Isn't the risk right now, too high for too low reward ?
Well IMO you shouldn't be letting your kt that close to infantry in the first place. It has a longish range and isn't significantly slower than infantry or anything.
Posts: 3053
Isn't the risk right now, too high for too low reward ?
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
The whole point of that is to make it weak to flanks due to its high frontal armor and HP, its a 'wall' and should be treated as such, therefore should be weak to med tank flanks.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
If smoke laiunchers would make the difference between your kt surviving or not you're probably doing something wrong anyway. As with every single other vehicle in the game, the kt needs combined arms support if you don't want to lose it to its counters that are supposed to counter it.
Posts: 3053
Yes, heavy tanks do need support but it's completely unrealistic to state that good play would somehow never put your vehicles in a dangerous situation. As if good players wouldn't ever lose vehicles. Even with a solid combined arms approach and careful play it still happens all the time that your forces run into engagements they can't win, or that you make a mistake or misjudge a situation. Retreating is a core feature of the game and most tanks have a good chance to run away. The KT however, due to its horrendously slow speed and acceleration can not. TDs can just chase it to death with ease. Smoke launchers could significantly help it in disengaging because it breaks LOS.
The game is about risk versus reward, but the risks are too great and the reward is too small when it comes to the general performance of the KT. Smoke launchers or any of the other decent proposals would help put the KT's risk versus reward more in balance.
Not to mention getting a solid combined arms composition is pretty hard when the KT alone takes up over a quarter of the popcap and the only support to hold off Allied TDs the OKW can field are other expensive tanks or Rakettens that are pretty useless late game. The little room left for infantry is usually not enough to kill Rifles or Cons blobs before they can get a snare off.
Posts: 1527
Permanently BannedPosts: 495 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
By that logic I could argue that since sometimes you make mistakes, the cromwell and t34 should have the same smoke launchers because sometimes you screw up and run into AT and they don't have the health pool or armor of the KT, so mistakes cause you to lose them. Same could be argued for literally every unit in the entire game. I know my example is an exaggeration, but arguing that units should be given defensive abilities just because mistakes happen doesn't really make sense
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
How about this, if it is underperforming for its cost then just reduce its cost until it performs the same, but isn’t UNDER performing FOR COST.
You won’t break the balance, but you will see it more often because it is more accessible.
Reduce fuel and manpower cost a little.
Reduce popcap cost a little
Improper veterancy rate a little
This way you get it more often and it gets better if you can keep it alive to earn its veterancy bonuses, which it now could actually get because of its lower veterancy requirements.
Keep it simple. Reduce cost. Boost veterancy. Have a beer. Cheers!
Posts: 3053
The armor gets penetrated at max range by ATG/TDs by about 50-75% of shots, increasing to well around or over 75% with HVAP or vet pen bonusses. The HP pool is barely adequate.
Most tanks can run away from a bad engagement unlike the KT, and if they are lost they don't cost 720mp and 280fu to replace. You're comparing apples and oranges. It's a fact that the KT does not perform in acquaintance to its cost and its inability to retreat adequately is one of the contributing factors.
Posts: 5279
How is the hp pool “barely adequate”? It has over 1000 health. If you let it eat four to five volleys (assuming you get suprememly unlucky with rng from atgs or TDs then you’ve messed up.
Most tanks also can’t take that much damage.
Posts: 2243
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
How is the hp pool “barely adequate”? It has over 1000 health. If you let it eat four to five volleys (assuming you get suprememly unlucky with rng from atgs or TDs then you’ve messed up.
Most tanks also can’t take that much damage.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
It's incredibly common for it to take multiple volleys. Especially if you want to let it fire a shot in retaliation. The alternative would be for the KT to poke out, get hit, retreat without firing because of its turret traverse, and then you don't risk losing the KT but it's just going to be 26pop of upkeep that does nothing the whole game.
If players were to use the KT as hyper-conservatively as you suggest (never being in situations where it could possibly be endangered) then it would be an expensive and worthless piece of garbage that eats up 26 popcap.
It sounds as if you've never used a King Tiger before. The KT's acceleration value is so bad that if you're slightly slow to retreat or stay to get a shot off, you're guaranteed to eat 2 hits. And that's 2 hits from each source of AT weaponry - it definitely won't kill the KT, but it makes a dive pretty viable.
Posts: 2243
If there are multiple shots, there are multiples units shooting at you, so where are your support. KT is there to soak damage for the rest of your army to push around.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
If there are multiple shots, there are multiples units shooting at you, so where are your support. KT is there to soak damage for the rest of your army to push around.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
I'm not saying the KT needs to be as overpowered as it used to be, but it NEEDS to be a reliable and kind of selfsufficient unit in order to have a common place within OKW army compositions. Right now it isn't.
Posts: 2243
No unit should be selfsufficient. Now if you didn't build and vetted an army to support your KT, I don't know what you are expecting from it.
Most of the Allied AT units that count vs the KT are pure AT, which means your infantry and Raketen and more than capable to hurt them and force them off. And if you face a pak of medium tank that are going to circle and kill your KT the answer is simple, KT wasn't the solution to your problems.
KT armor Works well if you keep it facing your enemy.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
No unit should be selfsufficient. Now if you didn't build and vetted an army to support your KT, I don't know what you are expecting from it.
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
...it isnt worth the cost anymore. you will be better with panther + p4 / jp4
because now u get the range to shot back to the enemy tds
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Do note how I explicitely stated 'kind of' selfsufficient. A 720mp 280fu unit should be able to perform on its own to some extend, instead of needing the support of an entire army to be even somewhat effective. Supporting a unit this expensive should supplement its strength, not be the source of it. As long as it doesn't, it will never be a viable alternative to regular army compositions.
You're basically saying a unit like the Kubelwagen can be very effective in the late game too, you just have to support it by an entire vet5 army, lol.
121 | |||||
32 | |||||
58 | |||||
52 | |||||
13 | |||||
10 | |||||
3 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |