish I had a Sherman" even though I am currently trying to make a Sherman based company competitive. SO far, it operates on the same principles as a Heavy Tank or LV company, run them out of AT. It just does it slower, and with more resources lost for the gains.

I am well aware of how to use medium tanks, I also well aware of how to use TDs, STuGs, LVs and Heavies. Heavies consistently perform better for their cost, allowing additional units to be fielded. The difference between 5 P4's and 3 Panthers is pretty much, 1 whole Sniper, or a Mortar, or some shrecks.

Using fuel based AT with ok AI like an M18/M10/STuG/Hetzer/Panther etc is friendlier to your pools, your resources and most importantly your MUNITIONS which allows you to either go overboard on AT, or take more AI and AT in your company than you would field vehicles that are moderately competent at both.

This is like saying you should always field zook Riflemen, because they can do both things moderately.

So to sum it up, can you use Medium armor and win, yes. Is it as efficient for your company (The ENTIRE company) as Heavies or TDs? No.

[TheWindCriesMary]

M10 murders inf, imo. I dont really care if someone can laugh at me with stats, my m10s seem to snipe other inf at range while crushing the one's next to them. But the thing is that m10s are also extremely weak to all AT fire so their vet is hard to attain and keep, while there's always been tons of vetted p4s (the complaints about this tank is astonishing considering how good it is vs infantry, sometimes it ignores a sticky hit and RRs hardly scratch it.)

What really changed? Is it considered wasteful to have p4s in your company just because the enemy has m10s? It's a game of bait & switch tbh. Your not supposed to win in company creation. The only medium that could need a buff is the 75mm sherman, and I don't know what could be done to it without a dumb stat change or make it even cheaper than the IST (which doesn't seem right).

I dont think p4s are any less good now, people's perspectives just change. P4 has a lot going to it with all the nerfs to handheld AT (including socks) vs p4 skirt armor. Thats something which seems ignored here. Sherman has to perfectly kite shreks because it can't take rolled hits from them. And you can say whatever you want about doctrine bonuses not meaning anything for balance (a statement that is elevated dumbness) but 3/3 wehr doctrines have awesome bonuses for their shreks that help deliver hits on armor. Pervitin pills / Zeal - Stormtroopers - Officer buffs. PE has 2/3, only SE can't buff shreks.

So we got this thing going where people are saying mediums are weak and that the P4 needs a buff (herpaderp) even though:

- p4 and other skirted tanks are Stronger vs stickies and handheld AT than ever
- 5/6 axis docs can buff their handeheld at vs squishy armor like m10
- TH can get stickies (magnetic)
- PE can get thread breaker
- Allied doctrines have 1 single t4 that buffs handheld AT
- Nerfed stats on piats vs p4
- Button is gone (huge!)

And the only tank in the british arsenal that really beats the p4 has to be microed at range and provided a CCT. Spotted for hugged and protected. In the meantime PE chills with 1000 marders which practically 3 shot tank destroyers.

Seriously if you make the p4 easier you can't really say its any different from a stag.. Only the 75mm sherman is ACTUALLY hard to play with. Not the stug, not the stuh, not the panzer 4, sherman only.  

A big fat L2p and L2Eirrstatshistory. See some of the bigger lines.

... A Smokaz post that I fully agree with?

What is the world coming to? Where am I? What year is it?

[Smokaz]

This thread is so dumb

[TheWindCriesMary]

What I said, was that Shermans are not as EFFICIENT in COST/POP to EFFECTIVENESS to an M10/M18/Pershing; LVs are a separate issue.

This statement has not been proven.

Perhaps if you paid some attention to what I was saying, you would see that I never said a Sherman was useless, and it can be decent at times. But that's it, it's never a great choice of unit.

This has absolutely not been proven.

It's ok, it's "not bad", but I've never thought, "Shit, wish I had a Sherman" even though I am currently trying to make a Sherman based company competitive.

This is not support to your argument. This is anecdotal and subjective and its a statement that is unfalsifiable -- eg. a bad argument. I could just as easily argue "The Sherman is amazing. so many times I've thought 'Damn I'm glad I had a sherman!'" and we'd be nowhere. To justify changes, actual evidence has to be provided.

I am well aware of how to use medium tanks, I also well aware of how to use TDs, STuGs, LVs and Heavies. Heavies consistently perform better for their cost, allowing additional units to be fielded.

There are players in this mod for which this would be true. There are also players in this mod for which this would not be true. Many players in this mod are not good at using heavies and fare better with more numerous medium tanks because it gives them more chances to make mistakes. Conversely, some players play better with fewer, heavier tanks. It's a playstyle/preference thing, and preference/playstyle IS NOT a valid grounds balance argument.

So to sum it up, can you use Medium armor and win, yes. Is it as efficient for your company (The ENTIRE company) as Heavies or TDs? No.

Still completely undemonstrable. You've shown that your personal style and preference makes medium armour less efficient than TDs/Heavies, but you have done nothing to show that they are objectively less efficient.

[CrazyWR]

so we're just gonna ignore my post with 7 suggestions?  Cool.  Remind me not to actually try to provide solutions and just post walls of text from now on.  Because trust me, I can write essays with the best of them.

[Smokaz]

I'd read skim it while eating and conclude you agreed with me

[TheWindCriesMary]

I agreed with most of your suggestions, EXCEPT for reducing the Panther, Jag and Hetzers AI capabilities.

Particularily in the case of the Hetzer as it has a main gun that does 87 damage.

-Wind

[AmPM]

This statement has not been proven.
This has absolutely not been proven.


This is not support to your argument. This is anecdotal and subjective and its a statement that is unfalsifiable -- eg. a bad argument. I could just as easily argue "The Sherman is amazing. so many times I've thought 'Damn I'm glad I had a sherman!'" and we'd be nowhere. To justify changes, actual evidence has to be provided.


There are players in this mod for which this would be true. There are also players in this mod for which this would not be true. Many players in this mod are not good at using heavies and fare better with more numerous medium tanks because it gives them more chances to make mistakes. Conversely, some players play better with fewer, heavier tanks. It's a playstyle/preference thing, and preference/playstyle IS NOT a valid grounds balance argument.



Still completely undemonstrable. You've shown that your personal style and preference makes medium armour less efficient than TDs/Heavies, but you have done nothing to show that they are objectively less efficient.

We should do a straight DPS/HP for POP/COST analysis; then do a more complex one including chances to hit and pen targets. (Range/Sight being a huge factor here). I think I have my Sunday project.

[lionel23]

That would be most interesting to see, too bad Mystalin the human computer/calculator isn't here anymore!

[TheWindCriesMary]

How would that show how two different types of units that have different roles and purposes are more effective than the other?

I could buy way more quads than Shermans, but I can only evaluate them on where they overlap: AI/Suppression. I can't tell you which is more efficient or effective based on a pop/cost analysis or gun stats as a Sherman has way more roles than just AI/Suppression.

[AmPM]

How would that show how two different types of units that have different roles and purposes are more effective than the other?

I could buy way more quads than Shermans, but I can only evaluate them on where they overlap: AI/Suppression. I can't tell you which is more efficient or effective based on a pop/cost analysis or gun stats as a Sherman has way more roles than just AI/Suppression.

Compare the DPS vs Infantry and the DPS vs AT, show both stats next to the unit. Show the DPS of AI Infantry vs said unit, then compare DPS of AT infantry vs said unit. Do the same using medium armor and TD of the opposing faction.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Sounds interesting then. I'll look forward to seeing that

[deadbolt]

Tankedit: Useless information Removed

[aeroblade56]

Tankedit: Useless information Removed

[Mister Schmidt]

I leave you people without my inane ramblings for a week, and this happens.

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.

I would consider myself an average player, I think most people would agree, but I would go so far as to say the 'weaker' units, the 'less popular' ones, (Ostwind, Puma, Cromwell etc) are actually some of my favourites.

Seriously though, people who think the Cromwell sucks are just deluded. It's a very, very cool tank when you use it for what its supposed to be used for. Again, coming from a mediocre player.

Also bear in mind that just because someone is not that good, doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a clue. In general I agree, but I would definitely believe I have extensive knowledge of both specifics of units and the entire game as general. I just don't always act on this, I'm a very lazy player

Anyway, nice thread, I'd certainly like to see some AI nerfs on TD's for sure, not sure about anything else yet.

[shockcoil]

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

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.

[Shabtajus]

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

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

hahaha this is the best part of all thread