Profile of DanielD

Considering I directly responded to your assertions about why ramming is a problem, I'd say it's more like I responded to your point and you didn't like what I came up with. Sorry we couldn't have a dialog. Try to realize that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand what you are talking about.

@DanielD Ramming is currently, no matter whether you can finish off the rammed armor, an economic and tactical win, inEVERY SINGLE CASE. This because a)economically the cost of your disabled t34 is more equitable than the cost of the rammed armor b) the firepower outout of the rammed vehicle is greater than what you lose in the disabled t34.

This is incotrovertible and not arguable.

Whether you are prividing enough support to finish off the rammed armor, is a player based situatuonal l2p factor, that srves only to excascerbate the already indisputable economic and tactical gain from ramming. At best, you have disabled a more costly vehicle with more firepower and then subsequently destroyed it (due to intelligent support), at worst, you have still disabled a more costly and firepower capable unit, at a fraction of the cost and loss of firepower.

It's amusing that you have the balls to say "this is incontrovertible and not arguable" when the game hasn't even been out for long enough for the proper strategies to be worked out. 280mp/75 fuel is not a small amount of either resource unless you are already winning handily. If you ram a full health stug/panther/PIV, it can be back to 100% in less than a minute, easily. You don't get 280mp and 75 fuel a minute, so how is that a win for the soviet player? The ram can also buy time, which is pretty hard to quantify in terms of fuel and manpower, but its not so cut and dry that you should act like you've figured it all out. The dynamic of ramming changes a lot on 2v2 and it becomes a lot more powerful, obviously.

But just for fun lets look at your evidence:

This because a)economically the cost of your disabled t34 is more equitable than the cost of the rammed armor
You'll need to back this up by showing replays where tanks that the t34 rams die. Otherwise you have to quantify the value of temporarily disabling a vehicle in exchange for (more likely than not) permanently losing a T34. To me, that's rather situational.

b) the firepower outout of the rammed vehicle is greater than what you lose in the disabled t34.
But the T34 is always immobilized and main-gunned, while sometimes the other vehicle is not. So this is not always true.


I just laugh when people ram my tanks without any way to finish them off.


I do like Hissys suggestion of stronger hand held AT. I'd like to see some bazookas somewhere.

While it's not a fun mechanic to play against (see treadbreak) if it's done to a full health panzer it's a waste unless that's the german players only AT AND you can kill the tank or tick the VPs in the meantime.

I haven't seen an immobilize crit from a ram since beta opened up again, donno if that was changed. But as it stands unless you are ramming an out of position tank the T34 is more likely to die than the Ostheer player's vehicle, because the 34 is immobilized and doesn't have much HP to start with. All it does is buy time unless you've also set up a flank on the tank you are ramming, in which case you sorta earned the kill.

Ram could be removed if cost of russian AT gun was made something like 300.

Build more MG bunkers. I agree it feels difficult but just build more bunkers and it will feel less difficult. They protect a pak better than an MG or a gren does. That being said I think versus multiple med tanks you are basically required to have a pak and a shrek'd PG.

The flame HT is the infantry killing t2 vehicle, but it's expensive muni wise and w/o vet dies quickly.. you have to get t3 or the pIV command tank for a real strong AI platform.

Should be in your e-mail that you got from the relic2servertest e-mail bot. Just search "relic" in your e-mail.