Is the King Tiger still worth 260 fuel?

I am such a glutton for punishment but...YOU, and yes I mean you, specifically said that you wanted the KT's armor and speed buffed, so the issue is both in your mind.

Guess what, if you see an American player investing heavily in AT defenses (aka Jacksons) then maybe, and this is gonna sound crazy, you should not invest heavily in a single breakthrough tank. Maybe, you should focus on getting out your own AT units, or just invest in infantry based units and ignore the Jacksons. You already said SU-85's are pretty irrelevant against KT so I won't even bother taking about them.

Alex you don't get an I win button for getting to the KT. You get access, as a bonus, to the only non-doctrinal heavy tank in the game, IF YOU WANT IT. If you don't want it you do not need to purchase it, and in many cases you should use something else. Personally I find Panther + Stuka a better investment most of the time, but would still use KT for some situations.

Please don't respond in this thread if you have nothing new to add, we all know you want to buff armor and speed. You made your point now move one.

I never said I wanted more armor and speed. Iv made the point that the lower armor combined with the extremely slow speed results in a tank that is very hard to make breakthroughs with.

The SU-85 isn't very irrelevant anymore versus KT's these days because of the very high DPS an SU-85 can put out, and it's not like the KT is going to out run it. And the thing is USF players always get Jacksons because it's USF only AT option, meaning it basically just greys out the KT as a viable option.

A rework to the KT would be nice in and so far as currently it doesn't really do anything for you a more mixed army doesn't do. 2 Panthers are better, A Sturmtiger is better, a Jadgtiger is a more sound investment, ect.

Personally IMO it should get a reduction on the main guns damage to 200 and an increase in it's ROF allowing it to more effectively do damage before it's forced to retreat, that or as said early better acceleration would go a long way towards enabling it as a viable alternative for late game instead of a noob trap, as it's basically putting your eggs in one big easy to spot and shoot at basket.

So the argument here is that the king tiger sucks because it loses to 2 IS-2s? That's pretty silly.

Guess what, if you see an American player investing heavily in AT defenses (aka Jacksons) then maybe, and this is gonna sound crazy, you should not invest heavily in a single breakthrough tank.

Alex you don't get an I win button for getting to the KT. You get access, as a bonus, to the only non-doctrinal heavy tank in the game, IF YOU WANT IT. If you don't want it you do not need to purchase it, and in many cases you should use something else. Personally I find Panther + Stuka a better investment most of the time, but would still use KT for some situations.

Nobody has asked for an I-win button. That interpretation of their words is yours alone.


"Guess what, if you see an American player investing heavily in AT defenses (aka Jacksons) then maybe, and this is gonna sound crazy, you should not invest heavily in a single breakthrough tank"

So what should they invest in? You say Panther + stuka but the stuka vs blob is hit and miss and the Amis will have a blob guaranteed. panther won't stop it and will also have a hard time vs Jacksons.

You also suggested getting more infantry. While on the one hand you're right that jacksons will do very little to infantry, on the other hand you're wrong in that the infantry will not trade cost-effectively vs an american army with a big blob. And anyway any good Ami player is going to mix Shermans in with Jacksons and only get Jacksons if you have armour. So then you have infantry vs shermans. Not good.


Anyway, I don't feel anyone needs a super-super tank. I think the KT should have some nice big advantages like damage, health, armour and a hefty price and some disadvantages like low speed. Currently the price is set too high or the advantages set too low. I'd like to see it kept this way but with a price reduction. it's just not worth the fuel.

I never have found KTs to be a huge problem in their own right.

What's always bothered me is that Sturmpioneers seem to be able to bring an almost dead KT to full health extremely quickly.

One KT effectively acts like 3 or 4 KTs over time because of how much punishment it can absorb and readily bounce back from.

I feel like it takes longer to repair a Jackson than a KT given the units that have to do the repairing.

Nobody has asked for an I-win button. That interpretation of their words is yours alone.


"Guess what, if you see an American player investing heavily in AT defenses (aka Jacksons) then maybe, and this is gonna sound crazy, you should not invest heavily in a single breakthrough tank"

So what should they invest in? You say Panther + stuka but the stuka vs blob is hit and miss and the Amis will have a blob guaranteed. panther won't stop it and will also have a hard time vs Jacksons.

Well, if the enemy is building a lot of AT guns and AT tanks, you could build more infantry or arty, why would you build a panther to counter AT defense? Then he might build stuff to counter than, and then you counter his counter, and so forth.

So the argument here is that the king tiger sucks because it loses to 2 IS-2s? That's pretty silly.

The enemy can always get more IS2's than you can get KT's so it's a valid argument.

What's always bothered me is that Sturmpioneers seem to be able to bring an almost dead KT to full health extremely quickly.

Mostly because you can't spam Sturms like you can RE's or CEngineers

The enemy can always get more IS2's than you can get KT's so it's a valid argument.

Well, no that doesn't make it a valid argument. I can get more shermans than you can a tiger ace, does that make the tiger ace bad? No it doesn't. I can get more panzer 4s before you can get an IS-2, does that mean the IS-2 is suddenly too weak? Obviously no.

Well, no that doesn't make it a valid argument. I can get more shermans than you can a tiger ace, does that make the tiger ace bad? No it doesn't. I can get more panzer 4s before you can get an IS-2, does that mean the IS-2 is suddenly too weak? Obviously no.

Perhaps if those mediums rivaled those heavy tanks effectiveness. But sadly no.

Perhaps if those mediums rivaled those heavy tanks effectiveness. But sadly no.

Not entirely sure I get your point here.

one heavy is still generally better than two, and sometimes 3, med tanks.

one heavy is still generally better than two, and sometimes 3, med tanks.

What about 4 panzer 4s? That's roughly double the cost of an IS-2, where 2 IS-2s is almost double the cost of a king tiger. How about 2 jacksons? That can beat a tiger ace.

One king tiger easily beats an IS-2, so yeah you'd need two of them to win, what's the big deal here?

the point is that heavies are generally more cost efficient than mediums, which causes mediums to be ignored.

the point is that heavies are generally more cost efficient than mediums, which causes mediums to be ignored.

Right, but the argument here is that because i can potentially in some ideal scenario get two IS-2s before you get a king tiger, it makes the king tiger bad, is absurd.

Right, but the argument here is that because i can potentially in some ideal scenario get two IS-2s before you get a king tiger, it makes the king tiger bad, is absurd.

that is true.

honestly, i don't know what the argument is anymore. i think there was probably some confusion in the first place

Well, no that doesn't make it a valid argument. I can get more shermans than you can a tiger ace, does that make the tiger ace bad? No it doesn't. I can get more panzer 4s before you can get an IS-2, does that mean the IS-2 is suddenly too weak? Obviously no.

It's an issue with call in meta because the IS2 has the same armor with better speed than the KT, and doesn't have very much problem penning the KT either so when your opponent can get far more IS2's than you get KT's it's a big problem.

The PIV has a fairly pathetic chance to pen the IS2, it's just worse in basically aspect, while the IS2 and KT are somewhat equal in some respects.

It's an issue with call in meta because the IS2 has the same armor with better speed than the KT, and doesn't have very much problem penning the KT either so when your opponent can get far more IS2's than you get KT's it's a big problem.

the VI B having more armour then the IS-2 wouldn't change the fact that 2 IS-2s beat a single VI B as the amount of armour each tank has does not affect the advantage callins have. same with speed. it's also not a good justification to buff the VI B.

The PIV has a fairly pathetic chance to pen the IS2, it's just worse in basically aspect, while the IS2 and KT are somewhat equal in some respects.

all mediums suck against all heavies (KVs are debatable as they are "sort of heavy")

the VI B having more armour then the IS-2 wouldn't change the fact that 2 IS-2s beat a single VI B as the amount of armour each tank has does not affect the advantage callins have. same with speed. it's also not a good justification to buff the VI B.

Exactly this.

Mostly because you can't spam Sturms like you can RE's or CEngineers

Except functionally, spamming REs or CEngineers is not a good idea except for the express purpose of trying to repair.

Sturmpioneers have rather strong combat function outside of repairing KTs.

Guys I have an Idea...

KUBELWAGENS WITH PANZERSCHREKS!!!!

Except functionally, spamming REs or CEngineers is not a good idea except for the express purpose of trying to repair.

Sturmpioneers have rather strong combat function outside of repairing KTs.

Uh, 2 RE's is very useful and multiple CE's are as well. You need both in order to keep up good field presence and CE's let you spam more mines and demo's.