Login

russian armor

Another Take On The Heavy Tank Meta

15 Mar 2020, 21:36 PM
#1
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3217

All the heavy tanks are good, but the Tiger and IS-2 are the two that really entrench the heavy tank meta. The Pershing is just as powerful (if not more so) on paper, but it's had nowhere near the same impact on the meta.

I think that's because of the matchup with the Panther.

The Panther beats the Comet (800 HP), can take on the Pershing (960 HP), and generally loses to the IS-2 (1040 HP).

This makes the IS-2 the most impactful heavy tank on the meta despite not being that much stronger than the Pershing on paper. If the opponent wants to counter it without going heavy tanks themselves they need a Panther and something else. They need to expend more resources on AT units than the generalist IS-2 costs.

Viewed that way, it's easy to see why the IS-2 is such a popular pick in 1v1: it doesn't have a nondoctrinal counter.

Then we have the Tiger. The Tiger has 1040 HP, making it better in a heavy tank slugging match than the Panther. This makes it a better pick than the Panther even against the Pershing: anything the Panther can do, the Tiger can do better.

In summary, we have these two problems:
  • The Panther cannot deal with the IS-2.
  • The Tiger is a better anti-heavy unit than the Panther.


What if we changed that?

Reduce the Tiger's HP to 960. Adjust cost or buff as necessary.
Reduce the IS-2's HP to 960, or rework it into a more expensive tank in the vein of the King Tiger.

What if we cut the IS-2 and Tiger to 960 HP, same as the Panther and Pershing? The Panther can then take on the IS-2 in a one-on-one battle, and the Tiger stops being a better pick than it.

Now that the IS-2 can be countered nondoctrinally, there's less incentive to go IS-2 every game.
Now that the Tiger isn't a better heavy counter than the Panther, there's less incentive to go Tiger every game.

Thoughts?
15 Mar 2020, 21:51 PM
#2
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 897

No.

As I said in the other thread, this just makes the current high-pen 60-range TDs even more dominant; i.e the M36/SU85/FFs (JP4 doesn't have all that high pen).


I want to make the current heavy-tank meta less powerful as much as anyone else, but it's still massively preferable to TD spam.

15 Mar 2020, 22:01 PM
#3
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3607 | Subs: 1

Think we’d be better off raising heavy tank price than lowering their durability vs giga-TDs. Let’s see how the patch nerfs the heavy tank meta before we go for a 4th nerf though eh?
15 Mar 2020, 22:21 PM
#4
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 2637

Just let them all die.
15 Mar 2020, 23:06 PM
#5
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 528

I though ,just balance them by cost,based on Tiger,Pershing reduce fuel to about 210,IS2 increase to about 245
16 Mar 2020, 00:13 AM
#6
avatar of BlueKnight

Posts: 271

What Lago suggests is a good idea. Now if only TDs didn't have to overcompensate for medium tanks inability to fight panthers... Imho current comet design is 100 times better than that of a panther.
16 Mar 2020, 01:33 AM
#7
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 418

I'd agree to this maybe but only if high penetration tank destroyers also recieved a compensating nerf to their rate of fire(that includes the super heavy TDs).
16 Mar 2020, 01:57 AM
#8
avatar of blancat

Posts: 788

think about cost

Don't just look at performance
16 Mar 2020, 02:30 AM
#9
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3217

Think we’d be better off raising heavy tank price than lowering their durability vs giga-TDs. Let’s see how the patch nerfs the heavy tank meta before we go for a 4th nerf though eh?

It's not about nerfing heavies in a vacuum: it's about making them interact properly with the nondoctrinal roster. You could balance the IS-2 perfectly for its cost and it'd still create a heavy tank meta by itself because it beats the Panther.

By all means, buff the Tiger and Pershing in some other way if need be. The two things that matter here are making the Panther work as a heavy counter (which it does against USF and UKF) and making the Tiger not be a better heavy counter than the Panther.


No.

As I said in the other thread, this just makes the current high-pen 60-range TDs even more dominant; i.e the M36/SU85/FFs (JP4 doesn't have all that high pen).

I want to make the current heavy-tank meta less powerful as much as anyone else, but it's still massively preferable to TD spam.


How so? A reduction in heavy tank durability applies across the board. I don't see how it further incentivises building tank destroyers. If anything, a drop in heavy tank usage disincentivises TD spam.

I'm all for slashing the DPS of tank destroyers, but nerfing heavies won't encourage TDs. TDs do better against a heavy than they do against double mediums.


jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2020, 01:57 AMblancat
think about cost

Don't just look at performance

Performance is critical here. Take the T-34/76 vs Panzer IV matchup. To beat a Panzer IV with T-34s, you need two. 600 MP 180 FU to counter a 120 FU tank, and therefore the Panzer IV usually holds the advantage in that matchup.

The IS-2 vs Panther matchup is the same situation. The IS-2's only about 17% better than the Panther, but you can't build 1.17 Panthers. There needs to be a unit or combination of units that cost-effectively counters the IS-2, or you've got a balance problem.


I though ,just balance them by cost,based on Tiger,Pershing reduce fuel to about 210,IS2 increase to about 245

As above, the matchups are very important. You can't balance units just by cost because they're quantised: you can't build 1.33 T-34/76s to counter a Panzer IV.

No unit is an island.
16 Mar 2020, 03:24 AM
#10
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3607 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2020, 02:30 AMLago

It's not about nerfing heavies in a vacuum: it's about making them interact properly with the nondoctrinal roster. You could balance the IS-2 perfectly for its cost and it'd still create a heavy tank meta by itself because it beats the Panther.

By all means, buff the Tiger and Pershing in some other way if need be. The two things that matter here are making the Panther work as a heavy counter (which it does against USF and UKF) and making the Tiger not be a better heavy counter than the Panther.


I think it’s difficult to make the panther a designated “heavy counter” without reducing its reload heavily. Because as it stands, it’s stats not only let it contest well when supported vs heavies but also solo mediums and tds in range. I think the panther really lacks a defined role. Some say it’s meant to counter mediums, others say the casemates do that, but then they also are supposed to counter heavies etc. everything regardless gets shut down by cheaper or equal tds. It’s just one massive storm of no one can give things a defined role. The one thing the panthers do and will always have over the classmates though is mobility, but that mobility means practically zero against heavies. You don’t flank with panthers and they certainly aren’t meant to fire on the move. I personally think they’re “ok” currently. Their vet needs help and maybe a slight close range accuracy boost but they’re really good tanks for price point atm. Everything else just seems better
16 Mar 2020, 03:45 AM
#11
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 257

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2020, 02:30 AMLago


The IS-2 vs Panther matchup is the same situation. The IS-2's only about 17% better than the Panther, but you can't build 1.17 Panthers. There needs to be a unit or combination of units that cost-effectively counters the IS-2, or you've got a balance problem.



I think the is2 is far more effective than even 17%. Maybe in that specific matchup, but the fact that it can nuke infantry as well means, at least to me, closer to twice as effective for what you invest. With the aoe nerfs that heavies are recieving I believe that the panther will have a much more relevant role. Investing in a panther right now is a very good way to sacrifice your ability to fight infantry. Yeah, it's better than the Jackson, but it doesn't hold a candle to Tiger/is2/Pershing.
16 Mar 2020, 03:51 AM
#12
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 724

What Lago suggests is a good idea. Now if only TDs didn't have to overcompensate for medium tanks inability to fight panthers... Imho current comet design is 100 times better than that of a panther.

I wish something would be overconpensated for gren inability to fight rifles/penals/sections.
16 Mar 2020, 04:11 AM
#13
avatar of SuperHansFan

Posts: 725

IS-2 just got hefty nerfs, I don't believe drastic changes are needed otherwise you're just overnerfing heavies into old comet uselessness. And FF is hardly over performing, it's got slower DPS than a stug with 8 second reload and much higher popcap compared to jagdpanzer despite then having similar cost and both being 60 range tds.


I wish something would be overconpensated for gren inability to fight rifles/penals/sections.


It's a good thing both axis factions get elite infantry stock then isn't it.
16 Mar 2020, 06:19 AM
#14
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1140


I wish something would be overconpensated for gren inability to fight rifles/penals/sections.


Mg, snipers, ostwind
16 Mar 2020, 07:48 AM
#15
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15226 | Subs: 7


I wish something would be overconpensated for gren inability to fight rifles/penals/sections.

There is nothing to compensate.
Cheap unit loses to expensive units, so you need more cheap units or support them with something like team weapons or 251.
Relic can't patch skill into you.
16 Mar 2020, 08:12 AM
#16
avatar of strafniki

Posts: 544 | Subs: 1

panther can beat IS2 in normal game situations? really? :hansWUT:
imo the IS2 can only really fight infantry very well, other than that its a trashcan. i have also noticed a huge amount of oneshots from tiger vs conscripts.. painful :sibToxic:
16 Mar 2020, 10:33 AM
#17
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3217

I think it’s difficult to make the panther a designated “heavy counter” without reducing its reload heavily. Because as it stands, it’s stats not only let it contest well when supported vs heavies but also solo mediums and tds in range.


Except it does function as a heavy counter at the moment. It beats the Comet and has a slight edge over the Pershing.

It's the IS-2 specifically that beats the Panther, and that's why the IS-2's been a problem child since GCS 2.

What I'm suggesting is bumping down its health to make it equal to the new Pershing. Same with the Tiger.

IS-2 just got hefty nerfs, I don't believe drastic changes are needed otherwise you're just overnerfing heavies into old comet uselessness.


By all means buff the IS-2 and Tiger elsewhere, revert one of their existing nerfs or reduce their cost.

This isn't about reducing the strength of the IS-2 in a vacuum. It's about making the Panther function against SOV as it does against USF and UKF, and about stopping the Tiger being OST and OKW's heavy best tank destroyer.
16 Mar 2020, 11:29 AM
#18
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8291 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2020, 10:33 AMLago

...
This isn't about reducing the strength of the IS-2 in a vacuum. It's about making the Panther function against SOV as it does against USF and UKF, and about stopping the Tiger being OST and OKW's heavy best tank destroyer.

You are trying to tackle too many issue at once.

The is one issue which design issue and not balance issue and that is Ostheer Tiger/T4 effectiveness. The situation here become worse the Ostheer Panther had its power level increased to 185 fuel. That made generally T4 less viable since one could only a specialized tank (either AI or AT) and Tiger a far superior option since it can cover both roles.

There is number of solution to this like moving an all around vehicle in T4, either Tiger or giving HE round to Panther or reducing the power level of Panther so that one can afford more than one tank.

There is another issue which is the the gap between the effectiveness of TDs and other AT weapon.

Currently one can deal with super heavies either by building a super heavy also or by using heavy TDs. Heavy TD is large game are too effective vs super heavies while super heavy hold to much shock value is small.

Imo the solution here is to reduce the power level of TD and fire power of Super heavies.
16 Mar 2020, 11:46 AM
#19
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 724

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Mar 2020, 07:48 AMKatitof

There is nothing to compensate.
Cheap unit loses to expensive units, so you need more cheap units or support them with something like team weapons or 251.
Relic can't patch skill into you.

then whats the problem of cheap(er) mediums loosing to (more)expensive Panther with out support then??? huh... you LPoSMFC, bias much.
16 Mar 2020, 12:09 PM
#20
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 15226 | Subs: 7


then whats the problem of cheap(er) mediums loosing to (more)expensive Panther with out support then??? huh... you LPoSMFC, bias much.

The fact that you have a very specific, dedicated hard counter to these cheap(er) mediums and you don't need 2. Want increased reliability against heavies? Then decrease reliability against mediums, otherwise you're creating a unit without a counter.

Also, you completely missed the point of the post you've quoted earlier after going back on the quotes you engaged with.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag T.R. 6 squads, 4 maxim 2 engies
  • U.S. Forces flag °NOSMarkov.-
uploaded by KahootKing

Board Info

147 users are online: 4 members and 143 guests
Luciano, Pedro_Jedi, RoastinGhost, kitsos
78 posts in the last 24h
892 posts in the last week
4503 posts in the last month
Registered members: 22893
Welcome our newest member, 5miae6223gb6
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM