Tigers would be completly fine without Blitzkreig. Super heavy anti everything tanks with lots of health and armour are allowed to not be super fast. The IS-2 is also a super heavy anti every tank with lots of health and armour, it does fine without being super fast.
But I did suggest giving Tigers the MG gunner at Vet1 instead as a replacement for Blitzkrieg. Actually preventing the IS-2/ISU from being able to build an MG gunner from the get go would definitely be a nerf, I have no idea how you can't disagree with that. Lowering it's anti infantry damage until it hits Vet 1 is absolutely a nerf, and munitions in the late game are worthless for Soviets on a Doctrine that doesn't get Guards or Mark Target, there's just nothing to spend it on except Incendiaries Arty strikes with the IS-2 doctrine.
Do Tigers really need Blitzkrieg?
19 Aug 2014, 11:16 AM
#41
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
19 Aug 2014, 11:23 AM
#42
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
Eh, speed is not the only thing SU 85 and Jackson have over "regular" German tanks. The SU isnt faster ie. as the PIV AFAIK. They both outrange them tho and SU has more vision. Even a single Su 85 can push a Tiger around pretty much at will, or at least consign it to a purely defensive role unless the German player really wants to commit. One might also reply that the only reliable way to kill Soviet heavies and Allied advanced mediums is with German heavies/ JT/ Elefant...
The other problem that makes SU-85's and Jacksons unviable is the potency of German Infantry based AT and Paks/Rakatenwerfers, able to zone away SU-85's and Jacksons, if not killing Jacksons in 3 shots. P4's and Panthers however can just drive up Ziss and M1's head on and decrew them.
This is another huge reason why Coh2 is all about the late game armour call ins, because of how Shreks/Paks make Jacksons/SU-85's worthless so instead Allied rely on IS-2's/ISU's/T-34 85's and Easy 8's is because not only are they the only tanks capable of dealing with heavy axis armour, but are also capable of dealing with Shrek blobs and paks. You would think that the Dedicated AT armour that is incapable of dealing with Shrek Blobs and Paks/Raketens would be decent against Heavy German tanks as a result, but that is not at all the case. And Blitzkrieg is a huge fixable influence preventing that.
19 Aug 2014, 11:24 AM
#43
Posts: 467
Tigers would be completly fine without Blitzkreig. Super heavy anti everything tanks with lots of health and armour are allowed to not be super fast. The IS-2 is also a super heavy anti every tank with lots of health and armour, it does fine without being super fast.
But I did suggest giving Tigers the MG gunner at Vet1 instead as a replacement for Blitzkrieg. Actually preventing the IS-2/ISU from being able to build an MG gunner from the get go would definitely be a nerf, I have no idea how you can't disagree with that. Lowering it's anti infantry damage until it hits Vet 1 is absolutely a nerf, and munitions in the late game are worthless for Soviets on a Doctrine that doesn't get Guards or Mark Target, there's just nothing to spend it on except Incendiaries Arty strikes with the IS-2 doctrine.
lol IS2 has way more armor than Tiger and is faster too. It's pure bias to say Tiger shouldn't have blitz.
Armor front
Tiger: 300
IS2: 375
Armor rear
Tiger: 180
IS2: 205
Speed max
Tiger: 4.7
IS2: 5.0
Accel
Tiger: 1.5
IS2: 1.7
Even the IS2s gun is better. Bigger AOE (3.5 vs 4.0), higher penetration (90 vs 95). Only thing Tiger has is better reload time (4.7-5.3 vs 6.2-6.6).
And they cost the same, yet still want to nerf Tiger...
19 Aug 2014, 11:26 AM
#44
Posts: 1225
Eh, are you serious? A PIV, let alone a Panther "just driving up" to a Zis or 57 and decrewing them, head on? You know, doing that is gonna cost you a shitload of health with a Tiger. With a Panther or PIV its gonna cost you the tank, barring Extreme RNG luck, with a capital E.
19 Aug 2014, 11:27 AM
#45
Posts: 34
Permanently Bannedi dont know what the problem with blitz should be, su85#s and jacksons can take on a tiger any day, as long as you have 2 of them. what isnt really too much to ask, countering a heavy tank with 2 medium tanks.
(lets not talk about the cost of these 2 medium tanks, we all know that it is wrong, but thats relics fault)
(lets not talk about the cost of these 2 medium tanks, we all know that it is wrong, but thats relics fault)
19 Aug 2014, 11:29 AM
#46
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
Yes the IS-2 is overpowered and needs a nerf too. That's not at all the point, but are we happy? Can we stop derailing the thread and move on?
Why does everyone feel the need to compare the Tiger to the IS-2 so directly? There's so many other influences in the overall matchups. Blitzkrieg doesn't even really effect Tigers vs IS-2's much, but it what does do, is completely break SU-85/Jacksons and AT guns against Tigers.
The strength or overpoweredness of the IS-2 does not translate into a justification for giving Tigers a broken ability that at a conceptual design level breaks the meta and matchups by preventing anything other than a few specific call in units viable. It's starting to sound like a lot of the people actually enjoy the stale meta consisting of nothing but the same 5 calls in over and over again every game instead of a proper functioning counter system and dynamic.
Why does everyone feel the need to compare the Tiger to the IS-2 so directly? There's so many other influences in the overall matchups. Blitzkrieg doesn't even really effect Tigers vs IS-2's much, but it what does do, is completely break SU-85/Jacksons and AT guns against Tigers.
The strength or overpoweredness of the IS-2 does not translate into a justification for giving Tigers a broken ability that at a conceptual design level breaks the meta and matchups by preventing anything other than a few specific call in units viable. It's starting to sound like a lot of the people actually enjoy the stale meta consisting of nothing but the same 5 calls in over and over again every game instead of a proper functioning counter system and dynamic.
19 Aug 2014, 11:29 AM
#47
Posts: 1042
Completely agree with OP.
Can't believe the bias on this forum sometimes...
Thematically and gameplay wise blitzkrieg is nonsense. Tiger and Tiger II most of all shouldn't have it.
Can't believe the bias on this forum sometimes...
Thematically and gameplay wise blitzkrieg is nonsense. Tiger and Tiger II most of all shouldn't have it.
19 Aug 2014, 11:34 AM
#48
Posts: 34
Permanently Banned.
The strength or overpoweredness of the IS-2 does not translate into a justification for giving Tigers a broken ability that at conceptual design level breaks the meta and matchups by making anything other than a few specific call in units viable.
the thing is that you complain about one side while ignoring the other. while a tiger makes a non-doctrinal tank useless (your opinnion, like i said before i think SOV and US TD take on them pretty good)you think is2 is fine as it is. why should allies be able to counter a doctrinal unit easily while germans aren't??
and yeh, blitz is not a problem, maybe play some axis from time to time to feel the other side man. everyhthing feels op if you are up AGAINST it
19 Aug 2014, 11:35 AM
#49
Posts: 752
Why do you feel its necessary to COMPLETELY remove ALL Vet abilities from Tiger?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to either replace it or adjust it?
I don't understand this "remove Vet ability COMPLETELY from Tiger" attitude, while in the same thread, you actually go on to even propose buffs to IS2 and KV1.
Seems very strange to me.
Why not just adjust or replace Blitz with something else as a starting point, rather than demanding it has no Vet ability at all?
Seems a bit extreme, eh?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to either replace it or adjust it?
I don't understand this "remove Vet ability COMPLETELY from Tiger" attitude, while in the same thread, you actually go on to even propose buffs to IS2 and KV1.
Seems very strange to me.
Why not just adjust or replace Blitz with something else as a starting point, rather than demanding it has no Vet ability at all?
Seems a bit extreme, eh?
"You are competitive if play to win and make efforts to improve." -Basilone
19 Aug 2014, 11:40 AM
#50
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
the thing is that you complain about one side while ignoring the other. while a tiger makes a non-doctrinal tank useless (your opinnion, like i said before i think SOV and US TD take on them pretty good)you think is2 is fine as it is. why should allies be able to counter a doctrinal unit easily while germans aren't??
I never said IS-2 was fine, in-fact I said the opposite. What I'm asking for is to make dedicated finesse and delicate Tank destroyers actually viable instead of spending every single game over and over again relying on anti everything call-ins that are capable of dealing with heavy tanks as well as Shrek blobs and Paks. (IS-2's/ISU's/T-34'85s/Easy 8's.)
The strength of those call-ins is a different issue for a different thread.
@Cannonade, you clearly haven't been reading half of my posts.
But I did suggest giving Tigers the MG gunner at Vet1 instead as a replacement for Blitzkrieg. Actually preventing the IS-2/ISU from being able to build an MG gunner from the get go would definitely be a nerf, I have no idea how you can't disagree with that. Lowering it's anti infantry damage until it hits Vet 1 is absolutely a nerf, and munitions in the late game are worthless for Soviets on a Doctrine that doesn't get Guards or Mark Target, there's just nothing to spend it on except Incendiaries Arty strikes with the IS-2 doctrine.
19 Aug 2014, 11:43 AM
#51
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
As I said Speed is the only thing SU-85's and Jacksons have going for them over German tanks,
You seem to deliberately forget about RANGE and SIGHT......
BeefSurge wrote:
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
19 Aug 2014, 11:44 AM
#52
Posts: 467
I never said IS-2 was fine, in-fact I said the opposite. What I'm asking for is to make dedicated finesse and delicate Tank destroyers actually viable instead of spending every single game over and over again relying on anti everything call-ins that are capable of dealing with heavy tanks as well as Shrek blobs and Paks. (IS-2's/ISU's/T-34'85s/Easy 8's.) Yes those call-ins could be addressed too if weak dedicated Tank Destroyers actually had a purpose.
L2P issue here. Do you even know how to use a tank destroyer? You don't use it as a mainline tank, use its range to your advantage and kill outside of their range. Most TDs have 60 range compared to regular tanks which have 40 range.
19 Aug 2014, 11:45 AM
#53
Posts: 875 | Subs: 6
You seem to deliberately forget about RANGE and SIGHT......
All 3 of which are negated by Blitzkrieg. This is our problem.
19 Aug 2014, 11:50 AM
#54
Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8
Its you with double standards.
At the same time as your say that Tiger should for some magical reason have NO Vet ability, you also want to buff IS-2 and KV1 even harder in the same department.
That is the very definition of a dishonest double standard.
So sorry, no.
I see right through you.
Oh, but please, feel free to quote me where I've said IS-2 and KV-1 should be buffed.
All I was saying is that axis heavies have unfair advantage of additional combat effective vet level, which means axcis heavies have 3-5 levels of vet while sov heavies have just 2.
Please, show me where is the double standard here, because pinpointing yours(axis armor should have all levels of vet useful, soviet tanks are fine with just 2) is piss easy.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
19 Aug 2014, 11:51 AM
#55
Posts: 747
OP definitely has a point. I'm all for replacing Blitzkrieg on german heavies and give them something diffrent, still usefull instead.
The whole discussion about the call-in meta etc. however is a whole different story, that needs to be talked about seperately.
The whole discussion about the call-in meta etc. however is a whole different story, that needs to be talked about seperately.
19 Aug 2014, 11:54 AM
#56
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
All 3 of which are negated by Blitzkrieg. This is our problem.
Well why don't you look from the oposite way? This is the only chance a PIV may have to destroy a su-85.
But oh, we were talking about Tigers here. So explain me how a slow turtle with a verry small speed boost can hope to efficiently flank or reach a Su-85? If you keep backing up, Tiger won't reach your su-85 not even with the mother of blitzkrieg, before it will take cover after the zis wall.
BeefSurge wrote:
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
A lot of people have an image of how they want a faction to play, leading to problems. This is why you have people complaining about lack of Soviet bunkers, why T34/76 sucks, why Cons don't scale, Grens don't get normal grenades, Muricans don't get heavy tank, OKW laser weapons and Die Glock Death Bell, etc.
19 Aug 2014, 11:57 AM
#57
Posts: 210
PwnMachine certainly has a point, vet1 biltz ability negates the only weakness the tigers have! Im actually suprised that this hasnt been brought up earlier. Needs to be looked at.
Good pick up pwnMachine
Good pick up pwnMachine
19 Aug 2014, 12:01 PM
#58
Posts: 752
PwnageMachine:
You didnt actually separately suggest it. You sort of mixed it into a buff IS2/KV1 context which was more than a little misleading, and as you said irrelevant to the topic. Its actually you who brought up IS2 and KV1 buffing first. Others hadnt mentiined them yet.
On the Tiger, as per topic:
Moving MG to Vet, and removing Blitz before that, is actually a double nerf.
So again, doesnt really make sense at all.
Very strange attitude and approach to discussing you are taking, tbh.
So far, first you suggested removing a Vet ability ENTIRELY from Tiger, with no other option tp replace it..?
Then you suggested a double nerf by removing Blitz AND making Pintle un-upgradeable...?
Id suggest you instead brainstorm for an alternative Vet ability for Tiger.
Katitof: I have no idea what you think you are saying. Makes no sense to me in a literal comprehension sense at all.
You didnt actually separately suggest it. You sort of mixed it into a buff IS2/KV1 context which was more than a little misleading, and as you said irrelevant to the topic. Its actually you who brought up IS2 and KV1 buffing first. Others hadnt mentiined them yet.
On the Tiger, as per topic:
Moving MG to Vet, and removing Blitz before that, is actually a double nerf.
So again, doesnt really make sense at all.
Very strange attitude and approach to discussing you are taking, tbh.
So far, first you suggested removing a Vet ability ENTIRELY from Tiger, with no other option tp replace it..?
Then you suggested a double nerf by removing Blitz AND making Pintle un-upgradeable...?
Id suggest you instead brainstorm for an alternative Vet ability for Tiger.
Katitof: I have no idea what you think you are saying. Makes no sense to me in a literal comprehension sense at all.
"You are competitive if play to win and make efforts to improve." -Basilone
19 Aug 2014, 12:02 PM
#59
Posts: 747
Well why don't you look from the oposite way? This is the only chance a PIV may have to destroy a su-85.
But oh, we were talking about Tigers here. So explain me how a slow turtle with a verry small speed boost can hope to efficiently flank or reach a Su-85? If you keep backing up, Tiger won't reach your su-85 not even with the mother of blitzkrieg, before it will take cover after the zis wall.
And what's the problem exactly? If you expect to solo a Tankdestroyer with your Tiger then that's your fault.
19 Aug 2014, 12:07 PM
#60
Posts: 210
Well why don't you look from the oposite way? This is the only chance a PIV may have to destroy a su-85.
But oh, we were talking about Tigers here. So explain me how a slow turtle with a verry small speed boost can hope to efficiently flank or reach a Su-85? If you keep backing up, Tiger won't reach your su-85 not even with the mother of blitzkrieg, before it will take cover after the zis wall.
so how do soviets and usf deal with tank destroyers? or a wall of pak's ?
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
71 | ||
|
|
|
|
56 | ||
 |
|
|
44 | ||
 |
|
|
32 | ||
|
|
|
|
32 | ||
|
|
|
|
23 | ||
 |
|
|
13 | ||
|
|
|
|
40 | ||
|
|
|
|
28 | ||
|
|
|
|
12 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.555227.710+11
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.276110.715+14
- 5.259143.644+3
- 6.250150.625+11
- 7.22491.711+11
- 8.6512.844+3
- 9.250135.649+1
- 10.19265.747+5
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
754
Board Info
690 users are online:
690 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
37 posts in the last week
136 posts in the last month
37 posts in the last week
136 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45066
Welcome our newest member, Fid McSauce
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Fid McSauce
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM