And 140-130 armor value it enough for that.
If KV-1 need more armor that should come with veterancy, which should fit the role of the vehicle and not be a copy of the T-34/76 one that has different role.
Why? cuz you decided?
Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced
1 Mar 2018, 21:00 PM
#81
Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1
Why? cuz you decided?
2 Mar 2018, 01:05 AM
#82
Posts: 2742
You threw all of them into the same bag.
I've explained to you how each of them was a separate issue that needed addressing.
Considering what you're responding to, I probably was too cryptic for you then. That's just fine by me.
You think its anti axis crusade, I'm telling you there were balance issues and only single one of them was related to consistency.
Sure, they were all separate issues that needed addressing. They were addressed as entirely separate issues without interaction.
I really don't believe in what you're asserting is my position. I think the changes that were made came from a perspective of team game environments. That was pretty explicit through the process as well.
I think team game balance is fundamentally a broken environment the way core elements of the game function. As a result, I think attempts to find balance in team games have missed the realities of the greater picture that is the team game environment.
Dots connectable?
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
2 Mar 2018, 04:34 AM
#83
Posts: 7
only lightly skimmed threw this thread so I must have missed it. Still you're not arguing for hetzer, now its medium tanks vs heavy tanks. There in lies the problem, the comparison is between heavy allies vs medium German(apples to oranges) when you should compare the tanks to other vehicles in their weight class(apples to apples). Its the equivalent of saying the tiger should get lower armor so my sherman can pen.
I have answered this question once but it seems that I have to answer it again:
The vehicles listed have very high rear armor that make flanking with medium tank not rewarding.
A Ostheer PzIV can park behind a Churchill at range 0 and the Churchill will have a better chance to penetrate the PzIV frontally than PzIV to penetrate the rear armor.
This issue was partially fixed in patch for some vehicles but the one in this list where "forgotten".
If you find any German vehicle with rear armor more 150 pls bring it up and I will gladly include it.
Hezter rear/side armor is so low that A T-34/76 has 100% to penetrate even at max range.
2 Mar 2018, 08:29 AM
#84
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
only lightly skimmed threw this thread so I must have missed it...
Its the equivalent of saying the tiger should get lower armor so my sherman can pen.
Actually the Tiger (among other vehicles) had it's rear armored lowered so that the Sherman can penetrate it.
2 Mar 2018, 08:34 AM
#85
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
When was last time anyone have seen KV-2 again?
You are debating on nerfing a unit that no one ever wants to use for purpose other then pure lolz and 'you are so bad I can field KV-2 against you'.
Actually I had it used against twice in the last week.
KV-2 as many other unit, need veterancy bonuses and abilities tailor made for the unit's role but that does not justify it having high rear armor value.
...
What...
ISG had to be nerfed to allow for pit nerf, otherwise it would be OP by outranging it with Basic fire and ist not like it was not already 2nd best indirect light weapon in game.
HMG43 Crew was OP as it were regular volks instead of usual gimped Crew models for all other weapon Teams.
...
Another nice but flawed theory. OKW support weapon crews where nerfed for consistency reasons.
And that is the reason why HMG-34 was eventually re-balanced and not simply have the crew nerfed.
But this is irrelevant to this thread so pls try to stay on topic.
2 Mar 2018, 08:50 AM
#86
Posts: 571
Lets not forget before the nerf the MG-34's damage at most ranges was inferior to a conscript model or 2 apparently.
I see no reason for any Allied tanks to have rear armor above 150, since no tanks shouldnt be punished for being flanked.
I see no reason for any Allied tanks to have rear armor above 150, since no tanks shouldnt be punished for being flanked.
2 Mar 2018, 08:51 AM
#87
Posts: 1273
Actually I had it used against twice in the last week. KV-2 as many other unit, need veterancy bonuses and abilities tailor made for the unit's role but that does not justify it having high rear armor value.
I've had the KV2 used against me once this week. It did nothing, replay shows it did nothing, it was utterly useless. It has been discussed countless times before how useless the unit is. It hasn't even seen any use in recent tournaments. Also, people fielding a unit does not automatically mean that the unit is valid. It needs more than just a little change and a nerf to its armor to get it back into the game. Your theory about the KV2 is a unit that can stand on its own with a nerf and changes you propose, to quote yourself:
flawed theory.
2 Mar 2018, 09:17 AM
#88
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
I've had the KV2 used against me once this week. It did nothing, replay shows it did nothing, it was utterly useless.
Great pls upload the video of you dealing with the KV-2.
It has been discussed countless times before how useless the unit is. It hasn't even seen any use in recent tournaments. Also, people fielding a unit does not automatically mean that the unit is valid. It needs more than just a little change and a nerf to its armor to get it back into the game. Your theory about the KV2 is a unit that can stand on its own with a nerf and changes you propose, to quote yourself:
I never claimed that "KV2 is a unit that can stand on its own with a nerf" pls do not put words in my mouth.
I never claimed that "because someone used a unit the unit is valid" pls do not put words in my mouth, I simply responded to the question "when was the last time you saw a KV-2".
I actually said that KV-2 needs different vet bonus and abilities. What I have pointed out is that KV-2 does not high rear armor value.
2 Mar 2018, 09:22 AM
#89
Posts: 1273
Great pls upload the video of you dealing with the KV-2.
Actually, since you keep on claiming that the KV2 is fine but it needs a nerf to its back armor and that you encountered it TWICE (double as much as me), you should upload your videos. Stop pointing fingers at others, do the first step.
Nobody has troubles to deal with a KV-2, there's absolutely no need for me to upload a video to show to you how to deal with it. What is more important to show videos where the KV-2 has been used so effectively it deserves a nerf so badly, which you keep on telling us that it needs one desperately.
2 Mar 2018, 13:29 PM
#90
Posts: 4474
Actually, since you keep on claiming that the KV2 is fine but it needs a nerf to its back armor and that you encountered it TWICE (double as much as me), you should upload your videos. Stop pointing fingers at others, do the first step.
I actually said that KV-2 need different vet bonus and abilities. What I have pointed out is that KV-2 does not high rear armor value.
please dont cherry pick everything
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
52 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.555227.710+11
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.276110.715+14
- 5.7814.848+7
- 6.259143.644+3
- 7.250150.625+11
- 8.22491.711+11
- 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
758
Board Info
706 users are online:
706 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
131 posts in the last month
39 posts in the last week
131 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45080
Welcome our newest member, isabelle7
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, isabelle7
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM