Paks need a change in reinforcements?

[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

[Khorney]

leave the PAK alone it has been fine until now, why change it.

not really, it's always been cheap, it's just been brought even moreso to everyones attention with the brits.

the reason why it works in VCoH as it's alot easier to repair/replace tanks. not so in EiR, where even 1 hit from an AT can tip the balance towards your tanks demise as it gets hunted by other armour.

[acker]

If you don't listen for them you already failed. PAKs are very loud when moving.

Like the 57mm isn't?

Once again, the fact that one has to mouse around looking for strange green cover or listen for a Pak isn't proof that the Pak is one hell of a stealthy AT weapon? The 57mm is, once again, vulnerable to all of these "counters", and much more besides.

Assuming you know the Pak is out, and assuming that you found the Pak through the FOW, how do you pinpoint its location? I've tried doing that for enemy tanks, but it's pretty difficult at best, I find it easier to look for destroyed walls/fences. Doing that for a Pak seems...unworldly.

[AmPmAllied]

The 57 doesn't make noise when moving....

Its also cheaper.

Which reminds me, when are you actually going to play again?

[EscforrealityTLS]

Oh Khorney , I see so blowing 400Mp and 140Mu of a ATG is cheap?

There is and has been nothing wrong with the PAK, there is however problems with the British in game.

[acker]

When have I ever said that there's anything wrong with the Pak  ? I've just pointed out that the Pak is superior to the 57mm.

I'm also fairly certain that the 57mm does make noise when moving. As much as the Pak.



There's no reason to get angry, AMPM...relax. Insulting others isn't your style. Anger is the ENEMY!

[AmPmAllied]

Yes it is =)

Anyway, from playing both sides I love both ATGs for different reasons. The 57mm is a nasty little thing especially combined with stickies or AP rounds....

Nothing like going through the armor of anything for 3 shots anytime you want, meaning you can trigger it, then trigger another, and then another.

Americans and Wer are fine. Brits NEED to bring Rifle Grenades and Officers. They don't work without ways to clear MGs and such, and those are highly mobile effective counters. People just need to get used to it, you need LTs to lead your men if you want to win.

PE are fine as far as I have seen, some of their units are devastating if used properly, or useless otherwise. Worried about Tread Breaker? Rush in with light armored units or infantry instead. It can only immobilize one tank.

[EscforrealityTLS]

Not talking to you dude, chill.  

[acker]

I would disagree with the AP rounds. In theory, they give you 2-3 shots, depending on when you trigger it. In reality, it's nigh-impossible to get off more than a single shot, the enemy will back up after the first one. Add in the longish reload time, and the lack of a hold-fire button...

And, of course, AP shots are completely dependent on keeping the gun crew alive. Once the gun crew gets wiped out by a volks squad or something, the AP shots are wasted.

In short, AP rounds are too unreliable to buy unless you are floating Munitions. I'd buy a grenade use or something instead.

A Pak doesn't have that problem; every Wehr squad has the cloak ability on the Pak, with the exception of the KCH (which is fixed in Beta).

And Treadbreaker is most definitely OP. Just go to the other thread for that, though.

[Two]

I would disagree with the AP rounds. In theory, they give you 2-3 shots, depending on when you trigger it. In reality, it's nigh-impossible to get off more than a single shot, the enemy will back up after the first one. Add in the longish reload time, and the lack of a hold-fire button...

And, of course, AP shots are completely dependent on keeping the gun crew alive. Once the gun crew gets wiped out by a volks squad or something, the AP shots are wasted.

In short, AP rounds are too unreliable to buy. I'd buy a grenade use or something instead.

A Pak doesn't have that problem; every Wehr squad has the cloak ability on the Pak, with the exception of the KCH (which is fixed in Beta).

Well that is retarded and seems like a waste of time, typical relic dealing with shit that doesn't matter.

[AmPmAllied]

As I said, playing both sides, without TR, I never had a problem using my 57's to destroy axis armor, including KTs, Tigers, STuG, Puma's whatever. Also the AP rounds are good for tearing down houses.

[scrapking]

I agree with Puddin and AMPM on this topic.

Plus the pak & 57 have been around and more or less the same for quite a while now without any real balance issues.  I'm going to venture a guess that the addition of the new PE AT capabilities (read:AT HT, more shrek squads), and that the British don't bring direct AT equivalents is the real nature of the problem.

It doesn't help that Allies are weaker "early war", and that many people, including myself, are struggling to play British effectively.  Some of that is systemic, some of that is simple human learning curve.

But it isn't the pak.

[acker]

As I said, playing both sides, without TR, I never had a problem using my 57's to destroy axis armor, including KTs, Tigers, STuG, Puma's whatever. Also the AP rounds are good for tearing down houses.

I agree with everything except the KT and the house. The KT can spend a good 40 seconds of fire from an AT gun if the AT gun fires only AP rounds (which is impossible). It would probably be better to use the popcap for a Rifle squad w/stickies or something.

And why exactly would you use AP rounds on a HOUSE? Buy grenades or a flamethrower or something that's actually worth 50 Munitions. Or get a mortar.

On an unrelated note, the thread is about the Pak. Not whether the 57mm is useful or not.

[gamesguy1]

I agree with Puddin and AMPM on this topic.

Plus the pak & 57 have been around and more or less the same for quite a while now without any real balance issues.  I'm going to venture a guess that the addition of the new PE AT capabilities (read:AT HT, more shrek squads), and that the British don't bring direct AT equivalents is the real nature of the problem.

It doesn't help that Allies are weaker "early war", and that many people, including myself, are struggling to play British effectively.  Some of that is systemic, some of that is simple human learning curve.

But it isn't the pak.

No, its the lack of doctrine options.   

How did you deal with a pak in eir?  Recon run or a scouting jeep to reveal it, offmaps to kill it with.

None of these options exist in eirr, this is why cloaked paks suddenly became such a huge problem.   In addition, allied mortars just became useless with the mortar HT implemented.

[Skaevola]

I agree with Puddin and AMPM on this topic.

Plus the pak & 57 have been around and more or less the same for quite a while now without any real balance issues. 

lol...

[scrapking]

I agree with Puddin and AMPM on this topic.

Plus the pak & 57 have been around and more or less the same for quite a while now without any real balance issues. 

lol...

Not between each other, Mr. Dense, between Germans and Americans, in previous incarnations of EiR.

I "lol" at you if you think that there was.  The game was reasonably well balanced.  Players however were not.  Some people are better than others, and some companies were better developed than others.  Maybe you just fell into the "others" category a bit too much.

And quite frankly I find the notion of this entire topic kind of ridiculous.  There most certainly are balance issues, but neither the pak, nor the 57 for that matter, are part of them.  And as of now, I'm not even sure that anything other than British are particularly off kilter.

[jackmccrack]

What is wrong with the British?

[scrapking]

What is wrong with the British?

Honestly?  Maybe nothing.  I could be jumping to conclusions along with quite a few other people that the perception of poor British performance is balance related, when it could easily be user related, or lack of doctrinal abilities & unlocks.  In the end, it is most likely a combination of all 3.  But I don't recall having been a part of a game where any British player was on the winning side.

[Absolution]

Hey, I think once games start to count and Brits start to buy reinforcement 57mm AT guns, they'll get a lot less picky about their AT options

[acker]

Not between each other, Mr. Dense, between Germans and Americans, in previous incarnations of EiR.

I "lol" at you if you think that there was.  The game was reasonably well balanced.  Players however were not.  Some people are better than others, and some companies were better developed than others.  Maybe you just fell into the "others" category a bit too much.

There were balance problems with the Pak and 57mm. Especially in previous incarnations of EIR. There's a reason why the devs raised Pak prices/decreased 57mm prices multiple times throughout this game's history. And you somehow deduced that he was incompetent because he decided to raise this?

If you are going to insult someone, do it openly. Honesty is important around here, see post 42 for details. You respect people for voicing their opinions without guarding them, our culture has completely forgotten that...


The game may or may have not been balanced, I wouldn't know. But one faction (Axis) did consistently win the wars due to a stacking of good players on that faction. Presumably because the other faction (Allies) was boring to play.

This wasn't balance, but interesting factions are sure as hell important, too. I hope this was fixed.

I fail to see why doctrines would balance anything. If one faction is more playable than another without doctrines, then something is wrong already.

The way I see it, assuming equal player skill levels:

-Doctrines cost PP.
-Doctrines take time to garner, due to the above reason.

Situation A:

-If a game is balanced on doctrines without balancing on the base first, one side will have an advantage for the early games, and be more likely to win. Doctrines cost PP to unlock, after all.
-Therefore, if the game is balanced around doctrines, one side will have momentum over the other, especially if new players join in the middle of the war. Which is IMBA in itself.

Situation B:

-If, however, the game is balanced around momentum, one side will have to have stronger doctrine abilities to offset it.
-Which is IMBA as the war progresses for obvious reasons.

Even newb advantage stuff can only go so far in balancing this, it can only blunt one side's victories after the victories occur. And newb advantages eventually disappear as more games are played.

[scrapking]

Not between each other, Mr. Dense, between Germans and Americans, in previous incarnations of EiR.

I "lol" at you if you think that there was.  The game was reasonably well balanced.  Players however were not.  Some people are better than others, and some companies were better developed than others.  Maybe you just fell into the "others" category a bit too much.

There were balance problems with the Pak and 57mm. Especially in previous incarnations of EIR. There's a reason why the devs raised Pak prices/decreased 57mm prices multiple times throughout this game's history. And you somehow deduced that he was incompetent because he decided to raise this?

If you are going to insult someone, do it openly. Honesty is important around here, see post 42 for details. You respect people for voicing their opinions without guarding them, our culture has completely forgotten that...


The game may or may have not been balanced, I wouldn't know. But one faction (Axis) did consistently win the wars due to a stacking of good players on that faction. Presumably because the other faction (Allies) was boring to play.

This wasn't balance, but interesting factions are sure as hell important, too. I hope this was fixed.

I fail to see why doctrines would balance anything. If one faction is more playable than another without doctrines, then something is wrong already.

The way I see it, assuming equal player skill levels:

-Doctrines cost PP.
-Doctrines take time to garner, due to the above reason.

Situation A:

-If a game is balanced on doctrines without balancing on the base first, one side will have an advantage for the early games, and be more likely to win. Doctrines cost PP to unlock, after all.
-Therefore, if the game is balanced around doctrines, one side will have momentum over the other, especially if new players join in the middle of the war. Which is IMBA in itself.

Situation B:

-If, however, the game is balanced around momentum, one side will have to have stronger doctrine abilities to offset it.
-Which is IMBA as the war progresses for obvious reasons.

Even newb advantage stuff can only go so far in balancing this, it can only blunt one side's victories after the victories occur. And newb advantages eventually disappear as more games are played.

Sure thing, boss, but "lol" is not an opinion.  So yeah, "lol" gets insulted.  Spare me the lesson on social etiquette, please.

You have an opinion that doctrines won't balance anything?  Really?

What happens when British get 25 pounders and Priests?  Do you think they'll be considered as weak as they are right now?  That's a doctrine unlock.  A chief concern amongst British players is how they cannot counter Axis mortar fire upon their emplacements.  Having arty will change that.  I'm not suggesting that they will be either OP, or still in need of help - but things will certainly change for them.

I explicitly said that I agreed the 2 units (pak & 57, for the hard of reading comprehension) were not equal, but the FACTIONS, U.S. & Germany, WERE roughly well balanced.  I base this off of my own personal performance with hundreds of games logged as each faction, and observing other players' performance.  You could generally count on seeing the same player names at the tops of each list for both Germans & Americans.

Meaning, it takes some kind of a fucking moron to assume that balancing exists solely by comparing 2 similar units and trying to make them as similar as possible without contemplating the other units that they function alongside of - as well as against.  And if not making them similar, making them cost relative to each other, without considering their place in that faction, and the opposing factions.

And yeah, I think raising this issue is ridiculous. Things which are not part of CoH:OF, and have been in EiR for such a long time have arrived at a reasonably well balanced state for a while now.  I'm not talking about tweaking up or down something's cost by a few %, that sort of shit doesn't even matter.  The fundemental pricing on paks, and 57s has been relatively stagnant for a VERY long time, the biggest difference is the return to availability, which only helps those with some unrequited hard on for paks.