0.7.9.Z.9 Patch Notes

[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

[NightRain]

Tbh the pershings biggest threat comes from stormies or clowncars.
the tigers on the otherhand is pretty well any mobile form of AT or HHAT.

HHAT isnt' Tiger's problem. Simply 1 atg. No matter what, happens, Tiger will take either 87 points of damage or 150 damage.

[XIIcorps]

HHAT isnt' Tiger's problem. Simply 1 atg. No matter what, happens, Tiger will take either 87 points of damage or 150 damage.

yeh but the atg cannot chase or circle the tiger.
Once it shoots its upto the tiger player to either advance or retreat.
Also 1 atg is more a deterrent then a actual threat to a tiger

[Uglysori]

Thanks Hicks, for illustrating your thinking behind the changes.  I can see why you would want to buff heavy tanks in general to create better sense of cost effectiveness between the classes.  I would have personally given Pershing's a smaller buff, if any, of say around 80% against infantry.  However the most effective testing tends to occur in real game situations so we'll see how this plays out.  

Niko beat me to the punch in terms of the AT comparison argument between the two tanks.  It's penetration is somewhat ptless if it can't land a shot on the TDs and tanks that are faster and/or outrange it's main gun.


 

  

[XIIcorps]

Thanks Hicks, for illustrating your thinking behind the changes.  I can see why you would want to buff heavy tanks in general to create better sense of cost effectiveness between the classes.  I would have personally given Pershing's a smaller buff, if any, of say around 80% against infantry.  However the most effective testing tends to occur in real game situations so we'll see how this plays out. 

Niko beat me to the punch in terms of the AT comparison argument between the two tanks.  It's penetration is somewhat ptless if it can't land a shot on the TDs and tanks that are faster and/or outrange it's main gun. 

Ive got to ask tho, with the countless points being raised about heavy tanks and their cost vs effectiveness. How come the only thing "we" decided to do to the MK6 was give it ablative HP by default ?

The whole godamned problem with the tank was its cost vs effectiveness and all that's happened is its gained T4 hp while doctrines are locked. HOW THE FUCK HAS THIS HELPED AT ALL

It needs either a cost/pop reduction and a offense/defensive boost, not to mention VET requirement overhaul

[Hicks58]

There's a legit dispute going on with the Tiger/Pershing at the moment. It's a 550/545 FU unit designed to be "Effective" AI/AT.

The MK VI though? It's like people want it to be a do-all tank like the heavies. It's a 260 FU lump of 700/900 HP with a Sherman 75mm. It's there to support infantry and piss off infantry that your's wouldn't normally be able to handle, kinda like why you bring in a medium. Assault inf or garrisoned inf all up in your grill? Out rolls a medium. The difference between a MK VI and mediums though lies in it's application. The MK VI is part of a creeping advance with the rest of the force (ATG's, MG's, supporting inf/HHAT AT, etc) whilst the mediums are more of an autonomous piece.

So I see a lot of complaints, mainly around how the long ranged or the heavy AT pieces are pulling the MK VI to bits. I'm sat here thinking to myself, well no shit? It's kinda like sending off a Pershing to go deal with Marders or Geschitz... Why the fuck would you do that unless the thing was literally sat alone?

The MK VI specialises in being able to absorb HHAT because when it's engaging infantry it's inevitably going to be absorbing shreck hits and the likes out the wazoo. Due to it's speed/accel it doesn't have much choice in the matter and inf are gonna start peppering you with HHAT whether you like it or not. That's why it's armour is built to be effective vs it.

Cut short, the MK VI caters to a play style, just like the Cromwell caters to a play style. Cromwells go for very fluid forces that are constantly shifting and attacking flanks. The MK VI supports a creeping advance with a major focus around support weapons/heavy AT pieces.

Not every tank is always going to be a suitable choice for a given engagement. People need to start realising this.

Or I can just crumble to community "Requests" and we let balance go fucking nuts.

--------------------------------

Back to the Pershing (Snipped sections of post I'm replying to because this post is god-awful long as it stands)...

- While you mentioned the speed/health difference before I can't help to feel that you're neglecting the mobility advantage the Pershing does enjoy over the tiger when comparing the weapon stats.

Neglected it for a reason.

- Combined the above two lead to a very different threat environment for both the Pershing and the Tiger. The Tiger simply does not have a say in the matter when an allied tank destroyer decides to engage it since every single allied tank destroyer in the game is superior to the Tiger in either speed, range or both. The Pershing with it's superior maneuverability has a bit more leeway here as the only axis tank that can effectively hunt it down would be the panther. The panther (Post AI nerf) is a dedicated tank-hunter and the Pershing seems quite well off beating it when you think along the lines of "Generalist Vs. Specialist".

The argument that the Tiger can't return fire on some of it's major counters is fair. However, what is unfair is the idea that the same argument does not somehow apply to the Pershing. What's the main thing to counter Pershings? Geschitz. LATHT's. Marders. 50mm HT's. Clown Cars. Panthers. ATG's. Units that all either out range the shit out of the Pershing or are more mobile and get hard AT in it's face. The idea that the Pershing can pick and choose it's engagements applies purely to it's ability to go from flank to flank a bit faster than the Tiger. If the Axis want a Pershing dead, they have MANY options to put the fucking thing down efficiently. Just because most of those options are not a "Tank" does not mean that the Pershing is somehow less vulnerable.

Oh, and the idea that a Pershing is well off beating a Panther only applies if the Panther user is a fucking idiot. You're faster and have 7.5 more range. If you don't capitalise that then it's your own fault, not the Pershing player's. Pershing/Panther balance has always gone short range for the Pershing and long range for the Panther.

My irritation levels are getting too damned high.

[I2ay]

There's a legit dispute going on with the Tiger/Pershing at the moment.

There was a dispute with the Tiger because it was next to impossible to make it preform in such a way as to get it's cost worth out of it, but the only dispute with the Pershing was caused by you buffing a perfectly viable unit.

[nikomas]

The MK VI though?
-
Not every tank is always going to be a suitable choice for a given engagement.

First I'm just going to agree quickly with Hicks here, I've been using it a lot more over the last couple of days and it is almost equal in toughness to the other two heavy tanks we are discussing for only half of the price. The MkVI can require some finesse but the concept as it stands is really simple, it's quite simply "The Tank". It exists to soak up enemy fire and protect troops from infantry while said infantry/support protects it from tanks. The only way I've seen MkVI's die quickly is when swarmed by a lot of vehicles/clowncars or butchered by marders. The latter is something RE being the only brit doctrine with a counter to, Boys AT.

Either way I'm going to use it some more but so far I find the idea that it is "to weak" laughable. I've also heard the argument that "I get more kills with cromwells". Well no shit, that's like saying "I get more kills playing the DPS class than my Tank class" in an RPG, two different roles entierly.

Back to the Pershing (Snipped sections of post I'm replying to because this post is god-awful long as it stands)...

The argument that the Tiger can't return fire on some of it's major counters is fair. However, what is unfair is the idea that the same argument does not somehow apply to the Pershing. What's the main thing to counter Pershings? Geschitz. LATHT's. Marders. 50mm HT's. Clown Cars. Panthers. ATG's. Units that all either out range the shit out of the Pershing or are more mobile and get hard AT in it's face. The idea that the Pershing can pick and choose it's engagements applies purely to it's ability to go from flank to flank a bit faster than the Tiger. If the Axis want a Pershing dead, they have MANY options to put the fucking thing down efficiently. Just because most of those options are not a "Tank" does not mean that the Pershing is somehow less vulnerable.

Both tanks are equally vurnerable to "Heavy AT" for the most part and both sides are able to support their heavies, the pershing is however better equipped to get away from support based counters and marders and PE support vehicle based AT is extremly vurnerable to the light at support anyone running tigers or pershings should have in abundance, just like a pair of M10's can make short work of a lone tiger.

My response was mainly focused on the differences pointed out between the Tigers and Pershing anti armor capabilites, how they honsetly don't really matter all that much because while the pershing might struggle to penetrate some axis tanks it is not meant to fight those tanks in the first place, just like the tiger is not meant to fight the tank destroyers I listed. Nor is netiher meant to fight AT guns, marders or even swarms of light vehicles on their own.

Oh, and the idea that a Pershing is well off beating a Panther only applies if the Panther user is a fucking idiot. You're faster and have 7.5 more range. If you don't capitalise that then it's your own fault, not the Pershing player's. Pershing/Panther balance has always gone short range for the Pershing and long range for the Panther.

A panther cannot reverse faster than a pershing can follow, I don't know what the pentalty for reversing is but it's just enough that the pershing can keep pace and keep the panther in range and only an idiot would kite with the ass towards the enemy. If the Pershing wants to engage the panther, the Pershing WILL engage the Panther unless the Panther is already out of range by the time they're both at full speed.

In such a fight, the panther clocks in at a solid 50% chance to penetrate the Pershing while the pershing has a 58.5% chance to penetrate the panther. Given the same damage and with a health difference of 248 the pershing the only way the panther would win is by sheer luck. It is true that the panther can "Snipe" the pershing, but it cannot do so reliably given the relatvily low penetration of the 75mm as compared to proper tank destroyers. The panther cannot however "kite" the pershing, something I was saying initially and certainly something that allied tank destroyers can do to the pershing.

Neverthelss, it is fairly pointless to discuss the tanks in isolation as they both require heavy support to be effective on the battlefield.


On another note, I never liked that aspect of the panther. It's got partial stats of a sniper tank (7.5 more range than standard tanks) but it does not have enough penetration to reliably snipe Pershings, anything that is not a pershing will either snipe it back (Cats, FF's) or it can simply facehug to death (Shermans, Crom, Churhill).

[nikomas]

certainly something that allied tank destroyers can do to the Tiger*.


I do however want to add that I don't really like the Pershing or the Tiger very much in their current roles, in a game where units with heavy specialization are king both the Tiger and Pershing suffer as Jacks of all, but they're not even proper Jacks since neither is all that able to compte with more spezialiced enemy armour.

In the end they're not really jacks but they're big, Fat, Anti-Infantry tanks with the ability to kick the snot out of smaller, less expensive tanks if they try to engage it. This is really depressing when you think about the fact that in real life both the Tiger and Pershing (specially the pershing) were heavy duty tank snipers.

[XIIcorps]

certainly something that allied tank destroyers can do to the Tiger*.


I do however want to add that I don't really like the Pershing or the Tiger very much in their current roles, in a game where units with heavy specialization are king both the Tiger and Pershing suffer as Jacks of all, but they're not even proper Jacks since neither is all that able to compte with more spezialiced enemy armour.

In the end they're not really jacks but they're big, Fat, Anti-Infantry tanks with the ability to kick the snot out of smaller, less expensive tanks if they try to engage it. This is really depressing when you think about the fact that in real life both the Tiger and Pershing (specially the pershing) were heavy duty tank snipers.

Cmon nikomas bro, don't be drawing conclusions between real life and EIR your better then that

[nikomas]

Cmon nikomas bro, don't be drawing conclusions between real life and EIR your better then that

Hey man, there is a difference about being depressed about relic abusing units and using realism as a balance argument... I was only doing the former here 

[AmPM]

TBH, Pershing and Tiger should have had their range upped to 45 a long time ago, along with the STuG

[Hicks58]

I'm still depressed about Brens being one of the more/most accurate LMG's of the war and CoH turning it into a laughing stock without 3 vet 2 Lt's buffing the fuck out of it.

However...

I do however want to add that I don't really like the Pershing or the Tiger very much in their current roles, in a game where units with heavy specialization are king both the Tiger and Pershing suffer as Jacks of all, but they're not even proper Jacks since neither is all that able to compte with more spezialiced enemy armour.

This.

EiRR is an environment where specialist units shine. The only generalist units that pull their weight are the seriously fucking powerful ones that aren't simply good at their general roles, they excel at them (Hi there TA/SP).

And then there's the problem that with the base units, we are still "Relatively" balancing them within the confines of vanilla CoH so it's easy to integrate to. That's why I've never, EVER advocated range increases on units. Even the reward units are vCoH + pimp value for the most part. Emphasis on most part.

If we decided that fuck it, we don't give a shit about vCoH balance in the confines of EiRR, and we are truly making it stand alone? I'd probably get the Tiger/Pershing +5 range and a max speed of 5 for the Tiger. They'd still be different in their health/rotation levels etc, but they'd have a solid presence.

The StuG would end up with +5 range, cloaking units would be reserved explicitly for cover with the only exception being Snipers, Tommy's would be able to shoot straight without a Lt (vCoH revolved around massed stacking Lt buffs for pure AI effectiveness, EiRR never really compensated) and the Lt buff would be toned back a bit, that ridiculous 0.2 accuracy on moving MP40's would go to hell, shit there's a goddamn list of stuff we could do.

I'd go fucking nuts with it.

[terrapinsrock]

I'm still depressed about Brens being one of the more/most accurate LMG's of the war and CoH turning it into a laughing stock without 3 vet 2 Lt's buffing the fuck out of it.

However...

This.

EiRR is an environment where specialist units shine. The only generalist units that pull their weight are the seriously fucking powerful ones that aren't simply good at their general roles, they excel at them (Hi there TA/SP).

And then there's the problem that with the base units, we are still "Relatively" balancing them within the confines of vanilla CoH so it's easy to integrate to. That's why I've never, EVER advocated range increases on units. Even the reward units are vCoH + pimp value for the most part. Emphasis on most part.

If we decided that fuck it, we don't give a shit about vCoH balance in the confines of EiRR, and we are truly making it stand alone? I'd probably get the Tiger/Pershing +5 range and a max speed of 5 for the Tiger. They'd still be different in their health/rotation levels etc, but they'd have a solid presence.

The StuG would end up with +5 range, cloaking units would be reserved explicitly for cover with the only exception being Snipers, Tommy's would be able to shoot straight without a Lt (vCoH revolved around massed stacking Lt buffs for pure AI effectiveness, EiRR never really compensated) and the Lt buff would be toned back a bit, that ridiculous 0.2 accuracy on moving MP40's would go to hell, shit there's a goddamn list of stuff we could do.

I'd go fucking nuts with it.

THIS

is a message I can get behind. I vote for Hicks as our new dear leader.

[nikomas]

I to, Support the "Fuck Vcoh Balance" initiative!

[clonetroopers]

I to, Support the "Fuck Vcoh Balance" initiative!

+1

[AmPM]

I to, Support the "Fuck Vcoh Balance" initiative!

+1

This I would play.

[XIIcorps]

Why has it taken so long for us to have this thought.
we arent vcoh why should we be bound by vcoh balance

[Uglysori]

The argument that the Tiger can't return fire on some of it's major counters is fair. However, what is unfair is the idea that the same argument does not somehow apply to the Pershing. What's the main thing to counter Pershings? Geschitz. LATHT's. Marders. 50mm HT's. Clown Cars. Panthers. ATG's. Units that all either out range the shit out of the Pershing or are more mobile and get hard AT in it's face. The idea that the Pershing can pick and choose it's engagements applies purely to it's ability to go from flank to flank a bit faster than the Tiger. If the Axis want a Pershing dead, they have MANY options to put the fucking thing down efficiently. Just because most of those options are not a "Tank" does not mean that the Pershing is somehow less vulnerable.

Oh, and the idea that a Pershing is well off beating a Panther only applies if the Panther user is a fucking idiot. You're faster and have 7.5 more range. If you don't capitalise that then it's your own fault, not the Pershing player's. Pershing/Panther balance has always gone short range for the Pershing and long range for the Panther.

My irritation levels are getting too damned high.

This is a fair point.  Pershing faces numerous heavy AT, TD threats like the Tiger does.  TDs for the axis are simply different than Allied ones but still plenty dangerous to the Pershing if it walks into their cone of fire.  Marders, 50mm, and Geshutz easily outrange the Pershing with their extra 15 range.  They are as quick as M18s.  However I don't agree that these are things Axis uses to chase and "put down" a Pershing like Allied M10s and M18s vs Tigers.

Their poor pathing, lack of turret, poor armor, low health (yes I know M10s only have 25 more health) makes them much worse Pershing chasers than M10s and M18s to Tigers.  Chasing with a Marder, Geshutz, 50mm ends up being an ordeal of chasing, stopping, getting a long range shot off at frontal armor before the TD loses vision of the Pershing because the tank is still relatively fast even when reversing and poor visibility range on those units.  Or chasing, getting even closer, stopping, getting a medium range shot off at frontal armor and getting a return shot from the Pershing that could rip through your health pool.  If ppl are curious you are looking at a 26%, 26%, 38% pen chance respectively with 65, 80, 57.5 dmg on bounce respectively.  

Pershings only need to really worry about swarming upgun Hotch, upgun Pumas and Shrek Clown cars or chasing Panthers, Jadgpanthers, and Hetzers (maybe? the frontal pen is horrendous at long range).  Against the Panther, Jadg and Hetzer, the Pershing at least has the ability to keep its Frontal armor facing for the most part.  

Tiger has a hard time reversing away from anything and is hard pressed to keep its frontal armor facing against it's more nimble opponents, a couple of which pen at pretty much 100% at all ranges (M18s, Fireflies).  Tiger contends with swarming LJ Tets, clown car piats (yes I brought up the most moaned about HHAT to date - just ram the clowncar into the Tiger) , M18s, M10s, Fireflies.  This how pretty much always been the crux of why it's so hard to get cost effectiveness out of the Tiger.  It's too slow to chase anything, it's too slow to escape anything, it's slow to displace across the battlefield.  


Now on the point of just giving up VCoH balance and finally moving forward with our own brand of unit balance.  Sounds good but do really need to do such drastic changes to the current balance?  Hate to sound like Wind but at this pt isn't better to do minor tweaks to what we have right now?  I mean how many truly underperforming non-reward units do we have right now that no one wants to bring to a game?  

Tigers, Wirblewinds, Pak-36(?), Hummel, Priest, Piats(?), Mk6, ISTs, Flakverliengs, Hotch Stuks (Hotch is fine as a platform but the stuk barrage is horrendous w/o doctrines)

Can't we just fix those and hopefully move onto fixing doctrines?  



 

    

[clonetroopers]

This is a fair point.  Pershing faces numerous heavy AT, TD threats like the Tiger does.  TDs for the axis are simply different than Allied ones but still plenty dangerous to the Pershing if it walks into their cone of fire.  Marders, 50mm, and Geshutz easily outrange the Pershing with their extra 15 range.  They are as quick as M18s.  However I don't agree that these are things Axis uses to chase and "put down" a Pershing like Allied M10s and M18s vs Tigers.

Their poor pathing, lack of turret, poor armor, low health (yes I know M10s only have 25 more health) makes them much worse Pershing chasers than M10s and M18s to Tigers.  Chasing with a Marder, Geshutz, 50mm ends up being an ordeal of chasing, stopping, getting a long range shot off at frontal armor before the TD loses vision of the Pershing because the tank is still relatively fast even when reversing and poor visibility range on those units.  Or chasing, getting even closer, stopping, getting a medium range shot off at frontal armor and getting a return shot from the Pershing that could rip through your health pool.  If ppl are curious you are looking at a 26%, 26%, 38% pen chance respectively with 65, 80, 57.5 dmg on bounce respectively.  

Pershings only need to really worry about swarming upgun Hotch, upgun Pumas and Shrek Clown cars or chasing Panthers, Jadgpanthers, and Hetzers (maybe? the frontal pen is horrendous at long range).  Against the Panther, Jadg and Hetzer, the Pershing at least has the ability to keep its Frontal armor facing for the most part.  

Tiger has a hard time reversing away from anything and is hard pressed to keep its frontal armor facing against it's more nimble opponents, a couple of which pen at pretty much 100% at all ranges (M18s, Fireflies).  Tiger contends with swarming LJ Tets, clown car piats (yes I brought up the most moaned about HHAT to date - just ram the clowncar into the Tiger) , M18s, M10s, Fireflies.  This how pretty much always been the crux of why it's so hard to get cost effectiveness out of the Tiger.  It's too slow to chase anything, it's too slow to escape anything, it's slow to displace across the battlefield.  


Now on the point of just giving up VCoH balance and finally moving forward with our own brand of unit balance.  Sounds good but do really need to do such drastic changes to the current balance?  Hate to sound like Wind but at this pt isn't better to do minor tweaks to what we have right now?  I mean how many truly underperforming non-reward units do we have right now that no one wants to bring to a game?  

Tigers, Wirblewinds, Pak-36(?), Hummel, Priest, Piats(?), Mk6, ISTs, Flakverliengs.

Can't we just fix those and hopefully move onto fixing doctrines?  



 

    

+1

[tank130]

There was a dispute with the Tiger because it was next to impossible to make it preform in such a way as to get it's cost worth out of it, but the only dispute with the Pershing was caused by you buffing a perfectly viable unit.

+1