Profile of drChengele

It's most likely a bug with the "in combat" algorithm. Because I am sure that on occasion it happened since the latest patch I could not toggle the ability off.

Oh it's a forum post now ? With all your numbers blazing and "calculative" approach you certainly did your best (I suspect) to make it appear as "scientific" as possible, since your logic was obviously to camouflage your subjective and biased way of thinking about the (dis)balance of a game with this quasi mathematical charade.

Bro, why all the hate? Because I used simple arithmetics, like, divided a few numbers? What is it with the dismissive and insulting tone from the get-go? Am I supposed to wade through a pile of your insults and pseudointellectual bullshit every time I want to see if you made a coherent point? Thanks, but no thanks.

Also, your complaint is basically that I am biased... towards medium tanks?

one other thing, can you share some light on how you came up with your forum nickname if it's no secret ?

Okay, you weird creepy person. It is not a secret. I've been dragging it for several years now, been playing vCoH with it as well. I am a medical doctor and 'chengele' is a word for basically, meathook. The nickname was a clever pun that I am afraid will elude you if you are not a Serbian (or possibly Turkish, can't vouch for that) speaker, but basically meant to imply that I am so incompetent that I would proceed to kill patients over the course of my carreer. The nickname was given to me as a term of endearment, you know how friends are.

Then again, with that attitude, maybe you don't.

your math is completely superficial by not including the number of other factors that actually make the balance, and therefore faulty, relative and in ultima linea biased.

It's a good thing then I didn't in fact proclaim to have a 100% accurate uber-mathematical model of the CoH2 game that takes literally everything into consideration. It's a forum post, not a scientific paper.

just a raw example: did you even think about how to take into account that your 3 hypothetical mediums 'are' or 'should be' in the fight from the considerable earlier timepoint, and all the theoretical DPS and vet they should've dealt and gained by the time the hypothetical heavy hits the field ? did it cross your mathematical mind that the THREE, fast, early units can be in the three different places at the same time - faster ! ..and theoretically and strategically utilize their role against EVERYTHING else that's in the game besides the "heavy" in terms of DPS, area denial, support, breakthrough and map control - far more effectively than one slow heavy unit - that's basically a steamroller and a scarecrow for allied spam of mediums ?

Alright, this is an actual argument. Finally something that can be refuted.

1) You MIGHT get a vet2 medium if you are lucky, by the time a heavy call-in hits the field. Vet1 is more often the case, and in the case of soviet mediums, vet1 is a laughable non-bonus. And so what? The mediums are much more prone to exploding and losing all the accumulated veterancy.

2) If mediums have such free reign, and are so effective, then why don't we see medium tank spam whined about so much in the forums, then? Why are games, and especially team games, usually decided by Axis heavies or Soviet super call-ins?

3) The mediums cannot counter everything else. A single AT gun and a few Schreck squads will chase off mediums faster than you can say Cheese. Also you propose using mediums in an aggressive role, which means they are much more likely to trigger a mine during their breakthroughs.

4) It's a victory point game and, ceteris paribus (oh look, Latin! It must make my argument look EXTRA SWEET), a heavy tank parked near a hotly contested victory point is a game decider. So the medium tanks can be everywhere on the map, except the places that will win them the game. And in case you want to say the mediums can harrass the 2 other VPs - you know, the heavy tank owning player still has 70+ popcap to defend at least another VP long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

5) You will note that three-to-one ratio that I used is completely unreal and just used for argument's sake. Popcap and cost-wise, ingame it's barely more than 2:1, approaching 2.3:1 in Tiger vs T34/76s. This further dilutes your argument of apparently roaming packs of mediums pwning the entire map while the poor heavy can do nothing as it is cumbersome and slow.

6) Heavy tanks are not that much slower than mediums, apart from JT. Maybe 20% slower than mediums.

your "calculation" should be considerably regarded as mathematical dilettantism.

What mathematical process except simple algebra did I utilize, and where did the math go wrong? Also, "considerably regarded"? Seriously? Normally I don't care about such things but if you want to go all high and mighty and Latin in your posts you should at least understand that big words and misplaced adverbs do not help your argument.

I've seen 18 minute Tigers in competitive 1v1s. Faster VPs are not a solution. It would reinforce the toxic belief that Allies need to win early or get roflstomped. Allied stronger early game is a myth, and even if it wasn't the game should be fair for both sides in all periods.

Efficiency is totally not a good metric to base any decision on.

Efficiency of unit A is calculated via (HP of damage inflicted / total target squad or vehicle HP) * ( target adjusted cost / unit A adjusted cost ) and divided by the number of unit A's that were built.

Squad wipes are not taken into account. It makes no difference if you kill 5 rifleman models from a single squad, or 1 rifleman model from 5 squads each. Obviously there is a huge ingame difference.

Repairs are not taken into account. You can have an AT gun shoot at a KT, KT repairing, rinse and repeat, and AT gun having zero kills by the end of the game. The AT gun will have insane efficiency.

Recrews are not taken into account. Only the number of units built matters. If you build 2 Paks and recrew a teammate's the results will not consider the third one.

Time spent in a match per unit active is not taken into account. If you have 2 the whole game, then in the final moments of the match you get a third Sherman, the efficiency will be calculated "per Sherman built", so in this case the cumulative damage made by Shermans will be divided by 3 when calculating Sherman efficiency, skewing the results.