Tiger Ace / Super Pershing

[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

[Hicks58]

The SP/TACE are to strong because...

They are too strong because somebody mis-interpreted my instructions many months ago and they both still have 0.85 accuracy vs infantry, even the SP still has it vs all but inf armour itself, with the rest of the infantry armour types being at 0.85.

This should have been fixed a LONG time ago.

Fix their AI accuracy, change a couple of key vet abilities (SP lockdown being useless, S-Mines being too good). Those two are ESSENTIAL to making the TA/SP on the path to being correct. Other changes will be changing the mechanics of the unit, which is not a bad thing to do as a concept but it is when the mechanic change is being done off a platform that is currently broken.

[nikomas]

R003/Reward units patch

Tiger Ace - HE rounds increased accuracy vs inf to 0.85. No room for misunderstandings here. No mention of the HE rounds was made in the 003Hot or 004 notes as far as I can tell. In fact after the 003 notes I can find no listed changes for the Tiger Ace. There are references to the regular tiger, but not Tace.

SP, Fair enough. But to suggest a 10% acc increase against the rarer inf (specially on the wher side) is an issue of great weight here is missleading. I can't agree on abilities either, you could probably remove the abilities and they'd still still be kicking harder than they probably should. As bad as S mines are I rarely saw anyone actually use it if there was even a hint of stickies in the game.

[Hicks58]

The misunderstanding did not occur in the public notes and you know it. It occurred when you were told to revert the SP/TA accuracy back to what it was - You took this as reverting it to the one time it was 0.85, I intended all AI acc to go back to the initial 0.75. You should have asked for clarification as for what to revert it back to if you were unsure, and I should have been more specific in the first place (A lesson that I learned from it).

Either way, the end result of that fuck up is STILL in place after all this time. TA HE AI acc is still at 0.85 and SP AI acc (minus inf armour itself) is still at 0.85.

Also, the massive problem with the SP is that it is engaging inf at the 41-45 range bracket.

If both the TA/SP have 40 max AI range and 0.75 acc vs all infantry targets, they will become MUCH more bearable. Design changes for the unit can happen AFTER those fundamental problems of those units are addressed.

[tank130]

Perhaps it would be more productive for both of you gents to just post what you feel the change required is, rather than a cat fight about what did or did not get said 6 months ago.......


We are looking for current suggestions, not a history lessen.

[Hicks58]

Perhaps it would be more productive for both of you gents to just post what you feel the change required is...

Which I did, after the history lesson, featured in exhibit A:

If both the TA/SP have 40 max AI range and 0.75 acc vs all infantry targets, they will become MUCH more bearable. Design changes for the unit can happen AFTER those fundamental problems of those units are addressed.

[tank130]

exhibit A.......lol

[Smokaz]

Please stay on topic. Thread being cleaned.

[omgNiko]

.

[XIIcorps]

the super pershing is unbalanced due to it always penetrating every tank including jagd and panther 80/90% of the time, and its speed. it is particularly imbalanced with the double tier 3s in armour doctrine allowing it to shoot and repair while moving, both at 80% efficiency. theyre still counterable, its not the end of morale if they dont get nurfed, it would simply be in the interests of balance, which is apparently of increasing interest in eirr. the easiest fix is a price adjustment, but an accuracy, health, and penetration nerf would also be a viable alternative. what is the current resource cost of the SP?

Something in the range of 1600mp and 900fu

[omgNiko]

.

[Hicks58]

It penetrates a Panther 80%-90% of the time, and deals heavy damage to it... To a 450/490 FU tank. There isn't a thing wrong with that, and the Panther can still pick it's engagements (And it's support, due to costing much less pop).

The Jagdpanther though? Best case penetration is 56% at close range (52% long) - The JP's penetration in return is equal at 53% long and much better at close with 70%.

Throw in the large health difference (1100 vs 1600) and the JP's instant fire-aim time and the JP will still comfortably shit on a SP unless the JP user does something incredibly stupid. The only way for a SP to take on a JP in a straight up fight would be to take HVAP... But that doesn't happen very often at all due to the much more appealing alternatives, and even then, APCR would turn it right back in the JP's favour.

Did I mention that the JP is also significantly cheaper than the SP at 780 MP/ 660 FU/ 16 pop?

The problem with the SP/TA is not their price, their price is already justifiably high (Enough to cancel out any other super heavy). Their problem lies in their still unfixed excessive AI accuracy and their ability to engage inf at 41-45 range. Fixing up their vet abilities would be a nice bonus, and then their core workings can be looked at.

[omgNiko]

.

[Hicks58]

If you're consistently losing with a Jagd vs a SP then you're either bringing the wrong support to the table whilst the SP is (Which is the Jagd users fault, especially when he's got more pop to play with... After all, if the odds aren't in your favour, why engage?) or, you're cocking up with the Jagd. I've used the shit out of the SP and know what it can and can't do, and throwing it at a Jagd is usually a bad idea. Even if you some how pull it off, you tend to lose more health than it's worth.

I've used the Jagd enough to know how well it handles, granted my micro with it isn't up there with it, but I know enough of the unit to know that somebody who was capable with the Jagd would give me a very hard time with a SP.

[Heartmann]

The probl i feel (note feel not proof or vlose examine) is that worh te introductipn of increased heavy tanka for allied axis at support is srsly lacking with current base balance of apround 57 vs paks because the 57 can pack such a wallop added the ab rrs the axis heavies have more of an upphill struggle vs support than allied.


Is it only me that feels this way or?

[Hicks58]

Heartmann...

Please proof read your post, clean it up, and then I'll see what you're trying to get at lol.

[aeroblade56]

mehamsdlkascjzxcnzcldurkadrukaheartmean kdscx.

In short i think he was saying allies are op.

[XIIcorps]

The probl i feel (note feel not proof or vlose examine) is that worh te introductipn of increased heavy tanka for allied axis at support is srsly lacking with current base balance of apround 57 vs paks because the 57 can pack such a wallop added the ab rrs the axis heavies have more of an upphill struggle vs support than allied.


Is it only me that feels this way or?

Allies may have better situational HHAT(stickies,piats,rrs). But axis certainly have better AT options overall.

[nikomas]

Well, panzershrecks are great but fighting Pershing/Heavy AI class vehicles with 4 man squads is a bit on the suicide scale of things.

AB can get away with it due to numbers and lolnevermissacc and numbers, rangers... if you get your blob on the flank then maybem, rifles with zooks are so so dead before even trying.

[Heartmann]

1st: bah humbug cant be arsed using touchpad phone at time and tje  to lazy to correct it all

2nd: my point was take 2 57s vs 2 paks vs Sp/TA and imo the  57s do better

[nikomas]

Well ofc, all in the AP rounds... makes a giant difference.