[1.2 balance]Tiger imbalance issue... [Archive]

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

20th Sep 06, 10:27 PM

Ok, the other night me and a few friends were playing a 3vs3.

We were doing pretty nicely.. that is until the german side decided to go tigers.

Our whole team combined had 10 shermans, several infantry units and 3 pershings. My two buds were on the topside of the map, and I was across the river on the bottom side. I had 3 shermans and 2 pershings, my friends had 7 shermans and 1 pershing combined.

They roled on us with 4 tigers, 3 panzers and 2 panthers in support and we couldnt do crap about it. They simply plowed right through any defenses we had, then continued to plow through our tanks. We tried sticky bombing, but that only took down a few panzers, pretty much didnt do anything to the tigers (which was our main concern).

After losing our tanks and any defenses we had, we decided to throw AT guns at them, so we did, which didnt do barely anything to the tigers, but we managed to take out the panthers. and yes we used the AP rounds.

As the attack continued, we continued throwing everything at them that we could muster. Offmap help, units etc... and those 4 tigers just seemed to pretty much destroy anything we through at them. Until finally there was a slight breakthrough where one of my pershings somehow destroyed one of the tigers and badly damaged another before being completely destroyed itself. After that we were so low on resources we couldnt do anything and the 3 remaining tigers were able to destroy all our bases.

All in all, 4 tigers lasted against a total of 15 shermans, 6 pershings, 3 calliope's, several riflemen with stickies, and at least 6 AT guns.

Im not saying we threw all this at them at once, it was a long fight. They kept moving slowly and we couldnt stop them.

Afterwards me and my buds decided to do some balance tests on a separate private game.

I have here a inbalance video of a half health tiger destroying a full veterency pershing on equal ground... which in my case, shouldnt have happened.

Watch as the Tiger with half health obliterates a full veterency, full health Pershing. This doesn't make alot of sense at all.

Tigver VS Pershing (http://jawsmaps.urldownload.com/COH%20inbalance%20issues/Pershing%20vs%20tiger.wmv)

Copy the link to see vid, this forum doesnt allow url's for some odd strange reason.

My biggest (and really, only) big issue with this game is tank spam (especially on the Nazi side of the game). I have no problem with asymetric balance, but this is rediculous. The Tiger costs 1000 manpower and comes with a squad of stormtroopers that are worth 400mp alone. In essence, the tank costs 600 manpower. The Pershing, however, costs 900 manpower and comes with no infantry support, and it is only acessible through 1 command tree, rather than the 2 command tree's from which the Germans can acquire Tigers.

My proposition is to balance the price in some way. The Tiger with infantry reservers could cost 1100-1300 manpower and 150-200 fuel. The pershing could remain 900 manpower and cost 150-175 fuel.

My issue comes from the fact that off-map armor can be constantly spammed because it causes no penalty to one's fuel reserves.

I really love this game, but I want to see the unrealistic and unskilled tactics go. This is one of the only things holding this game back from what it truly could be. I understand that you guys have to keep a level of fun in this game. But when your full health full veterency pershing loses to a lvl 2 veterency half health tiger... something has to change.

TheDeadlyShoe

20th Sep 06, 10:35 PM

Border Patrol

20th Sep 06, 10:58 PM

massed wolverines do particularily well against big tanks, as their main purpose is to be spammed, and can be spammed easily if youre airbourne
EDIT: try a 3v1 on a tiger(!!!!!!!WITH FLANKING!!!!!!!!!) and see the tiger get destroyed

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

20th Sep 06, 10:59 PM

It's difficult to take out supported tigers cost effectively. Mainly, you need AT guns in every fight, or local superiority, or to hit them with artillery.

Pershings never have been quite up to par with upgraded Tigers in a head on fight. They can beat them but they have to be lucky. Pershing's main benefit is a damn good gun. You also should have exploited the Tiger's inferior maneuverability and outran his turret. Finally, of course, using Allied War Machine or Field Repairs helps a lot in extended campaigns.

Massed Tigers are vulnerable to calliope fire in particular.

Not so. I used 3 calliope's against his tigers, and yes they did do some dmg, but he either backed out or got away before the full effect could make its due.

Couldnt use field repairs or allied war machine at all, the map we were on really sucked for munitions and fuel, so it took a long time to build anything up, so as soon as you lost it your pretty much screwed.

Seing as how the pershing was nicknamed the tiger killer in WW2 ... it definately doesnt fit its name in this game. Also according to several history sources, the pershing utilized the slanted armor advancement in WW2, which gave it alot more survivability against enemy tanks, unless of course it was flanked.

Like I said I know you have to keep a level of fun in the game, but you also need to have at least some sort of balance and realism. You cant really outrun a tiger turret when its supported by panzers and panthers. My main point in this thread is that the german tanks are too overpowered.

The m10 tank destroyer or so it is called doesnt do a dang bit of good, and I believe it should be removed from the game until it is fixed. I find if I even try using it against anything the germans throw at me (even a lonely stug) it loses. Its supposedly alot better than a sherman, but I kill alot more enemy armor with a sherman than a m10. The most I get out of using a m10 is to block shots coming in so my shermans can survive longer.

The only two tanks that I find arent that overpowerd on the axis side would be the stug and the panzer IV's. The panther, and the tiger are both too powerful, as you can barely stop them.

I dont know if you noticed, but in my video the pershing had the better veterency in the battle.

The fact is, in this game, building tanks isnt really anything.. you can build them and when they die just pretty much say "oh well.. ill just build another". There has to be some sort of thing that can be added to make the tanks seem more valuable to the player. So you dont just have people constantly spamming tanks nd throwing them downt he drain.

Border Patrol

20th Sep 06, 11:01 PM

if you havent noticed, wolverines are tank killers because tehyre so cheap. theyre cannon fodder with a decent gun. ala, flank the tigers

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

20th Sep 06, 11:06 PM

You dont seem to be understanding this. This wasnt one tiger attacking my base. And in most cases its not one tiger, its at least 2 or more. You cannot flank a tiger when it has support with it such as infantry or panzers or panthers, which is most likely the case most the time. Sure if you could get a tank destroyer vs a tiger in a one on one battle im sure you could flank it no problem, and using its superior speed drive circles around it and eventually kill it.

*edit*

I fixed the broken link also.

ghodan

20th Sep 06, 11:13 PM

Check out this replay:
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=108977&page=1&pp=15

You see a guy killing 6 tigers in a short period.
(Attack from behind....thats the trick)

Border Patrol

20th Sep 06, 11:16 PM

yes, my point exactly, youre never supposed to make A tank, youre supposed to make many many many many tanks, especially wolverines, if he has 6 tanks, you have 15, and thats how it should go

Frosty

20th Sep 06, 11:23 PM

Let me give you some advice:

1) The Pershing has strong frontal armour plating. Use it as a meatshield against enemy Tigers and tanks in general.

2) Kill the weakest enemy tanks first. They are less likely to successfully retreat and you will reduce the enemy's firepower step by step. It will also become easier to flank the Tigers.

3) Experience is power. Your tanks will get at least one experience level per destroyed Panzer. Allied tanks with elite experience level get +50% speed, +50% weapon damage and +50% penetration, effectively doubling their firepower, making a Pershing more fearsome than a Tiger.

lordkosc

20th Sep 06, 11:38 PM

I've found that a well aimed calliope rocket attack can almost take out 2 tigers... Back that up with a few M10s and them tigers are gone!

Rafta

20th Sep 06, 11:46 PM

I'm not that much of a pro and i only played the Beta as CoH isn't released yet in Europe but I always found that Howtizers help a lot as early on defense. You can devast enemy troops from afar without jeopardizing your own units.
The enemy attack reaches your base in a damaged state and can be finished off by AT defense.
As I said at least in Beta Teamgames it helped a lot.

Mac_Bug

20th Sep 06, 11:55 PM

Did you upgrade sherman guns? Did you use allied war machine? Did you pop smoke? Did your tank units even have veterancy?

How exactly did you do 'nicely' when the axis players can crank out the same amount of units in the same amount of time, AND manage to not use them until they decided to?

I really don't think facing enemy tanks head on was the point. Axis tanks have thicker armor, and they all come upgraded by then, so you should definitely try things like flanking. The fact that all three of you went for tank doctrine is a mistake in itself - you almost always need someone to provide artillery support, either in the forms of bombing run or howitzers, and/or AT guns. If you find yourself with the numerical advantage, then you need to use it and go for their base. If you let the axis player save up their forces and then somehow expect to go toe to toe with them, well good luck. You need to be aggressive when you're allied tank commander and not be afraid of using allied war machine when bum rushing their base. You need to deny axis key fuel points and force them to abandon panzers in favor of things liek stugs.

lordkosc

20th Sep 06, 11:55 PM

Yeah but if one of them didn't go infantry they won't have howlies...

Someguy

20th Sep 06, 11:56 PM

It seems like it was pretty late into the game though. Tank spam is to be expected. Did the axis players research up to elite tanks? They take 15 percent less damage and 25 percent less penetration (based on Gamereplay.org's veterancy guide).

Rafta

20th Sep 06, 11:58 PM

Yeah but if one of them didn't go infantry they won't have howlies...
I think a good team mixes up all needs, so all going tank commander for example isn't smart in my eyes.

CptStrombosis

21st Sep 06, 12:00 AM

If you lost that many shermans. None of you used smoke properly. With smoke and a few engies and AT guns, you can stop just about any tank rush. Smoke also costs only 50 munitions (much better investment than colliope rockets against tigers). Use the smoke to flank them and surround them. The M10 also does great against Tigers. Micro is your friend, if you can't understand the absolute importance of flanking (It was a city map aswell wasn't it?) then you shouldn't be whining about balance. Tigers are cake to kill from behind, and their turrets can't turn fast enough if you micro a wolverine right.

I don't intend this to sound mean. If it does, sorry. I play allies most often and have yet to run across a tiger that's been "IMBA". Sure I lose, however I've never looked back on the situation and thought "Hmmm, I couldn't have won that!". 1000 mp = 3 AT guns. Surround a tiger with them, it's a sitting duck.

Also, if it's the map I'm thinking of. You should probably have invested in a mortar crew or 2, so you could drop smoke for free. Smoke is the key to winning against axis armor mass. Box them in with cheap M10's and bombing run/arty them if you have too.

The map is the one with 2 people on one side of the river and 4 on the other side with 4 bridges crossing the river. With a large urban area in the center, right?

lordkosc

21st Sep 06, 12:02 AM

Someguy

21st Sep 06, 12:04 AM

Smoke actually decreases the accuracy of enemy tanks. Cheap and useful.

CptStrombosis

21st Sep 06, 12:04 AM

I really think smoke sucks, I mean come on, its a freaking tank in a smoke cloud and you miss it? When the enemy does that I fire off my walking stuka on his location and he moves out of the smoke cloud, it gives me satisfaction he wasted ammo on the smoke cloud that did nothing

Well the stuka isn't particularly effective as an anti vehicle measure. Also, the point of the smoke is to have the tiger miss your lead tank while the others circle around. Not for you to sit there and slug it out.

lordkosc

21st Sep 06, 12:15 AM

Well the stuka isn't particularly effective as an anti vehicle measure.

You would think that ,but every game I've done it, they other guys ALWAYS moves out of that area...

CptStrombosis

21st Sep 06, 12:19 AM

You would think that ,but every game I've done it, they other guys ALWAYS moves out of that area...

That's a noob mistake. Even with the tightest circle you will only get maybe half damage off a sherman if you are very lucky. So I wouldn't back out of the smoke to face the wrath of a tiger just to avoid a few stuka rockets.

Though, I did have 5 Stuka's on a 4v4 map. Those are just deadly in mass.

Phazon

21st Sep 06, 12:21 AM

If anything, the Tiger is underpowered. Its cannon does not do as much damage as it should against enemy armour.

DeadPan

21st Sep 06, 12:25 AM

Who is going to have the population room for 15 of those?

lordkosc

21st Sep 06, 12:25 AM

If anything, the Tiger is underpowered. Its cannon does not do as much damage as it should against enemy armour.

Yeah that topic been beaten to death... I doubt anything will change... :rip:

Who is going to have the population room for 15 of those?

well in a 4 vs 4 , it should be easy to field 15 M10s

stopgap

21st Sep 06, 12:42 AM

I agree with phazon history wise, but in game i like tigers as is... although if you havent been pressuring well its not fun to see that tiger, at which point you say. Oops

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 12:49 AM

Didn't anyone notice the tiger in the video was also fully upgraded? It had THREE white stars there, and the half HP tiger BARELY won the full health pershing. I think that's ok, considering the fame tigers won all these years.

CptStrombosis

21st Sep 06, 1:10 AM

I think Tigers are perfect right now. If they are nerfed, I honestly wont bother making them. As it stands, they are slow lumbering giants. Sticky bombs are pretty much a death sentance if you take out the engine (Which isn't hard). It's a good damage sponge but Panzer4's or panthers are still my workhorses. Even if I have the MP for Tigers.

Baffel

21st Sep 06, 2:03 AM

I agree that the tigers might be a little too powerful... I havent used the M26 though, I usually stick to infantry.

I did have a 4 on 2 fight with 4 shermans vs 1 tiger and 1 stug. Didnt go so well, came up from the rear with the upgraded sherman guns and fired at the Tiger trying to do as much damage as I could before he turned it around. After a few shots I put 1 Sherman on the stug to get its gun out of the way. Didnt go so well, the stug died and the tiger masacred the shermans.

After that I had time to get 2 AT guns out of my base before the tiger got there, the first one only got 1 shot off, the second didnt last much longer after that.

Busby

21st Sep 06, 3:21 AM

Every time I see a Allied tank going nose to nose in a Tiger or what ether, and then some one complains they lose, I die a little on the inside.

Before you complain that something is to powerful, make sure your using all your advantages. This means using high speed to get behind the Tigers and circle them to keep hitting the rear armor.

Panzer ag

21st Sep 06, 3:35 AM

The only tank that could take out a Tiger strate on was a russian tank IS-2.

GeneralGonzo

21st Sep 06, 3:45 AM

But it can´t be the mechanic of the game, that you have to micro and circle around the tiger with shermans like a dancing devil !
In addition to that, Shermans are too expensive and need too long to build compared with the fast deploy of tigers.
Something has to be done here.

TheDeadlyShoe

21st Sep 06, 3:49 AM

For competitive balance, yes. That turret is s l o w. It was that way in real life too. If you want to defeat tigers head on, you'll need economic superiority, or AT guns, or judicious use of smoke. If shermans are too expensive, use M10s.

Druidika

21st Sep 06, 6:01 AM

Moving to balance and strategy forum.

Viper114

21st Sep 06, 6:25 AM

Tiger underpowered? The last thing I want to see is something as tough as a Tiger running around causing damage like an 88 from the Defensive Doctrine.

Albi

21st Sep 06, 7:02 AM

watch the video again and carefully.

The Tigers shell that hit the Shing richoshes (spelling?) into the air and come back down onto the Shing causing a secondary hit.

52 second mark.

It was only luck that won that for the Tiger + you were taking it on front on.

Mirage Knight

21st Sep 06, 7:13 AM

The Tiger also appeared to have full veterancy...

RatchetPrime

21st Sep 06, 7:47 AM

The Tiger also appeared to have full veterancy...

Well, the Pershing was of full veterancy as well.

Its pretty obvious from this video that the Pershing tank needs to be modified. The frontal armor needs to work just like the Tiger front armor, in that it needs to mitigate more damage.

The first 20 or so posts of this thread showed that the users didnt even watch the video....

The real question is, is it *supposed* to be balanced that way?

If these stats are correct, here are some links:

Tiger:
http://planetcoh.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Units.Detail&id=14

Pershing:
http://planetcoh.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Units.Detail&id=33

Crushingleeek

21st Sep 06, 10:40 AM

In no way can the frontal pershing armor be compared to that of the tiger's. Watching that tiger vs. Pershing clip, I think it was well-balanced, reflecting that a tiger could indeed wipe out a Pershing, even if originally damaged. The one thing American forces learned very quickly during WWII was to never, ever fight a tiger head-on. They just didn't do that, it did not work. The Pershing, despite its powerful gun, still was no match for a tiger 1v1.

If there are imbalance issues, they should be addressed only in prices, not by adjusting strength of units. I agree that tanks need to be made more valuable, so players do not have the "oh, I'll just buy another tank" mentality....unless your American of course.:clap:

six7

21st Sep 06, 11:29 AM

I have no problem with good Tigers. I also have no problem with good Tigers beating a Pershing. But that late in a game, the tigers are so cheap. They only cost 1000 manpower and 400 of that manpower is from the stormtroopers. All off map tank support should cost fuel. I know that when I am Axis and lose a Tiger late in game, I just shrug it off and say "Oh well, only 1000 manpower...". Manpower is not that hard to acquire, especially on bigger maps. I have found that in the time it takes a good enemy to kill my Tiger, I can afford 1 more as well as a Panther.

Also if you want to get on about historical accuracy, the Pershing and the Panther were both better than the tiger. The pershing fielded a very long 90mm cannon, and the Panther's sloped armor and speed were far superior to that of the Tiger.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

21st Sep 06, 11:34 AM

Ty ratchet, I see your post is the only one making any sense in this thread so far.

Like I said in my original post. We were doing balance tests with units on equal ground w/o cover, and w/o micromanaging just to test out the overall strength of units. We started with INF and went all the way up the tree of units and finished out with tanks.

Things we found during this was:

Allied infantry is much better vs axis INF in certain cases.
Axis puma is alot better than the allied greyhound when it has the upgraded cannon. W/o it, it barely does any dmg to the greyhound.
Axis tanks overall are much stronger than allied tanks. One test I didnt show that we did was panzer vs sherman, open combat, with upgraded gun. And found that the panzer comes out on top, just barely though.

Anyway, to the rest of you guys from the first 2 pages... watch the video.

Yes we had upgraded sherman guns, yes we had smoke. The problems were on the map that there was horrible munitions and you couldnt really use smoke that often, or anthing else requiring munitions for that matter.

Me and my clanmates are no n00bs. It takes alot to completely destroy us when we are playing together. This loss was simply due to balance issues.

LIke I tried explaining in the first part. This large number of units were not all thrown at the enemy attack all at once, we simply didnt have all of it when they attacked. Like I also said, the battle was very very long so it was strewn out. So overall yes we threw that many units at them with no rewards. So this wasnt a matter of our skill, or how we attacked. It was a matter of the axis tanks being too overpowered. The panther (not so much) and the tiger (< really the problem).

Craeshen

21st Sep 06, 11:42 AM

The pershing could have also won it by backing the fack up. Look at the pentration numbers on the tigers gun. In the video they were effectively fighting from short range where they both get full pentration. by backing up too medium range the pershing wins because of higher penetration.

Also all of the tigers veterancy upgrades reduces damaged or are aimed at making it tougherr too kill.

Cpt. Digicat

21st Sep 06, 11:46 AM

Does it not make sense that off map reinforcements only cost manpower? Your field command is not paying for that tanks production nor fueling...
Just the man power to run it.

so actually, if you look at it that way, it all makes sense.
If by then your opponenet is bringing that out anyway, then you must have messed up somewhere, ya?

Busby

21st Sep 06, 11:55 AM

The Perishing could of won by moving behind the Tiger Craeshen.

I said it before and I say it again, head to head, front armor to front armor, the Tiger will kill all Allied tanks. However, Allied tanks can easily get behind Tigers and M-10s and Shermans can even out run the turret.

I swear the next person that suggests nerfing the Tigers in any direct way (off map call-ins are very cheap), they are getting slapped with a trout.

Boomstar

21st Sep 06, 12:27 PM

Gotta love how both tanks just sat there not maneuvering at all that video only proves that testing things like this was starcraft gets you no where.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

21st Sep 06, 12:34 PM

You guys seem to be getting at that my clanmates and I are noobs. This is not the case, the three guys out of our very big clan who play COH currently all have amazing records.

Our current records for the full release are:
Me- 18-1
Six- 12-1
Darkstar- 4-1 < would be more but he was having troubles with his record in the early stages of the game.

Our beta records were far greater before we went to full version and are as follows:
Me- 59-12
Six- 35-4
Crawley- 27-2
Dangchang- 85-20
cent- 10-1 <didnt play much
Darkstar- 25-5
Szarko- 45-4

All records are in Wins-Losses format. So as you can see we are not a bunch of noobs. Im not trying to brag about our clan being good. Im trying to get the point straight across that the tigers are a little overpowered and the offmap support (heavy tanks) should cost some fuel to balance it out. that way when someone goes and buys a tiger/pershing/calliope he just doesnt throw it away thinking *oh well ill just use another 1000/900/600 MP and get a new one when it dies.

Gotta love how both tanks just sat there not maneuvering at all that video only proves that testing things like this was starcraft gets you no where.

You still dont get it do you? when you balance test units. You dont micro manage them, you throw them at each other and see who comes out on top. This is to test the overall strength of the unit. The video fully proves that the tiger is overpowered. You dont use cover (for infantry) and you dont use flanking manuevers (for tanks) you simply place them in front of each other and let them attack.

Busby

21st Sep 06, 12:37 PM

*Slaps [Deuce4]Jawbrkr with a wet trout, multiple times.

Nephalite

21st Sep 06, 1:34 PM

Starfisher

21st Sep 06, 1:47 PM

RatchetPrime

21st Sep 06, 1:54 PM

The proof is sitting right there in the video of the Tiger vs a Pershing in CoH.

There really is nothing to disbute here. The video speaks for itself. The only thing left is for a mod or a dev to comment on the balance... which he just did by editing his post.

I dont really think that people would be very impressed with a comment on a Pershing that read:

"Good vs Tanks.. if it always gets behind the tank to shoot it"

Frosty

21st Sep 06, 1:58 PM

Let's just say that the Tiger should be the most powerful tank in the game, which it currently is. While i think that it's armour is too good and it's cannon is too weak, the unbalanced factor is it's cost. No fuel cost and it comes with a squad of stormtroopers ... What the hell?

Nightmare

21st Sep 06, 2:00 PM

Despite all the Tiger’s success and king tiger for that matter it was ultimately a foolish and poorly though out design. One of the major problems with the tiger was its being extremely hard to repair since their was really no standardized mold for creating one. Furthermore repair in the field or during combat was all but impossible with such a ridiculously complex design this also caused the Tiger to break down a great deal of the time for no apparent reason. Mechanical failure was possibly the Tigers biggest flaw according to analysts for everyone Sherman that was lost due to mechanical failure the Germans lost ten.

The Germans made the Tiger more like a work of art then a weapon of war a great flaw indeed. By historical accounts 4 M4s could over come a Tiger with little trouble. Exceptionally skilled tank commanders like Lieutenant Colonel Creighton Abrams and Sergeant Lafayette Poole were able to destroy dozens of German tanks despite the M4’s inferiority in armor and weapons. The Majority of M4 loses were actually to mines and Infantry AT crews. While the vast majority of Tigers, King Tigers, and Panthers were utterly obliterated by American air-superiority.

That being said the major problem I have with game balance is the cost of unit production.

FootKnight

21st Sep 06, 2:01 PM

You still dont get it do you? when you balance test units. You dont micro manage them, you throw them at each other and see who comes out on top. This is to test the overall strength of the unit. The video fully proves that the tiger is overpowered. You dont use cover (for infantry) and you dont use flanking manuevers (for tanks) you simply place them in front of each other and let them attack.

That makes no sense for CoH. A big advantage of Shermans and M10s is thier quickness and manuverability, not to mention smoke launchers for Shermans. You can't just not take that stuff into account at all went testing them. Just sitting 2 units in front of each other and slugging it out without using any special attacks or superior manuverability is a competely useless test.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

21st Sep 06, 2:09 PM

Quick facts about the tiger that show the reason it is a such a monster in the game

This is about the mobility

Much have been said about the Tiger's maneuverability, that the Tiger was a "lumbering monster", or that "it could barely move", but the truth is that it is all myth. The Tiger I was very maneuverable for its weight and size, and superior to the Sherman in muddy terrain, despite its size and weight. Tigers, like all German tanks, used regenerative steering, hydraulically operated - the separate tracks could be turned in opposite directions at the same time, so the Tiger I could neutral steer (pivoting in place) , and completely turn around in a distance of 3.44 meters (11.28ft). This used to take by surprise many unlucky enemy crews! Also, the reality is that the Tiger I was not slow at all: The Panzer IV road speed was 40 km/h. Cross country speed was 20 km/h. The Panzer III (Ausf E to N) road speed was 40 km/h. Cross country speed was 18 km/h. The Tiger I road speed was 38 km/h. Cross country speed was 20 km/h.

About the armour
The armor of the Tiger I was not well sloped, but it was thick. Here is where many fail to understand that, in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness is a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor. The quality of the armor was another major asset of the Tiger I, and it can't be emphasized enough that the Tiger I was a very special kind of Panzer, since it had the best quality of everything, compared to any other German tank. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. The Tiger I's armor was much superior to that of, for example the Panther, which armor had a much higher Brinell index, and consequently, was very brittle. The Tiger, as a side effect from the usage of this special armor, also was a very expensive and resource consuming tank. The nominal cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In contrast, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios.

Some interesting facts

On July 7th of 1943, single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharfuehrer Franz Staudegger from 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Panzer Grenadier Division "LSSAH" engaged Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (southern sector of the Kursk salient). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying some 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross.

On August 8th of 1944, single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharfuehrer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition. sSSPzAbt 102 lost all of its Tigers during fighting in Normandy but reported 227 Allied tanks destroyed during the period of 6 weeks.

and on aces for tigers

Over 10 Tiger tank commanders had over 100 kills on their account, including: Johannes Bölter with 139+ Kills, Otto Carius with 150+ Kills, Kurt Knispel with 168 Kills, and Michael Wittmann with 138 Kills.

You sir need to research your history more.

Your stories on these german commanders who supposedly took out so many tanks seem a little farfetched. It could have happened, it couldnt have.. who knows. But I dont forsee one tiger desetroying 22 t-34 tanks. The 14 shermans are iffy as well. First off, who would be dumb enough to run a single tank against that many enemy tanks? Like I said, it could have happened, it couldnt have. Who knows.

The tiger was very slow in combat. Sure it might have a really nice cruise speed of 38 Km/h. But heres what you fail to see. Battles with tanks were not fought on roads in WW2, most tank battles were fought on hard terrain where the tank was not able to go its full cruising speed. The tiger 1 with its heavy armor and slow turret speed was very very vulnerable in combat. It would get bogged down most the time in heavy rubble/mudd/terrain. The tiger was so big it would often get into places that it couldnt get out of very easily.

The sherman had around the same cruising speed, it had a factor of .5 greater k/h than the tiger. Not much of a difference. But in heavy combat terrain it excelled. Main reasons being it had a light gun, and light armor and was able to manuever alot better. The sherman was small and light. Which made it fast in combat situations. Yes it was more vulnerable. But in great numbers the sherman was a strong attack force. It would simply manuever around the tiger if possible keeping ahead of its turret and disable the tank. The shermans hardly ever fully destroyed a tiger tank. A shermans objective when encountering a tiger tank was to manuever around it and try its best to disable it in some way shape or form. Such as engine dmg, track dmg, or even gun dmg. This would disable the tank leaving it helpless allowing different soldiers to come in and finish the job.

Yes tigers were hard to stop in WW2 but they werent impossible to stop.

So my point stands. The tigers are slightly overpowered.

One suggestion I had. IS when a tank has a destroyed engine, this means it can no longer move unless repaired. Although in game when a tank gets a destroyed engine it barely moves. I think the tank shouldnt be allowed to move at all. Ive had several times where a tank ive hit has a destroyed engine but gets away and comes back to kill again.

Starfisher

21st Sep 06, 2:13 PM

They are slightly overpowered from a historical point of view, which is utterly irrelevant when considering game balance. From a game point of view, you have not established a strong case for balance or imbalance.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

21st Sep 06, 2:18 PM

That makes no sense for CoH. A big advantage of Shermans and M10s is thier quickness and manuverability, not to mention smoke launchers for Shermans. You can't just not take that stuff into account at all went testing them. Just sitting 2 units in front of each other and slugging it out without using any special attacks or superior manuverability is a competely useless test.

Im not testing a sherman vs a tiger in frontal combat. I would have to be an idiot to do that. Im testing the so called tiger killer against a tiger to see who comes out on top. According to history the pershing had a higher survivibility rate than the tiger due to its advanced armor and increased power to its cannon. This is why the tiger and the pershing are facing off one on one on level ground face to face. If you havent noticed by now, when you play this game, you only really get to micro 2-3 tanks at a time.. maybe 4 if your really good at it. So you cant micro all your tanks at once if you have 6 or more. I dont see how you guys cant see the facts right in front of you. A full veteran pershing with full health loses to a half health lvl 2 veterency tiger. If the tiger had higher health I wouldnt have had much of a problem with it.

Rambocop

21st Sep 06, 2:25 PM

Jawbrkr']You sir need to research your history more.

Your stories on these german commanders who supposedly took out so many tanks seem a little farfetched. It could have happened, it couldnt have.. who knows. But I dont forsee one tiger desetroying 22 t-34 tanks. The 14 shermans are iffy as well. First off, who would be dumb enough to run a single tank against that many enemy tanks? Like I said, it could have happened, it couldnt have. Who knows.

Err, wtf is this? You say "you need to research more because i think it happened another way"? History research versus "i say this feels iffy"? You, sir, need to be less arrogant!! :p

One suggestion I had. IS when a tank has a destroyed engine, this means it can no longer move unless repaired. Although in game when a tank gets a destroyed engine it barely moves. I think the tank shouldnt be allowed to move at all. Ive had several times where a tank ive hit has a destroyed engine but gets away and comes back to kill again.

I have noticed that as well, seems more like a gameplay thing. No point anyway, as it takes only one shot to finish them off (but see my post here (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=109196)) unless they finished you off first. It is the same for both sides, so no big deal. A support group should be around anyway ;).
(http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=109196)

FootKnight

21st Sep 06, 2:29 PM

Jawbrkr']Im not testing a sherman vs a tiger in frontal combat. I would have to be an idiot to do that. Im testing the so called tiger killer against a tiger to see who comes out on top. According to history the pershing had a higher survivibility rate than the tiger due to its advanced armor and increased power to its cannon. This is why the tiger and the pershing are facing off one on one on level ground face to face. If you havent noticed by now, when you play this game, you only really get to micro 2-3 tanks at a time.. maybe 4 if your really good at it. So you cant micro all your tanks at once if you have 6 or more. I dont see how you guys cant see the facts right in front of you. A full veteran pershing with full health loses to a half health lvl 2 veterency tiger. If the tiger had higher health I wouldnt have had much of a problem with it.
What I said was actually just an example of how your tests of 2 units facing each other slugging it out is crap. I never said you were testing Shermans and M10s against Tigers.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

21st Sep 06, 2:32 PM

Not always the case, ive destroyed an enemy tanks engine about half health down, but lost the tank that destroyed it before i could finish the job.

Err, wtf is this? You say "you need to research more because i think it happened another way"? History research versus "i say this feels iffy"? You, sir, need to be less arrogant!!

I didnt say you needed to research more because I think it happened a different way. If you can provide evidence to these stories I am willing to believe them. But right now they seem like a few stories made up to make your point come across. And the fact that I have never heard of such a story in history. EVER. I have heard of some tiger 1's taking down up to 5 shermans at a time, but thats it. havent heard of a single tiger 1 tank killing over 22 t-36 tanks. Maybe if the tiger had extra support, sure. But alone it seems highly unlikely (and once again I stress I havent heard of it)

Starfisher

21st Sep 06, 2:34 PM

Nephalite

21st Sep 06, 2:39 PM

You sir need to research your history more.

Your stories on these german commanders who supposedly took out so many tanks seem a little farfetched. It could have happened, it couldnt have.. who knows. But I dont forsee one tiger desetroying 22 t-34 tanks. The 14 shermans are iffy as well. First off, who would be dumb enough to run a single tank against that many enemy tanks? Like I said, it could have happened, it couldnt have. Who knows.

It is historical fact. Those are the more believable ones there is even more unbelieveable recounts that are recorded in history that took place at the battle of Kursk the largest armour battle in history. Another thing to remember about the german army is their belief was Superior technology and Superior training is what would win wars. Our sherman tank was the vastly inferior tank in world war II when compared to russian, british and german tanks.Also to note all tigers armour were lined with zimmerit which prevent magnetic mines aka sticky bombs from sticking on to them they would of simply slide off.

As to game balance you are right historical recap vs game balance should not be an issue at all I just get pissed when people say according to history and they have no idea what the hell they are talking about.

Busby

21st Sep 06, 2:43 PM

*Busby begins beating [Deuce4]Jawbrkr to death with a wet trout.

Look all your showing us is one, what we already know, and two, is irrelevant in real games anyway.

Nephalite

21st Sep 06, 2:44 PM

I find it funny that you are telling me to bring fact to the table when speaking about history I have given you the tank commanders name the date and location of where it took place what more do you need? pictures and a video?

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 2:57 PM

A full veteran pershing with full health loses to a half health lvl 2 veterency tiger. If the tiger had higher health I wouldnt have had much of a problem with it.
Like me and the other guy said, it's not a lv2 veterancy tiger. it's fully upgraded in the video, and it barely won. so a pershing MIGHT won a lv2 half hp tiger.(i didn't test it so i didn't know).

A few things i like to say:
i dont think is a good way to ask other to "do more research" when you dont have any proof to counter what he says. You cannot do that when you simply find the facts *hard to believe*. Did you ever notice that the ace pilot in german got much more kills than their allied conterpart? That's because they got no replacement, they had to fight until they couldn't.(well this means they are not necessarily better than the allied ace, or the german planes are better, but the fact, the number, is just like that)

in games like starcraft, distance or facing don't make any difference. It's different here. so i would suggest you test how it goes when a pershing hit a tiger from behind/side. And in starcraft you dont test dragoons head on against siege mode tanks(in that case tank in siege mode will be OP, but the truth is not like that). And in this game, head on combat is the best part of the tiger, so i think the test is just not that valid as you think.

I am not sure but i think take out the weakest enemy tank seems to be a good way when meeting a tank group leading by tigers, but in your original post, i think you focus your fire on the tiger first and later began to take out panzers. the order may make a difference?

Rambocop

21st Sep 06, 3:02 PM

Jawbrkr']I didnt say you needed to research more because I think it happened a different way. If you can provide evidence to these stories I am willing to believe them. But right now they seem like a few stories made up to make your point come across.

That sounds much better, but sadly they are not my stories, reply to the other guy :).

Here is a quick paste from Wikipedia that shows that the Tiger, like Starfisher pointed out, works exactly as it should in the game:

The Tiger's armour and firepower, however, were feared by all its opponents. In tactical defence, its poor mobility was less of an issue. Whereas Panthers had been the more serious threat to the allied tanks, Tigers had a bigger psychological effect on Allied crews, causing a "Tiger hysteria". Allied crews would sometimes evade rather than confront Tigers, even if a tank only looked like one, such as the Panzer IV with turret skirts applied. In the Normandy campaign, it could take four to five Shermans to knock out a single Tiger tank by maneuvering to its weaker flank or rear armor; the Soviet T-34s fared similarly against the German tanks, as had the German PzIII earlier against the Soviet heavy tanks. An accepted Allied tactic was to engage the Tiger as a group, one attracting the attention of the Tiger crew while the others attacked the sides or rear of the vehicle. Since the ammunition and fuel were stored in the sponsons, a side penetration often resulted in a kill. This was, however, a risky tactic, and often resulted in the loss of several Allied vehicles. It took a great deal of tactical skill to eliminate Tiger units.

Tigers were usually employed in separate heavy tank battalions under Army command. These battalions would be deployed to critical sectors, either for breakthrough operations or, more typically, counterattacks. A few favored divisions, such as the Grossdeutschland or some of the low-numbered Waffen-SS divisions had a handful of Tigers.

About historical accuracy vs gameplay:

History is not irrelevant - not in this game.

If, for balancing reasons, you end up with Tiger tanks that can be produced in numbers but can be taken out by Jeeps, your game will S U C K (feel free to convert it to a fantasy universe though :)).

The Tiger is there to be feared and dominate everything else. It is also rather hard to get if the allies are keeping pressure on you - that's very realistic and enjoyable in a game. By the time that your Tiger - or the maximum allowed of 2 Tigers - arrives, the battlefield should be full of all kinds of anti-tank weapons.

Anyway, history should not be the primary consideration when balancing a game, or the game would end up about as enjoyable as real war!. However it does set some hard lines that you should never ever cross, or you risk ruining the game experience. The art of historical game making (speaking as a consumer/gamer here!) lies in balancing realism and history with enjoyable gameplay. I'd say that CoH does this pretty well as a whole, as it is one of the two best RTSs i have played in a good long while now :).

FootKnight

21st Sep 06, 3:10 PM

It is historical fact. Those are the more believable ones there is even more unbelieveable recounts that are recorded in history that took place at the battle of Kursk the largest armour battle in history. Another thing to remember about the german army is their belief was Superior technology and Superior training is what would win wars. Our sherman tank was the vastly inferior tank in world war II when compared to russian, british and german tanks.Also to note all tigers armour were lined with zimmerit which prevent magnetic mines aka sticky bombs from sticking on to them they would of simply slide off.

As to game balance you are right historical recap vs game balance should not be an issue at all I just get pissed when people say according to history and they have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
Sticky bombs did not use magnets.

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 3:11 PM

i do remember sth about a tiger took out about 20 sovit tanks. It seemed that the tiger happened to come across a group of t-34s that were having a rest(some, if not all, crew were OUT of the tanks and having dinner or sth like that). Tiger rushed in and began to kill. I dont remember how the t-34 crew reacted(it seemed that they had no idea how many tigers are there), but i think it's possible to kill a good hand of rioting t-34s

Demon_Eyes

21st Sep 06, 3:20 PM

Sticky bombs used axel grease or tar, whatever sticky coating they could find, though from what I recall they were a last ditch type of IED used to disable tracks/roadwheels/engines on german armor in urban area's where they could close distance. The tiger works pretty well in game considering its cost and overall capabilities, I do think the sturmtruppen shouldn't be a part of the deployment however.

Spiral

21st Sep 06, 3:24 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't tiger tanks ~1000 manpower?

So you should have ~3.3 AT guns for each of his tanks. So if they have 4 tigers, you should be expected to have ~14 antitank guns. You cant just send in AT guns one at a time either, you gotta make a big hit and kill a tank so they can't repair.

Vicious_CB

21st Sep 06, 3:30 PM

3 AT guns or even 2 means big trouble for a tiger.

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 3:50 PM

i dont think 1 tiger=3.3 AT guns, b/c when you build AT guns, you always put some of them at some other places. Or, say, i think it's ok to march all your tanks together, but i dont think it's viable to put all your AT guns together to attack/defense. They're just too slow to use that way. so basically i dont agree with the what-u-can-do-with-1kmp idea.

Taking about resources, i just do a little calculation: 4 tiger + 2 panther + 3 panzer = 6510 mp 520 fuel 104 popcap, 3 pershing + 10 sherman = 6900 mp 900 fuel 122 popcap. For that data(and the result of the battle), i would say pershing is overpriced.
a few more things: i dont know about the timing, because Jawbrkr said they had two groups. So if they did/didn't attact at the same time, the result may vary. And Doctrine abilities are supposed to be a big advantage to both sides, but you didn't take as much(how will the battle end if you guys have 4 or 5 pershing and 6 or 7 sherman, i wonder. and i agree taking the resource into consideration, pershing should act better)

Demon_Eyes

21st Sep 06, 3:52 PM

Also good to remember that 3 tigers also means 3 sturmtruppen, so you actually need an AT gun and HMG or riflemen squad with BAR per tiger group, that is 570-580mp plus tech/facility costs (can't really calcualte tiger group tech cost since it's a doctrine ability).

Busby

21st Sep 06, 3:56 PM

Yes but Grimsky rember the poster does not seam to think flanking and circling is a valid tactic and has a part in balance.

Spiral

21st Sep 06, 4:02 PM

i dont think 1 tiger=3.3 AT guns, b/c when you build AT guns, you always put some of them at some other places. Or, say, i think it's ok to march all your tanks together, but i dont think it's viable to put all your AT guns together to attack/defense. They're just too slow to use that way. so basically i dont agree with the what-u-can-do-with-1kmp idea.

Er.... you see the tank... you grab your 2-3 AT guns.... you move them into firing range of where the tank is, or is going. It's nobody's fault but your own if your AT guns are out of position.

Also good to remember that 3 tigers also means 3 sturmtruppen, so you actually need an AT gun and HMG or riflemen squad with BAR per tiger group, that is 570-580mp plus tech/facility costs
Ok... so then 4 tigers + 4 stormtroopers, you should still be able to get like 10 AT guns and some anti-infantry of your choice to counter the troopers. 4 tigers is ALOT of resources. Of course you can't instantly build 10 AT guns right when you see his 4 tanks, but if you see any blitzkrieg talents early on you can pretty much guarentee you're going to need anti-tank units.

Noble

21st Sep 06, 4:06 PM

You can only have 2 tigers at a time.

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 4:11 PM

Er.... you see the tank... you grab your 2-3 AT guns.... you move them into firing range of where the tank is, or is going. It's nobody's fault but your own if your AT guns are out of position.

first i was talking about several tanks and 'equivalent' AT guns(sorry if i didn't make that clear). say, 4 tiger and 10 AT guns. tigers come in together. The point is, AT guns are too slow, so usually(i think it's usually) the tigers will met some first then the others(b/c tigers are advancing, they dont wait). in that case, i would say AT guns are not that effective.

Noble

21st Sep 06, 4:13 PM

That case will never arise in a real game. Your AT guns have to be positioned correctly, and protected well. You cant expect them to win just going head to head on an open field.

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 4:20 PM

That case will never arise in a real game. Your AT guns have to be positioned correctly, and protected well. You cant expect them to win just going head to head on an open field.

Well, i am talking about 10AT guns. Unless you position all of them in your base, it's hard to for all of them to meet the marching enemy at the same time. (The enemy can attack your base from either side of the map, or go directly in from centre. How would you place the 10 AT guns to meet all three possibilities with all of them? Since AT guns need to be positions, i think it's ok to presume the tanks is the one to where to attack.)

Noble

21st Sep 06, 4:22 PM

I dont mean to be offensive, but the syntax of your sentances is off, I dont understand what you're saying. You will never see anyone build 10 AT guns.

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 4:33 PM

I dont mean to be offensive, but the syntax of your sentances is off, I dont understand what you're saying. You will never see anyone build 10 AT guns.

sorry for the syntax if it's confusing. 10 AT guns because some1 said the resource of 4 tigers can build 10 AT guns. Like the original poster, i am not talking a 1 vs 1 game. Basically what i mean in my previouse post is, 10 well positioned AT guns are less likely to meet the invading 4 tigers at the same time, which makes the situation favors the tigers.

Since i am not a native speaker of the language, i would appreciate it if you point out which sentense you dont understand. I'll try to change it. thanks in advance

Demon_Eyes

21st Sep 06, 5:16 PM

Well, i am talking about 10AT guns. Unless you position all of them in your base, it's hard to for all of them to meet the marching enemy at the same time. (The enemy can attack your base from either side of the map, or go directly in from centre. How would you place the 10 AT guns to meet all three possibilities with all of them? Since AT guns need to be positions, i think it's ok to presume the tanks is the one to where to attack.)
I belive you meant this:
"I am refering to 10 AT Guns positioning, it is difficult to react to the enemy players movements given the low mobility of AT Guns. The enemy can flank either side or push through the center so how would you place the guns in a way that they could react to this? Since the AT guns need to be in position to fire it would be fair to presume that the tank dictates where the combat takes place."

In reply I would say that you don't even need 10 AT guns, you would need 6 AT guns at the most, keeping them in a mid position behind your front lines, you should have scouts or small squads scouting the areas as well. In the presumed team game scenario an airborne player has access to scout planes to help in determening enemy posturing and movements as well and has the ability to drop AT guns in anticipation of an attack.

The AT guns are slow on the ground but they have a long attack range, if you get a spotter or otherwise have sight on a tank it will allow you to attack from far outside the tanks sight or attack range and keep them protected from infantry by your own infantry. The use of the AP round ability with AT guns greatly reduces axis armor superiority and is really a critical part of any allied strategy, even if you have your own armored units you should have a couple of AT guns either from airborne ability or a allied unit who went motorpool.

TheDeadlyShoe

21st Sep 06, 6:22 PM

examples of how many tanks single tigers killed in ideal circumstances are utterly irrelevant; allied and soviet tanks achieved similar kill ratios under ideal circumstances, even against vaunted german armor.

Alcorr

21st Sep 06, 7:34 PM

History. Is. Irrelevant.

What matters in game balance is game balance, full stop, and your own argument is full of inconsistencies - you claim that the Pershing survival rate was better than that of the tiger without taking into account all the factors that would have determined that survival rate, such as airstrikes and manuevers during combat, and then claim that a test involving one unit firing directly at the other without attempting to manuever or use those mitigating factors indicates an imbalance in the game. This is comparing apples and oranges with sloppy reasoning thrown in.

If you want to prove the Tiger imbalanced, show it being used in such a way that destroys another play of equal skill. So far, you've only shown that it works as intended by the game designers.

What he said: ^^^^

Also:

If you havent noticed by now, when you play this game, you only really get to micro 2-3 tanks at a time.. maybe 4 if your really good at it. So you cant micro all your tanks at once if you have 6 or more. I dont see how you guys cant see the facts right in front of you. A full veteran pershing with full health loses to a half health lvl 2 veterency tiger. If the tiger had higher health I wouldnt have had much of a problem with it.

Umm yeah, two tigers max on the field per player at a time. So while he micros two tigers, you micro two pershings. You use manuverability to get around behind him, and win every time. Its really not that difficult, his turret speed is slow. The tiger is not overpowered in this game. Maybe it was powerful in real life (in fact, it was) but that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT as far as game balance goes.

The tiger in CoH is slow moving, slow turning, and slow turret speed. If you both have equal micro skills, pershing should win every time.

grimsky

21st Sep 06, 7:47 PM

I belive you meant this:
... ....

That's just what i meant. Thanks for re-expressing it. I hope it's not that bad written.

And i will not keep arguing about this AT guns any more, because frankly i dont know how many AT guns are necessary to take out 4 tigers(or any given number that >2. The number '10' came from the other guy). i do think placing many AT guns together might cause some other trouble(off-map artillary etc) but that goes too far.
Anyway, i could be wrong about AT vs tiger because i didn't try it before. So back to the topic AT guns could be a solution to the tiger problem.

Alcorr

21st Sep 06, 7:50 PM

Anyway, i could be wrong about AT vs tiger because i didn't try it before. So back to the topic AT guns could be a solution to the tiger problem.

AT guns ARE a solution to the tiger problem (sorry I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know where your point of view is).

Today my internet was down so I war bored and 1v1ed an easy allied comp. (I choose easy because I was feeling lazy, yes I have beat expert all the time)

I used a tiger in a 1v1 against an AT gun, two shots took out approx 20-25% of my health...frontal armor.

Use two AT guns (approx cost of a tiger) and its dead in no time.

raydude

21st Sep 06, 8:12 PM

I watched the wmv of the pershing vs. tiger. First, both the pershing and the tiger are at their highest veteran status. Pershing has 3 bars. Tiger has 3 diamonds. So lets not pretend that its anything but two tanks with equally veteran crew.

Second, there was a great post on gamereplays.org which compared tank vs tank. The nice thing about the post was that it took statistical comparisons of 50 shots (when possible) to figure out what kind of randomness would be in the game.

Turns out that both the Pershing and the Tiger have an element of randomness which determines whether the shot glances off (i.e. no damage) or penetrates. The key word here is RANDOM. So, say the randomness factor indicates that a veteran pershing will have glancing shots 14% of the time (8 out of 50 shots do not penetrate). Pure statistics states that there is no reason to expect that the glancing
shots happen in any sort of pattern. The first 8 shots could all be glancing shots for example. Or maybe every other shot. Or maybe 3 penetrate and 3 glance off. Its RANDOM. The point is that the Pershing will have 14% of its shots glance off the target as the number of shots fired approaches infinity.

So how to explain why the full strength Pershing died against a Tiger with 75% health (both sides being elite)? Simple, dumb luck combined w/ the fact that Pershing frontal armor is less than Tiger frontal armor. More Pershing shots glanced off than Tiger shots. You'll note that the Tiger was down to 1/8 of full health at the end of the exchange, so the randomness factor still kept results pretty even. But I'll bet that the chance of penetration probably goes up to 99.99% if the Pershing were to just move to the rear of the tiger and fire.

dangchang

21st Sep 06, 10:02 PM

You use manuverability to get around behind him, and win every time.

UHHHH. No.

Is there a law somewhere stating that Tigers have to completley stop to engage enemies? So no, you won't win everytime.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

21st Sep 06, 10:14 PM

Did you ever notice that the ace pilot in german got much more kills than their allied conterpart? That's because they got no replacement, they had to fight until they couldn't

hmmm... you think maybe that was because there were more veterans in the german air force than in the american air force at teh start of ww2? Oh and the fact that they had better weaponry on the planes as well.

Yes but Grimsky rember the poster does not seam to think flanking and circling is a valid tactic and has a part in balance.

Of course I dont seam to think, but I do SEEM to think.

ok, its obvious you havent really read this thread in full. I never said that circling wasnt a valid tactic. Nor did I state that it wasnt a part of the balance. I merrily was testing the two strongest units on each side of the game to see who would come out on top just from sheer strength.

Take this into account. Say you have 2 tigers vs 2 pershings. Both tanks have around the same speed capabilities. So, in fact, trying to circle an enemy tiger tank with a pershing tank is almost impossible. UNless your playing someone whose a complete n00b about micromanaging tanks. In most cases the axis player will move with you, backing up, turning etc... all the while keeping the turret aimed on you. yes the tiger turret is slightly slower than the pershings, but not much.

LETS TALK LOGICALLY PEOPLE! who ever has 10 AT guns all at once all in the same place ready to repel any enemy advancement? NO ONE! for one, having that many AT guns would eat up your command points like none other, thus allowing you to not have any more units. Sure, ill hop righ on that, ill get my 10 AT guns and use up all my command points so that when I do eventually repel an attack (possibly) all they will have to do is make infantry and walk over the top of me. Thats about the stupidest strategy/suggestion ive heard yet. And I dont even know if you can really call the AT guns AT guns, because you have to pay frickin 50 munitions in order to get armor piercing shells... now I know as a fact in ww2 AT guns didnt have to call out for AP rounds whenever they encountered a tank. As it is now, the AT gun shells seem more explosive (HE) then penetrating (AP).

Turns out that both the Pershing and the Tiger have an element of randomness which determines whether the shot glances off (i.e. no damage) or penetrates. The key word here is RANDOM. So, say the randomness factor indicates that a veteran pershing will have glancing shots 14% of the time (8 out of 50 shots do not penetrate). Pure statistics states that there is no reason to expect that the glancing
shots happen in any sort of pattern. The first 8 shots could all be glancing shots for example. Or maybe every other shot. Or maybe 3 penetrate and 3 glance off. Its RANDOM. The point is that the Pershing will have 14% of its shots glance off the target as the number of shots fired approaches infinity.

This is the best bit of information ive recieved in this whole entire thread.

Oh and for those of you who keep telling me to post up a tiger vs pershing incident where both players are micro managing equally then I will. In fact me and my clanmates just got done playing against some allies and there are alot of cases like this.

RavenKrows

21st Sep 06, 11:37 PM

ok, its obvious you havent really read this thread in full. I never said that circling wasnt a valid tactic. Nor did I state that it wasnt a part of the balance. I merrily was testing the two strongest units on each side of the game to see who would come out on top just from sheer strength.

Which proves that you are not finding balance and are performing a test that would never occur except under the worst and most tactically inept situations.

Plus, you quoted grammar as an insult in the previous lines, showing you are incapable of debate on the internet.

raydude

22nd Sep 06, 9:13 AM

I was incorrect in citing the research from gamereplays. It was in fact from Planet Company of Heroes (http://www.forumplanet.com/planetcompanyofheroes/topic.asp?fid=20471&tid=1939135&p=1).

I assume the test was between tanks with no veteran status. I know veteran status grants higher penetration rate (and higher damage?) for the Sherman but still, I think the most bonus it receives is an increase in 50% penetration rate.

So, if we use the tests from the link as a baseline, the Sherman vs. Tiger penetration rate is 21.81%. If we assume the wording is to multiply that rate by 1.5 then we have a penetration rate of 32.7%. If the wording means to add 50% then the Sherman penetration rate becomes 71.81%.

STILL, that's not as good as the baseline Tiger vs. Sherman, a whopping 80.36% penetration rate!

Plus, the Tiger in the video was a level 3 veterancy. If you believe the stats posted in other forums that gives the following bonuses to the Tiger:

Veterancy 1: Damage received from successful enemy hits reduced by 15%
Veterancy 2: Hit points increased by 15%
Veterancy 3: Incoming enemy munitions’ penetration effectiveness reduced by 25%

So now I'm not surprised at all that the Tiger would win in a straight-up front vs. front slugfest, even at 3/4 of full health.

Bottom line for the Allies: never get in a slugfest vs. a Tiger. Always circle around and hit 'em in the ass!

RavenKrows

22nd Sep 06, 10:23 AM

Bottom line for the Allies: never get in a slugfest vs. a Tiger. Always circle around and hit 'em in the ass!

I love you.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

22nd Sep 06, 11:13 AM

Which proves that you are not finding balance and are performing a test that would never occur except under the worst and most tactically inept situations.

Plus, you quoted grammar as an insult in the previous lines, showing you are incapable of debate on the internet.

so I guess making an insult shows that you are incapable of debate on the internet. Sure ok then, that means 90% of people who have posted in this thread are like that.

Seems to me, you havent posted anything relevant towards our discussion in the two posts you have made. If you think I havent debated this to the end, why dont you actually go back and read the first 6 pages of this thread. If your so big on debate, why not post something of your own proving me wrong? instead of relying on what other posters have said?

The fact is, most tank battles are short and to the point. Two groups of tanks meet, they exchange fire, battle is over.

If im an american tank commander, and I come upon 2 tigers with panzer support, im not going to try and get my pershing to get around behind the enemy tigers or panzers, main reason being I would be exposing my pershings rear to enemy fire either from support tanks or support units of some sort and also the tigers and the pershings have similar speed capabilites. And just because I try and get behind the enemy tiger doesnt mean the guy on the other end isnt going to counter that with some move of his own. And also if you havent noticed, the maps we play with in this game arent exactly flankage friendly. If you havent noticed most maps have an abundancy of hedge rows, or several buildings making a sort of bottleneck feature. Thus not allowing easy flanking techniques. So the majority of tank battles are fought face to face. The only time you reall have a chance to flank an enemy tank is when you are only facing one of them, not 5 or more. The only way through these hedges are heavy tanks (pershings/tigers) or some sort of high explosive such as a satchel.

This fully proves my point. Is it too much to ask for a dev to lower the frontal strength of the axis tiger? Its getting kind of rediculous seing two tigers pretty much stop anything in their paths. Even sticky bombs dont do that much dmg to them.

One other thing I think that should be added as an ability to all tanks is the ability to crash through hedge rows. Some of you might say this would take away from the heavy tanks usefulness on the battlefield but it wouldnt. The heavy tanks would still be the only ones fully capable of crashing through tank traps.

Tirus

22nd Sep 06, 1:45 PM

Tigers aren't that tough, they just require planning to take out, similar to the allied howitzer.

The strats are different but both require planning and a certain execution. The truly terrifying strat is a tiger ace with 2 panzer/panthers supported by grenadiers and just keep usuing propaganda on enemy troops when they try to get near the tiger... This strat kills airborn so bad....

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

22nd Sep 06, 11:59 PM

The howitzer is anything but tough to kill.. pretty much as simple as blitzing a tank at the formation of howitzers *or some sort of recon unit* and killing them. They arent that hard to take down.

RavenKrows

23rd Sep 06, 12:33 AM

so I guess making an insult shows that you are incapable of debate on the internet. Sure ok then, that means 90% of people who have posted in this thread are like that.

I've read this entire thread. It seems only in the past two pages you've been posting with half a brain. By the way, I said "quoting grammar as an insult."

Seam and seem. As in, a poster may have said, "You seam to be an asshole."
To which you replied, "I do indeed SEEM to be an asshole, in fact I am."

Thus I state that, you have thought that pitting two tanks head on into one another is a fine way to discover balance. At least that's what one would concieve given the title of this thread and you're replay. You're current idea of, "I Shall not attempt to flank a tiger with my pershing because then I will exposing my pershing's rear to other enemies," is a rather new addition to your argument, which is still, NOT solid.

Pitting your pershing against a tiger, head-on, is always a poor course of action if you are not going to take additional steps with other units. If you're afraid to expose the pershing, then use an M10 or other cheap unit to flank. The pershing can easily stand up to a tiger for a goodwhile, it may not win, but it will survive.

If there is a bottleneck, then you are not fighting an easy, or perhaps even possible battle. Thus said, maybe you should make the enemy fight on your own terms. Even in crowded environments there are other paths and ways to goad your enemy into biting off more than he can chew. Experiment and plan, its how you defeat a tiger.

I bring up flanking so much because it is a simple and often possible plan. If it is not, you should lure the tiger into a quaint minefield of your own. Your enemy is human, he will make mistakes. Exploit them.

Alcorr

23rd Sep 06, 7:35 AM

Honestly Jawbrkr, if you can't flank a tiger with a pershing...well, im not going to insult you, but you need to go back to playing against the AI...

Havoc01

23rd Sep 06, 7:54 AM

The game is designed around 500 VP games, if you are any good at all you beat them before they get enough points for a tiger.

They cost 1000 MP, with that you could get 3 AT guns to tear it apart (Use AT rounds for added effect), or if you have the fuel, 3 m10s, or if you have ammo, 4 riflemen squads with stickies, or if your airborne and have ammo, 3 airborne squads with recoiless rifles, or if you went tank, 1 pershing, or if you went infantry, 2 squads of rangers.

There are many more counters to tigers such as artillery, and mines.

six7

23rd Sep 06, 11:13 AM

The problem isn't just the power of the Tigers- Jaw and I can cope with that just fine as we proved last night killing about 20 enemy tigers and tiger aces. However, just the fact that the German player is able to field so many tanks when he only controls 2/3 of the field is rediculous. It is also jsut as rediculous when the Allied tank commander can field that many Pershings. There is a cost balance issue here-that point cannot be argued. If I deprive my opponent of all the fuel on the map, I should not have to deal with 2 tigers ever 3 minutes running down my throat.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

23rd Sep 06, 11:20 AM

Honestly Jawbrkr, if you can't flank a tiger with a pershing...well, im not going to insult you, but you need to go back to playing against the AI...

Tell that to my 25-1 record.

Seam and seem. As in, a poster may have said, "You seam to be an asshole."
To which you replied, "I do indeed SEEM to be an asshole, in fact I am."

I never quoted grammar thinking it was an insult. Yes I quoted his misspelling and fixed it and made it an insult if thats what you mean.

The game is designed around 500 VP games, if you are any good at all you beat them before they get enough points for a tiger.

They cost 1000 MP, with that you could get 3 AT guns to tear it apart (Use AT rounds for added effect), or if you have the fuel, 3 m10s, or if you have ammo, 4 riflemen squads with stickies, or if your airborne and have ammo, 3 airborne squads with recoiless rifles, or if you went tank, 1 pershing, or if you went infantry, 2 squads of rangers.

There are many more counters to tigers such as artillery, and mines.

Except, I enjoy playing anihilate alot more than VP because it takes more skill to win a game. Its not as simple as "sit here on your hill and defend till they run out of tickets". This isnt supposed to be BF2.

Im not saying the VP mode isnt fun, it can be fun at times. But winning with anihilate takes lot more skill and strategy.

The balance issue with the tiger being to strong can wait for now. At least add something to the pricing. Add some fuel in there to make your tiger/pershing/calliope alot more valuable to the player. Get rid of the "oh well ill just buy another" mentality.

I just played a grueling 1.5 hour match last night with a friend. We were on vire river valley map. I had several scenarios where I used your "circle technique" to try and get around the tiger with my pershing. And yes ill admit, it worked.. for the first 20 sec of the battle, soon enough he was able to counter my circle technique and get in line with me, and even though my pershing scored several rear hits on the tiger, it still lost.

Anyway, heres what I suggest to get rid of the "ill just get another" mentality.

Keep the pricing on MP the same on both the tiger and the pershing, except add about 150 fuel to the tiger, and 120 to the pershing tank.

Again, these prices in fuel are just one more step above their counterparts (panther/sherman).

This would balance out being able to replace a tiger right after it dies, and overall would make the mentality of "ill just build another" go away. It would up the value of a tiger/pershing to the player.

RavenKrows

23rd Sep 06, 7:53 PM

Except, I enjoy playing anihilate alot more than VP because it takes more skill to win a game.

Annihilate is the biggest allowance of turtling I have seen since Zerohour.

It is meant for fun, but you can not bring balance into play with annihilate. Don't even try. Annihilate is the game mode where you see an oppenent with three or more howitzers just camping behind his single chokepoint because he destroyed all the bridges.

500 VP is where you check balance because it is the fast and furious game mode where you can actually prevent your opponent from spamming these abominations.

What's your 25-1 win ratio from? You gangbanging newbies with your clanmates? Spare us your bragging and bring some meat to the table.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

23rd Sep 06, 8:07 PM

you want meat? fine, why not you come play me one on one and ill shut down your sassy back talking.

Am I bad for having a clan? and winning?

Busby

23rd Sep 06, 8:25 PM

Your bad for clamming to be winning and yet not understand the concept of flanking...

I can't find you on http://relicqa.com/?match=1, which should be easy considering you amazing record...

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

23rd Sep 06, 8:29 PM

thats because I dont play ranked games n00b. The last thing I want to do is get stuck with a shitty ally who doesnt know how to play the game.

Busby

23rd Sep 06, 8:30 PM

Lol?....

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

23rd Sep 06, 8:34 PM

lol yourself. I dont care about a rank. I want to have fun. That is all. If I win i win, if I lose I lose. I just happen to win all the time.

Busby

23rd Sep 06, 8:36 PM

Then don't run around saying that your such a great player if you can't back it up (you can play 1vs1 ranked matches too.)

I don't play ranked games ether but you don't see me running around saying I have a great victory-defeat ratio...

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

23rd Sep 06, 8:44 PM

I cant back it up? how can you say that since I dont play ranked games that I cant back up that I am a good player? I dont see the logic here... I dont play ranked games, so i cant backup the fact that I am a good player.. yeah.. sure..

Busby

23rd Sep 06, 8:47 PM

Any one can lie on the Internet.

Silly, you would think the head of Microsoft would know these things...

dangchang

23rd Sep 06, 8:59 PM

Good job flame baiting Busby. Way to bring this thread down to an even lower level.

:focus:

I noticed that many of the people on this thread have claimed that flanking is the way to bring down a Tiger. While true, it isn't always the easiest thing. As I have stated before, no experienced or even a player with a brain will sit there and let you shoot his tiger in the ass.

Busby

23rd Sep 06, 9:02 PM

Since when is questing the validity of a argument flame bating?

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

23rd Sep 06, 10:02 PM

learn how to spell.

if you dont believe get your ass on and ill personally show you.

Bentguru

23rd Sep 06, 10:18 PM

All I have to say to this thread is wow...

stopgap

23rd Sep 06, 10:21 PM

actually if you want the best way to kill a tiger, ive found that a sniper on hold fire spotting for a bombing run works wonders when they move back to repair.

RavenKrows

23rd Sep 06, 10:22 PM

TheDeadlyShoe

23rd Sep 06, 10:23 PM

actually if you want the best way to kill a tiger, ive found that a sniper on hold fire spotting for a bombing run works wonders when they move back to repair.

don't be silly! Everyone knows that attempting to kill repair crews and damaged tanks never works. Using their magic laser rays, repairing pioneers instantly destroy any harassment attempt by infantry, tank, at gun, artillery, mortar, what have you.

Bentguru

23rd Sep 06, 10:25 PM

don't be silly! Everyone knows that attempting to kill repair crews and damaged tanks never works. Using their magic laser rays, repairing pioneers instantly destroy any harassment attempt by infantry, tank, at gun, artillery, mortar, what have you.

Not if you use the allied Nuke Hack!

It turns their side of the map into a parking lot!

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

24th Sep 06, 8:00 PM

Basically, this thead is my happpiness in my meager time between college and work. Deuce is just fun to fuck with because he has tendency to get worked up like an sugared up infant. He'd probably beat me anyday in a game. I suck at microing.

Still, at least I pay my bills.

you sure are cocky.

Your not the only one who pays his own bills, so stop thinking your special because you go to college and pay your own bills. I go to college and pay my own bills, but you dont see me running around bragging about it.

Get worked up? I dont get worked up, ill defend myself and my clanmates when dipshits like you say stuff about us and our skill. Your the one who started the war.

*now, before this thread gets horribly locked because of flaming reasons*

*:focus:*

Bentguru

24th Sep 06, 9:10 PM

uh oh busby, you're in a "war" now. Best look out...

Seriously though, am I the only one wondering where the mods are? As funny as this is it should have been locked ages ago.

solidus

24th Sep 06, 9:14 PM

jaw i dont think your argument against tigers is very valid, granted the tiger kicked the pershings ass and that fluke shot that bounced up and hit the pershing again ..was strange. the tiger had 3rd vet on it and if you look at the modifiers to begin with on the tiger for veterancy you would see plain and clear that no pershing is going to take down the tiger on 3rd vet without shooting it in the rear, ALL aside from the fact that the test was irrelevant to the game and only showed that one tank is clearly superior to another. with 3rd vet for a tiger its got a bunch of damage reduction on it especially the 25% damage reduction on any penetrating shots and as rare as those are the tiger wont go down easy without moving around it. sorry for the late reply ive been away from the forums for a few days... bah

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

24th Sep 06, 9:29 PM

See, thats the point im trying to make. The tiger is damned near invulnerable on very tightly spaced maps. because its hard to flank. And just because you try and flank a tiger, doesnt mean hes not going to counter you. And like I said, tank battles dont take place on open fields with vast spaces for flanking. They take place on maps with tight spaces (streets, roads etc...) which makes them hard to flank, which also means that they are invulnerable. You can say "well get bazookas" and I will say that they dont do crap to a tiger. You can also say "well use sticky bombs" and I will say that doesnt work unless you have 10 hitting it all at once or more, btw wich also takes alot of munitions. It usually takes 5 to disable the tank and another 5 to kill it. You could also say "well just use 3 AT guns to ever tiger you encounter" and I will say thats most the time impossible, because I for one am always concentrating more on my tank and infantry for my resources instead of AT guns that are cumbersome and are easily killed. Sure I might have 3 of them, but I sure wont have 3 AT's all the same place. You could also say "well just use Offmap arty" and ill say, sure why not... ill waste 200 or more munitions on a tank that can easily jsut drive directly out of the barrage barely getting scratched.

So my point is, on maps where its almost impossible to flank a tiger, its basically invulnerable.

solidus

24th Sep 06, 9:56 PM

but its not if you line up AT guns in the street, thats what i do and maybe you should start doing it too to counter the "Invulnerable" tiger. And yes you can rush it with a group of riflemen and usually 1 or 2 stickes will damage the engine to slow the damn thing down more than it already is which is not very fast. Seriously if it happens so much just make at guns, or if you're focusing on armor then make a greyhound an drop a pack of mines in the streets around the VPS, chances are youll get the mines down way before a tiger comes along and if theyre stupid enough to shove the tiger down such a tiny street it shouldnt be a problem. Another note on tiny streets, just move ur infantry around and behind the tiger on another street, theres always a way to flank the damn thing and if you cant...pull back and put it in a bad position if the player controlling it is really eager with it. Its all about strat, YES the tiger is strong and its a beast but its not an endall to the game and certainly isnt hard to kill. I had a 2v2 the other day, we blew out the bridges and there was only one way across and that was through the river in the middle, i had 2 shermans and 2 pershings and my enemies spammed tigers, they had 7 TIGERS plus a tiger ace along with 2 panzers and my ally had a few at guns, we took em all out and i didnt lose a sherman...granted i popped smoke a few times. hehe

DrunkenOne

24th Sep 06, 10:04 PM

Jawbrkr']
So my point is, on maps where its almost impossible to flank a tiger, its basically invulnerable.
Sorry but you are completely wrong. Try whoring smoke on shermans and see what is more "invunerable," your shermans (since you should have 2+if he has a tiger) or the tiger.

TheDeadlyShoe

24th Sep 06, 10:14 PM

I just played a game where I killed a mortally wounded Tiger with two Greyhounds. First shot, second shot, tiger 'splode. Weee.

(off map combat group ftw!)

known

24th Sep 06, 10:50 PM

This has to be one of the worse threads ive ever seen, where are the moderators... I mean I went ot this thread to see the discussion about tigers, instead, ive seen a whole lot of flamming. ANyway, from what I read so far, pershings lose to tigers 1v1, and only chance of winnign is getting around for a back shot. However, that is difficult on smaller maps. In addition, ive learned that annihalte is for spamning noobs and the best way to avoid tank spams is to join ranked games because u can get a random teamamte and thus, tank spamn coordination is gone. To sum up:

tiger > pershing
pershing > tiger with circuling tiger/ ambushes
tiger > pershing on small maps

annihalte = nobos since tiger spamn is likely
500 vp / ranked games = it nufflifys tiger spamn and allows for random allies thus ensuring, somewhat, uncoordinated tank spamn

If I misjudged the previous posts, please tell me.

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

24th Sep 06, 10:51 PM

YES the tiger is strong and its a beast but its not an endall to the game and certainly isnt hard to kill. I had a 2v2 the other day, we blew out the bridges and there was only one way across and that was through the river in the middle, i had 2 shermans and 2 pershings and my enemies spammed tigers, they had 7 TIGERS plus a tiger ace along with 2 panzers and my ally had a few at guns, we took em all out and i didnt lose a sherman...granted i popped smoke a few times. hehe

Yes on maps where you can bottle kneck a tiger, its easy to beat. Vire river valley is one of the worst maps in this game. Its horrible, it all comes down to a horrible standoff and often the only things that win the game are allied howitzers. Hopefully your talking about those 7 tigers in separate attacks, because its impossible to have 7 tigers on the field all at once.

Pretty much the only way I can defeat a tiger is bottleknecking him. I usually use rows and rows of tank traps mixed with mines, so when he come to plow the tank traps over he gets blown up with mines *which usually dmges his engine* theN I just move in with a sherman and finish him off. When a tiger cant be flanked *eithe rbecause of extra tank support or just a tight map* it is indeed very invulnerable. And seing how a tiger can kill an AT gun with 2 shots minimum they can pretty much roll right over you. Or either that they just exlpore your AT guns with a bunker and offmap your ass then your screwed.

Sorry but you are completely wrong. Try whoring smoke on shermans and see what is more "invunerable," your shermans (since you should have 2+if he has a tiger) or the tiger.

See, thats a mistake. Yes i use smoke sometimes, but on munitionless maps its almost impossible to really whore smoke on shermans. Also the smoke just doesnt decrease the tigers accuracy, but the shermans as well.

and I dont know about you guys, but when I fight a tiger, its never alone. It always has either heavy INF support or heavy tank support.

As far as the greyhound tiger kill goes.. good job I guess.. but it doesnt take much to kill off a tigers last 1/16 of a inch of a tigers health bar. If you would have killed a tiger with full health with a greyhound, I would be much more impressed.

TheDeadlyShoe

24th Sep 06, 11:12 PM

That's probably not impossible, but it would take a long time.

dreddnott

25th Sep 06, 2:10 PM

I have to admit, this thread cracked me up. A lot.

Thanks Jawbrkr.

I'm willing to put up with Tigers the way they are.

I tend to agree with Starfisher's assessment about historical fact as it relates to game balance, but one cannot escape the conclusion that history did have a profound influence on the way the game plays in the first place. For posterity:

"Overall, the Pershing was considered roughly equal in performance to the Panther. In the first engagement with the M26 by the 3rd Armored Division, Cooper writes that the M26 managed to catch two Tigers and one Mark IV tank by surprise from a flanking position. The M26 engaged the tanks from a range of about 1000 yards (1 km), and knocked them out. Cooper asserts, 'It is doubtful that the M26 could have knocked them out had the Tigers been confronted with a frontal assault. Our M36 tank destroyers, with the same 90 mm gun, had difficulty penetrating the Mark V Panther's faceplate.'" - Wikipedia

For what it's worth, I've also not heard the Pershing referred to as the "Tiger killer" but always rather as "Tiger Tamer".

I swear, if this game had the Jagdtiger or Koenigstiger in it, some of you Allied players would crap your pants.

Tirus

25th Sep 06, 2:44 PM

quoted from solidus

but its not if you line up AT guns in the street, thats what i do and maybe you should start doing it too to counter the "Invulnerable" tiger. And yes you can rush it with a group of riflemen and usually 1 or 2 stickes will damage the engine to slow the damn thing down more than it already is which is not very fast. Seriously if it happens so much just make at guns, or if you're focusing on armor then make a greyhound an drop a pack of mines in the streets around the VPS, chances are youll get the mines down way before a tiger comes along and if theyre stupid enough to shove the tiger down such a tiny street it shouldnt be a problem. Another note on tiny streets, just move ur infantry around and behind the tiger on another street, theres always a way to flank the damn thing and if you cant...pull back and put it in a bad position if the player controlling it is really eager with it. Its all about strat, YES the tiger is strong and its a beast but its not an endall to the game and certainly isnt hard to kill. I had a 2v2 the other day, we blew out the bridges and there was only one way across and that was through the river in the middle, i had 2 shermans and 2 pershings and my enemies spammed tigers, they had 7 TIGERS plus a tiger ace along with 2 panzers and my ally had a few at guns, we took em all out and i didnt lose a sherman...granted i popped smoke a few times. hehe
I call BS on this, isnt there a limit of 2 tiger tanks per blitz tree? And since the ace comes from the terror tree (and is limit 1) I don't think you faced 7 tigers plus an ace... I may be wrong though...

PS you play wow solidus? cuz I know a guy names soliduz on Boulderfist =)

Alcorr

25th Sep 06, 2:57 PM

I call BS on this, isnt there a limit of 2 tiger tanks per blitz tree? And since the ace comes from the terror tree (and is limit 1) I don't think you faced 7 tigers plus an ace... I may be wrong though...

PS you play wow solidus? cuz I know a guy names soliduz on Boulderfist =)

Yep, theres a 2 tiger limit on blitz tree.

Its really ridiculous to see people asking for a nerf on the tiger.

Its this simple:

If its an open map, flank it.
If its a closed bottlenecky type of map, pull up those AT guns.

TNT

25th Sep 06, 3:14 PM

Yep, theres a 2 tiger limit on blitz tree.

Its really ridiculous to see people asking for a nerf on the tiger.

Its this simple:

If its an open map, flank it.
If its a closed bottlenecky type of map, pull up those AT guns.
And when 3 blitz players have 6 of them?

Alcorr

25th Sep 06, 3:17 PM

And when 3 blitz players have 6 of them?

Thats 3600 mp cost to get 6 tigers (not including the 400 x 6 for stormtroopers that are included).

With that much MP the allies can easily get 10 AT guns + a wolverine.

It still just stuns me how people complain about this.

Demon_Eyes

25th Sep 06, 3:26 PM

6 Tigers with 6 Sturmtruppen is 6000mp, I would not break up the price as it doesn't work out correctly. Either way though that is a lot of units for allies to have prior to the axis producing those units. The only thing I really disagree with is the CP cost of the tiger assault group, I think it should cost 5CP given the cost effectivness of the ability.

Tirus

25th Sep 06, 3:39 PM

6000 MP works out to 19 AT guns..... With a little left over for riflemen =)

Demon_Eyes

25th Sep 06, 3:45 PM

your going to need at least 4 riflmen with BAR and suppressing fire to even hope to deal with sturmtruppen if they get even 1 MP44 per squad, I would much rather go 5 AT guns, 2 Pershing, 4 Sherman, 5 Riflmen and get a bombing run in there as well as maybe a strafing run or something along those lines.

DrDread

25th Sep 06, 4:04 PM

If you have the guy that outnumbered with tanks you should be getting rear shots on all of them. Thats how you beat them, and easily at that!

If your force is constantly taking on their tank force with ALL GUNS hitting there front armor, you need to look up the word "flanking manuever" in the dictionary. You cannot defeat those tanks firing ont he front armor.

Your tank cost half as much but hitting the rear is more then double damage!

Tirus

25th Sep 06, 4:04 PM

I'm talkin just MP, no fuel or munitions... hell lets do 10 AT guns and 2 snipers and and nine squads of riflemen... I think that would kill the tigers and the stormtroopers pretty dead...

Cerlin

26th Sep 06, 12:57 PM

This thread has some good points and some bad flaming.

For the record, I do have a little skill, if you check the ranked list online for 2v2 im in the top 10 for both allied and axis (that is unless people win while im at work.)

The tiger is strong but can be beaten. I am a micro'ing workhorse and I can totally destroy a tiger with an m10. If they are a good player then I'll use either sherman + 2 m10s or m10's and at guns. I also use a lot of arty strikes to take them down, you can get 2/3rds of their health off and have the m10 finish it. This isnt even counting stickies also included.

As the germans I find my tigers are very vunerable to experianced or scrappy players, and i make it my policy to never underestimate anyone. This means that i send my tigers out fully suppored.

a little off topic, Im not sure what people's aversion is to 2v2. the Random factor is what makes it so awesome. Sure my current axis loss is from some nublar that didnt even know how to play the game, but that can happen sometimes.

Alcorr

26th Sep 06, 1:57 PM

[QUOTE]UHHHH. No.

Is there a law somewhere stating that Tigers have to completley stop to engage enemies? So no, you won't win everytime.

Pershing can outmanuver tiger even if both are moving.

6000 MP works out to 19 AT guns..... With a little left over for riflemen =)

The number I gave was not taking into account stormtroopers....as I posted. Just how many AT guns for the cost of the tigers.

Vicious_CB

26th Sep 06, 2:03 PM

If your force is constantly taking on their tank force with ALL GUNS hitting there front armor, you need to look up the word "flanking manuever" in the dictionary. You cannot defeat those tanks firing ont he front armor.

WRONG!!!!
Most of the time trying to get rear hits is just no viable

Lots of AT guns hitting from the front does just fine

Alcorr

26th Sep 06, 2:04 PM

Yes vicious is correct. Flanking is more effective, but 3 AT guns can tear up a tiger from the front pretty easily.

Tirus

26th Sep 06, 3:13 PM

You can't say the tiger is only worth 600 as it does come with a squad of storms for 1k, but is the only way to get a tiger. Trying to balance the cost between the two simply won't work so just count it as what it is, a squad.

I think alot of the tigers power would be taken away if it didnt come with those trooper, and why should it? The Pershing doesn't ger troopers with it, and I believe it costs the same 1k MP. To balance it out they should either throw in a squad of rangers with the pershing or take away the stormtroopers from the tiger... That's just my 2 cents though...

Alcorr

26th Sep 06, 7:53 PM

You can't say the tiger is only worth 600 as it does come with a squad of storms for 1k, but is the only way to get a tiger. Trying to balance the cost between the two simply won't work so just count it as what it is, a squad.

I was not implying that or trying to balance anything. Someone simply asked what do the allies have to combat 6 tiger tanks...not 6 tiger tanks with stormtroopers.

Thus I answered...10 AT guns + more.

I think alot of the tigers power would be taken away if it didnt come with those trooper, and why should it? The Pershing doesn't ger troopers with it, and I believe it costs the same 1k MP. To balance it out they should either throw in a squad of rangers with the pershing or take away the stormtroopers from the tiger... That's just my 2 cents though...

It is this way because axis blitzkrieg is supposed to be all about power. That is the power unit of the blitz tree. However, calliopes are already the power unit of the allied armor tree. Giving the pershing rangers with them for no extra cost would really make the allied armor tree side so much more powerful than the blitz tree.

me987654

26th Sep 06, 10:25 PM

Historical data, while interesting, have no bearing on balance in a game. As a cosmetic issue, or to establish a role for a unit, it's fine; but once the unit is in the game and being tweaked to actually be playable, history and reality go out the window.

So, thanks for the information, but please, try to tie the history to disussable balance points in the future.

awbrkr: Your assumption that testing units by letting them kill each other with no movement or micromanagement is valid appears to be rather false in the context of this game. It is not, as others have pointed out, starcraft, and if you do not use your units properly, they will be destroyed by someone who does. The Tiger Ace is a very powerful unit that, if used properly, is very dangerous - but, if properly countered, can be countered. Your test, with no motion or micromanagement, is invalid for this game - it does establish that one unit will kill the other in a head on fight, but it does not establish the actual combat efficacy of either when used in an actual game situation.

I agree that it should cost some fuel to call in, however, as should all offmap tanks. It makes little sense that offmap tanks cost no fuel when all tanks constructed on map require it, and by adding a fuel cost to offmap tanks, the cost/benefit ratio would be brought into better balance.

I think this point is generally agreed upon by everyone on this particular forum, with some diehards in on either side.

What's the point of basing a game on WW2 if you aren't going to use history as your guide? Certainly there will be some changes and abstractions for gameplay purposes.. but the devs should try to be as historically accurate as possible while still keeping gameplay fun.

It's just silly to say history has no bearing on balance...... If that were the case shermans would be equal to panzers

Jawbrkr']so I guess making an insult shows that you are incapable of debate on the internet. Sure ok then, that means 90% of people who have posted in this thread are like that.

Seems to me, you havent posted anything relevant towards our discussion in the two posts you have made. If you think I havent debated this to the end, why dont you actually go back and read the first 6 pages of this thread. If your so big on debate, why not post something of your own proving me wrong? instead of relying on what other posters have said?

The fact is, most tank battles are short and to the point. Two groups of tanks meet, they exchange fire, battle is over.

If im an american tank commander, and I come upon 2 tigers with panzer support, im not going to try and get my pershing to get around behind the enemy tigers or panzers, main reason being I would be exposing my pershings rear to enemy fire either from support tanks or support units of some sort and also the tigers and the pershings have similar speed capabilites. And just because I try and get behind the enemy tiger doesnt mean the guy on the other end isnt going to counter that with some move of his own. And also if you havent noticed, the maps we play with in this game arent exactly flankage friendly. If you havent noticed most maps have an abundancy of hedge rows, or several buildings making a sort of bottleneck feature. Thus not allowing easy flanking techniques. So the majority of tank battles are fought face to face. The only time you reall have a chance to flank an enemy tank is when you are only facing one of them, not 5 or more. The only way through these hedges are heavy tanks (pershings/tigers) or some sort of high explosive such as a satchel.

This fully proves my point. Is it too much to ask for a dev to lower the frontal strength of the axis tiger? Its getting kind of rediculous seing two tigers pretty much stop anything in their paths. Even sticky bombs dont do that much dmg to them.

One other thing I think that should be added as an ability to all tanks is the ability to crash through hedge rows. Some of you might say this would take away from the heavy tanks usefulness on the battlefield but it wouldnt. The heavy tanks would still be the only ones fully capable of crashing through tank traps.

Dude, that's the whole point of the game......

I guess American soldiers in WW2 should have just said "that's not fair" when they had to fight tigers for real.

Actually in real life a tiger would take out a sherman in one shot from well over a kilometer away while a sherman couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of a tiger at 100m!

No one really knows how well pershings would have performed in WW2 because they were never really used. There are very few if any combat reports involving pershings.

In fact, pershings really shouldn't be included in WW2 games because they weren't even deployed until the war was over (much like the IS3)

TairosAurelius

26th Sep 06, 11:28 PM

Yeah... be grateful the game makes the Tigers as weak as they are. They should be stronger.

Demon_Eyes

27th Sep 06, 10:58 AM

It's just silly to say history has no bearing on balance...... If that were the case shermans would be equal to panzers
Actuall starfisher is absolutely correct, history and balance for a game are two very different subjects. Game wise they wanted to focus on the ground war, so they had to modify some things to facilitate that. As has been said before, if history is strictly adhered to, axis could never win as allies would have to have their massive production abilties and numbers facilitated as well as the air superiority.

Tirus

27th Sep 06, 12:33 PM

I was not implying that or trying to balance anything. Someone simply asked what do the allies have to combat 6 tiger tanks...not 6 tiger tanks with stormtroopers.

Thus I answered...10 AT guns + more.

Quote:
I think alot of the tigers power would be taken away if it didnt come with those trooper, and why should it? The Pershing doesn't ger troopers with it, and I believe it costs the same 1k MP. To balance it out they should either throw in a squad of rangers with the pershing or take away the stormtroopers from the tiger... That's just my 2 cents though...

It is this way because axis blitzkrieg is supposed to be all about power. That is the power unit of the blitz tree. However, calliopes are already the power unit of the allied armor tree. Giving the pershing rangers with them for no extra cost would really make the allied armor tree side so much more powerful than the blitz tree

lol, ok then I guess you're right in the question about the tigers he didn't mention the troopers so no need to worry about countering them. as for the calliope, it's good but it's not that good. hell the urban assault team in the blitz tree could probably drop it and again I think they cost about the same MP. The only reason the Calliope is great is the missle barrage but it costs 125 munitions I believe, where a blitz axis player can make a walking stuka and not have to pay the munitions to do it. So really I'd say the units deployed off map by the axis still trump the off map allied units...

As for rangers making the Pershing overpowered, I don't think they would. for 900 points right now you get a tank that cannot beat the tank the axis get for 1000 points 1v1, throw in a squad of storms backing said tiger up and the pershing has little to no chance at all. The tiger is more of a beast than the pershing so I think the tiger should either lose its troopers or the pershing should gain some. Hell even if they upped the cost on the pershing to 1k like the Tiger it'd even the two out more.

RatchetPrime

27th Sep 06, 12:46 PM

Wow, this thread is still going.

Surely a developer has seen this and noted something from it.... all the comments have been said and its time to be locked and stored away.

ZarX

27th Sep 06, 12:50 PM

LoL this is such a sad thread. Anyways Im mainly a German player and always use Blitz Doctrine. Yes 2 Tigers are very deadly but I also play Allied Armor Company a lot also. As a German Player I fear Armor company alot. Also the best units against any German are M10s. Sure they have no armor but for 300MP and 60Fuel they are godly in numbers. You all expect to be able to take tank on tank. Im sorry but in WW2 Tigers could take on 4-6 Shermans and kill them all. That is why they are so scary. Why do you think allied tanks were so fast? I sacrificed armor for speed to overwhelm german armor. If america didnt produce so many dang tanks during WW2 for the european front then there would prolly still be a Nazis Europe. Also for you noobs that keep crying about imbalance do some research about WW2 for the armor and weapons. Also use all your advantages. Allies have speed and numbers. Germans have Armor and penetration power.

dijohertz

27th Sep 06, 12:57 PM

duece clan ah yes the clan that said they were the best but apparently they lost and posted this horrible thread

Alcorr

27th Sep 06, 1:09 PM

lol, ok then I guess you're right in the question about the tigers he didn't mention the troopers so no need to worry about countering them. as for the calliope, it's good but it's not that good. hell the urban assault team in the blitz tree could probably drop it and again I think they cost about the same MP. The only reason the Calliope is great is the missle barrage but it costs 125 munitions I believe, where a blitz axis player can make a walking stuka and not have to pay the munitions to do it. So really I'd say the units deployed off map by the axis still trump the off map allied units...

Very good post im glad SOMEONE is making logical arguments. True the walking stuka is free, but I don't think its as powerful, and its certainly not as well armored as the calliope.

or 900 points right now you get a tank that cannot beat the tank the axis get for 1000 points 1v1, throw in a squad of storms backing said tiger up and the pershing has little to no chance at all. The tiger is more of a beast than the pershing so I think the tiger should either lose its troopers or the pershing should gain some. Hell even if they upped the cost on the pershing to 1k like the Tiger it'd even the two out more.

The reason the tiger + stromtrooper squad is so effective and efficient is because that is the whole point of the blitz tree. Crushing power. The allied armor tree is meant to be similar, and your points about the pershing and rangers are all true, but I for one do not think that they should be the equivalent of a tiger + stormtrooper squad.

For example, the ability to use light vehicles to cap points is extremely valuable early game, axis gets nothing like this. Automatic vehicle repair and the vehicle replacement abilities are also powerful, and blitz once again gets nothing similar.

Granted, the blitz ability for the blitz tree could be called equal. But I would take autorepairing tanks over increased attack for a short time ANY day.

Thus, by the tiger + ST squad being more powerful, it balances out the allied armor tree advantages.

Demon_Eyes

27th Sep 06, 1:28 PM

If you look at the left side of the blitzkrieg tree it is a pattern, stormtroopers cost 400mp, stuh group (stormtroopers+stuh) is +300 at 700mp, tiger group (stormtroopers+tiger) is another +300 at 1000mp. It is really nothing like the armored company line. Armored company gets raid (passive), sherman calliope for 600mp and pershing heavy tank for 900mp. Field repairs are counterpoint of bunker repair centers so I doubt even comparing armored company and blitzkreig doctrine is very feesable. I can see a problem in the pershing basic armor value however but that is the only thing that could be a significant issue I see. The tiger is not that hard to counter with combined arms, especially if you have an airborne player with enough munitions, the bombing run absolutley tears apart armor when it hits.

Tirus

27th Sep 06, 2:34 PM

Thanks alcorr, that's the reason I post here is to discuss the game and many aspects of it, if I wanted a flame war (what a lot of posters seem to do) I'd go back to the WoW forums.

I understand that the trees aren't supposed to be mirror images of each other, and that's one of the big draws I find in this game is that you aren't fighting "mirror" armies yet they managed too keep the game fairly balanced.

I do agree raid is great early game, but I think its usefullness dwindles as the game goes on. A poster pointed out the repair bunkers for the axis which I do love, but they admittedly are not as good as field repair (nor should they be imo). I think they did a great job balancing the 2 armored trees up to the point of the tiger for any given units usefullness. Even with the calloipe and the stuh/troopers, I just think the Tiger being the same price with troopers as a pershing, which is alone less powerful than a tiger, with no backup of any kind. Add in those ST's which are one of the strongest most versatile infantry in the game and that combo utterly decimates the poor pershing...

PS in the response to the person who said a Tiger could destroy 5 shermans at once...
First off I don't think so
Second off this is a game, not reality meant to be fun
Third the tiger was also about 4 times more expensive than a sherman to build so for 1000MP I should then get 4-5 shermans =)
Finally if we want to go by realism then we should have Tigers breaking down all over the field, taking 5 minutes to repair before they can do anything.... Doesnt sound like much fun now does it?

[Deuce4]Jawbrkr

27th Sep 06, 9:52 PM

duece clan ah yes the clan that said they were the best but apparently they lost and posted this horrible thread

if you have nothing constructive to say about this topic and discussion, then dont say it at all. This is not a flaming thread, its a thread for discussion about the tiger.

Dude, that's the whole point of the game......

I guess American soldiers in WW2 should have just said "that's not fair" when they had to fight tigers for real.

Actually in real life a tiger would take out a sherman in one shot from well over a kilometer away while a sherman couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of a tiger at 100m!

No one really knows how well pershings would have performed in WW2 because they were never really used. There are very few if any combat reports involving pershings.

In fact, pershings really shouldn't be included in WW2 games because they weren't even deployed until the war was over (much like the IS3)

I know a tiger would outgun a sherman, of course it would. You would have to be a complete moron to not know that. Im talking about the speed of the pershing compared to the speed of the tiger. The pershing was slower than the sherman, so I was saying if I commanded a pershing in WW2 I wouldnt try and use it as a flanking machine, as its not fit for it. If I had a sherman, sure I would flank till my hearts content.

In fact, pershings were deployed in ww2, and one pershing alone took down a tiger and panther by itself in face to face combat. Hitting one on the underbelly *the tiger* and killing the panther with a broadside hit. They were deployed in feb. of 45. No they didnt really see that much action, but I have to say.. on pershing taking down a tiger and a panther by itself... seems pretty impressive to me.

PS in the response to the person who said a Tiger could destroy 5 shermans at once...
First off I don't think so
Second off this is a game, not reality meant to be fun
Third the tiger was also about 4 times more expensive than a sherman to build so for 1000MP I should then get 4-5 shermans =)
Finally if we want to go by realism then we should have Tigers breaking down all over the field, taking 5 minutes to repair before they can do anything.... Doesnt sound like much fun now does it?

I agree with you. A lone tiger wouldnt be able to take down 5 shermans. It would be greatly outnumbered in number and speed and would eventually go down.

As far as the realism bit goes.. im not all hyped up on realism. All I want to see is the tiger get nerfed a bit more in its strength so its not as hard to kill.

For those of you saying that a lone tiger could be killed by 3 at's... well your simply wrong. I've seen one tiger face 3 at's head on and kill all three of them before he even got down to half health.

Rambocop

28th Sep 06, 3:15 AM

Jawbrkr']As far as the realism bit goes.. im not all hyped up on realism. All I want to see is the tiger get nerfed a bit more in its strength so its not as hard to kill.

The Tiger is already nerfed to hell, as far as armor and firepower are concerned.

For those of you saying that a lone tiger could be killed by 3 at's... well your simply wrong. I've seen one tiger face 3 at's head on and kill all three of them before he even got down to half health.

The only way this is possible is if the 3 guns were stationed next to each other, all facing the Tiger's front armor, which is tottaly wrong, so they deserved to die! Also, the Tiger needs to get a bit lucky and maybe defelect a shell, one-shot a gun etc, too many variables really. Was it a normal Tiger or a Tiger ace btw?

Don't forget that there are many many variable and random factors affecting combat in CoH, so what "you have seen" does not matter a bit, it matters only if lots of people see something consistently. I have seen an AT gun kill my (normal) Tiger in 3 shots, what does this mean? Nothing. It was rather close, hitting rear armor, the Tiger was stationary and most importantly it was not shooting back :). I am not going to say "OMFG ATs one-shot my Tigers, nerf!! Allies are overpowered!!"

Speaking of imba, Alcorr mentioned the Armored Company's ability to cap points with light armor, which is just about the most overpowered ability in the game until you learn to cope with it. Forget the Pershing, screw the Tiger, the M8 becomes the most powerful vehicle in the game!

Ah, the beauty of asymmetry!

Kingwood

28th Sep 06, 7:45 AM

1. American doctrine called for at least 5 Shermans when facing a single Tiger tank, as anything less would result in a victorious tiger.

2. The Pershing could take on Panthers and Tigers head-on, though it didn't really come into play in the war. A single Pershing was lost near Cologne when it received a full frontal hit from a Nashorn at 250m range.

-The Pershings 90mm gun was a bit more powerful than the Tigers 88mm.

-The Pershing had about the same armor plating as the Tiger. (Tiger: 100mm frontal armor, 110mm Turret; Pershing: 102mm frontal armor, 114mm Turret)

3. The Tiger had thick armor, unfortunately it wasn't sloped or angled. A T34/85 was able to take a Tiger out from 1km away.
The Panther was designed in response to the T34 threat. The T34 had Germany astounded when it first appeared. Sloped and angled armor made it very survivable, and it's broad tracks lets it cross muddy terrain very well. German engineers actually thought of just copying the T34 design, but then came up with the Panther. It is generally not well-known, but Russia fielded some nasty tanks. The T34 was arguably the best Tank in the war, next to the Tiger and Panther.

Just my 2 cents, now back to topic. :)

Mirage Knight

28th Sep 06, 8:08 AM

A Panther or Tiger could swat down even a T34/85 from 2km - some accounts state T34's being knocked out at 3km by 88mm ordinance. I've read an account of 6 Panthers dispatching 22 T34's in a single engagement before withdrawing - without incurring any losses themselves.

The best tank the Soviets ever fielded during the war was the JS-2, which was more heavily armed and armoured than the T34.

The 88m KwK43 L/70 weilded by the Tiger II / Konigstiger > Pershing's 90mm gun in terms of overall performance (range, muzzle velocity, and AP characteristics) - due in part to superior shell design.

Virigoth

28th Sep 06, 8:15 AM

The T34 was arguably the best Tank in the war, next to the Tiger and Panther.

Very true Kingwood. T34 was in fact the most effective tank of the war, something not really known in the North America(Gee I wonder why :) ). It was mass produced, early on with a 76 (or 75?)mm later on in the war fitted with the 85mm gun. It was the first tank of the war to use sloped frontal armor making it famous amongst german troops for it's ability to withstand direct fire. Until the advent of the converted Flak 88mm anti tanks guns T34s crews enjoyed the safest tank of WW2.

What many people do not know about panthers, is that unlike tigers they were very mechanicly unreliable. They were infamous for track/wheel failures and generaly not considered a very successful tank.

PS. T34's successor was the Joseph Stalin (IS2) which carried 122mm gun and had armor capable of withstanding direct fire from tiger's 88mm cannons.

Craeshen

28th Sep 06, 8:16 AM

I love forum necromancy.:rip:

Demon_Eyes

28th Sep 06, 11:27 AM

The T34 is regarded as the most effecient, that is not a fact, that is an opinion. The panther had transmission issues in it's early production, these were eventually sorted out, mechanically it was regarded as better than the tiger 1 in reliablity.

Kingwood

28th Sep 06, 1:19 PM

The T34 is widely regarded as one, if not the best, tank of the war. It's design was revolutionary, allowing it to survive hits which would, in a more conventional design, have penetrated it's relatively thin armor. When the Germans first encountered it they were shocked. That is a fact. Keep in mind that the main tanks in use were Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs.

This does not mean that the T34 was an Übertank. Tigers or Panthers were more superior. What made the T34 that effective was ease of manufacture, reliability, speed, and sheer available numbers. Tigers and Panthers were plaqued with engine failures, the Panther engine had an estimated longevity of about 1000km. As the war drew closer this was even more noticeable in the King Tigers, for example.

What made the German tanks that effective were not the technical specifications, but the doctrines, communications equipment and optical systems. The French army fielded superior tanks in the beginning of the war (read up on the Char B1 and the S35 Somua). However, their doctrine of using tanks solely as infantry support lost them the war in 2 weeks. Had the French been organized similar to the German army, it could've been very different.
German tanks had radio as standard equipment, orders could be relayed efficiently and fast, and the commander didn't have to use handsignals to relay orders. (Russian tanks in the early part of the war had to rely on hand signals.)
German optical equipment was superior to anything the Allies and Russians fielded. After all, the best gun is useless if it can't hit. Germans won ranged battles because they actually managed to hit.

Now, back on topic. I haven't played the game, as it hasn't been released here in Germany yet, but I would wager that the tanks have been designed as abstractions, not to represent their historical counterparts. Pershings and Tigers are very similar in specs, and a 1 on 1 matchup should be pretty much similar, but you have to keep in mind that the Tiger first appeared in late 1942, and the Pershing in early 1945. In 1945 the Germans fielded 128mm guns (Jagdpanther), which were deadly counters. In general allied tanks were faster and more lightly armored, while german tanks, especially in the later years, were more heavily armored and heavily armed. So it makes sense that the last tier tanks should favor the axis in terms of firepower and armor, even though historically the Pershing and Tiger are about equal. I am not a designer, and I haven't played the game yet, so this is just a wild guess. The game is supposed to appear tomorrow, I can't wait. Cheers! :)

PS: If you want a historical simulation of the War and tanks especially, go check out a game called Combat Mission.

Edit: Jagdtiger, not Jagdpanther. The JP fielded a L/71 88mm cannon.

Sporky

9th Oct 06, 12:00 PM

*Casts resurrection on thread*

Yes I feel like a bit of ranting after the game I just played.
It's about the bloody tiger ace. That thing is friggin' indestructible.

After some tugging back and forth and destroying an early stug that entered my base I finally got a calliope and a wolverine, which I used to destroy a stug. His Panzer IV retreated to base. I had some ammo to spare so I shot some rockets in his base as well as getting a second calliope. By this time I had 80% map control for a minute or so.
Until his almighty friggin' tiger ace of doom came in with his friend the panzer IV.
Both of them took a straight calliope barrage, damaging the panzer and taking like 25% health of the ace. The ace then proceeded to completely rape my two calliope's while shrugging off pretty much all damage and hell it still had 50% health left. While my flanking wolverine died a fast death at the hand of the panzer.
I managed to get 1 calliope out alive and 1 near dead engineer.
From there it just all went to shit, I came back with a pershin, the calliope and a sherman. Facing again the tiger ace which was now back to health. Pershin died of 2 Pak's and the tiger on it. The sherman and the calliope (who barraged the paks and killed the crews) then once again were faced with a tiger and 2 brand new panzer's.

Even though I denied him the big fuel point and he only had 1 med and low one for a small time he still managed to turn the tide simply with a tiger ace and a panzer. Because the ace is damn near indestructible and invincible when even slightly supported by anything slightly anti tank. I must have shot 3 calliope's barrages on him and many more sherman shells...

Does it has to be so damn near invincible?

Demonic Spoon

9th Oct 06, 12:06 PM

Until his almighty friggin' tiger ace of doom came in with his friend the panzer IV.
Both of them took a straight calliope barrage, damaging the panzer and taking like 25% health of the ace. The ace then proceeded to completely rape my two calliope's while shrugging off pretty much all damage and hell it still had 50% health left. While my flanking wolverine died a fast death at the hand of the panzer.
I managed to get 1 calliope out alive and 1 near dead engineer.
From there it just all went to shit, I came back with a pershin, the calliope and a sherman. Facing again the tiger ace which was now back to health. Pershin died of 2 Pak's and the tiger on it. The sherman and the calliope (who barraged the paks and killed the crews) then once again were faced with a tiger and 2 brand new panzer's.

You've got to be shitting me.

Calliopes are not ment to fight tanks, for one. They can't get the upgraded 76mm cannon. The M10 is ment to dish out damage, not to recieve it, so it obviously died. Your Pershing got killed by 2 anti-tank guns and a tiger ace...can't say I see the problem with that.

The key to dealing with Tigers: AT guns. SPREAD THEM OUT so that a single artillery barrage can't kill them all, and you'll be able to hit his side armor. Use AP shots if you can spare the munitions. If he tries to flee, chase him down with your shermans/m10s and nail him in the rear.

For best results, use riflemen to sticky/mines to disable the engine, so that your AT guns can get more shots off.

Busby

9th Oct 06, 12:07 PM

Did you flank it?

Sporky

9th Oct 06, 12:18 PM

You've got to be shitting me.

Calliopes are not ment to fight tanks, for one. They can't get the upgraded 76mm cannon. The M10 is ment to dish out damage, not to recieve it, so it obviously died. Your Pershing got killed by 2 anti-tank guns and a tiger ace...can't say I see the problem with that.

The key to dealing with Tigers: AT guns. SPREAD THEM OUT so that a single artillery barrage can't kill them all, and you'll be able to hit his side armor. Use AP shots if you can spare the munitions. If he tries to flee, chase him down with your shermans/m10s and nail him in the rear.

For best results, use riflemen to sticky/mines to disable the engine, so that your AT guns can get more shots off.
The M10 was flanking, the damage it did on the ace was... hardly worth it.

If I spend 1200 MP on 2 calliope's and 125 to barrage a 1000mp tiger i'm expecting a better result then reducing him to 50% health.
First calliope was hitting the front, the second hitting the side from a bit of an angle but at least those shots seemed to penetrate.

And i'm not saying the pershin didn't deserved to die after getting hit by the ace and 2 paks. It's about having an other sherman and calliope (out of pak's angle) flanking the tiger (and an other half hit barrage) doing crap damage. The pershin got like 2 or 3 front penetrating hits through his front as well.

And then there was this third occasion on the ramp to the right of the map which I had mined (damaged the ace's engine) an other calliope barrage and a 2 striped sherman which again only brought down the sucker to 50% before it crippled the sherman and again destroyed the calliope within 3 shots.

I was having an excessive amount of fuel but not enough manpower. Having to build a motorpool and AT guns just didn't seemed like a good choice at the time. Cause well you know, I could pump out tanks.

How much fuel and man power do I have to spend to bring down a 1000mp tiger?

Busby

9th Oct 06, 12:21 PM

If you can micro well only one Sherman...

You nether hit the Tiger's rear, therefore you FAIL.

Sporky

9th Oct 06, 12:26 PM

Because not every map allows for running around a tiger
Not to mention it had a half way dead panzer helping it (after the first missile barrage)

In an other senario (where I did managed to bring a tiger ace down) I had 1 at gun (ap rounds) and 1 sherman at the front, an other one at the flank and 1 right behind it, doing rear hits. (none of those shermans had upgrades) Still the ace managed to almost kill one of the shermans (which I had to drive away in full reverse or else it would have been killed) before finally dying after taking the huge amount of punishment 3x 420 mp + 300 mp and 270 fuel + 50 ammo.
For what it costs it can take way and way too much damage

Turin Turambar

9th Oct 06, 12:31 PM

3 allies together and you only had tanks? 0 ATG? Wow... it's normal that a good axis tank force defeated you. Yes, you used after AT Guns, but it was too late, ATG doesn't work alone. In the same manner that allied tanks doesn't work alone, like you saw. Try a mix between the two next time, 3-4 ATG, some infantry squads and a few tanks. The differents units are meant to work together.

Demonic Spoon

9th Oct 06, 12:32 PM

The M10 was flanking, the damage it did on the ace was... hardly worth it.

The m10 gun is basically an upgraded Sherman's gun. It needs to fire into the rear for some time to do some good damage, but flanking is still the best way to do it.

If I spend 1200 MP on 2 calliope's and 125 to barrage a 1000mp tiger i'm expecting a better result then reducing him to 50% health.
First calliope was hitting the front, the second hitting the side from a bit of an angle but at least those shots seemed to penetrate.

Cost does not necessarily mean power. Should I bitching about imbalance if I spend 2000 MP on AT guns and they can't take out 3 riflemen squads? What about spending 1000 munitions on riflemen, only to get killed by a cheap Puma?

Calliopes are not ment to harm armor.

And i'm not saying the pershin didn't deserved to die after getting hit by the ace and 2 paks. It's about having an other sherman and calliope (out of pak's angle) flanking the tiger (and an other half hit barrage) doing crap damage. The pershin got like 2 or 3 front penetrating hits through his front as well.

The Calliope's gun is not upgraded. It's supposed to be shitty against armor. Do you really expect it to hurt the most powerful tank in the game in any significant way?

And was the Sherman gun upgraded? If so, it should have done some okay damage to the back...nothing great. If it was not upgraded, then you're right, it doesn't do any good damage, and it shouldn't.

And then there was this third occasion on the ramp to the right of the map which I had mined (damaged the ace's engine) an other calliope barrage and a 2 striped sherman which again only brought down the sucker to 50% before it crippled the sherman and again destroyed the calliope within 3 shots.

So because its engine is destroyed it should be an easy kill for two light tanks not even ment to combat armor (or, if the sherman was upgraded, only one light tank ment to do okay damage to armor)?

I was having an excessive amount of fuel but not enough manpower. Having to build a motorpool and AT guns just didn't seemed like a good choice at the time. Cause well you know, I could pump out tanks.

So basically you're bitching because the thing Tigers are supposed to be good against-tanks-couldn't beat it cost-effectively? Please. You seem to think tanks are the end-all-be-all of units in the game.

How much fuel and man power do I have to spend to bring down a 1000mp tiger?

If a couple are able to hit the side/rear armor, then I know 3 AT guns (especially with AP shells) can down one pretty easily. Sticky bombs work wonders on them...Anything pretty much to immobilize it while AT guns/flanking M10s/upgunned shermans pound it (preferably from the side/rear)

Busby

9th Oct 06, 12:33 PM

M-10s, Shermans, and even the Perishing can drive circles around Tigers, out running the turret, and the only way to totally block your from flanking is to back the Tiger against a building.

In that case go around it, if he moves to engage you simply move behind it and circle it...

Sporky

9th Oct 06, 12:48 PM

I'm talking to a brick wall here

all i'm hearing here is "omgbbq you have no skills!1!!"

@Busby I'll just repeat this till it penetrates your 100mm thick skull.
"Half dead panzer IV supporting and limited terrain freedom (buildings in the way plus hilly terrain) = no running circles around the tiger ace" "Half dead panzer IV supporting and limited terrain freedom (buildings in the way plus hilly terrain) = no running circles around the tiger ace" "Half dead panzer IV supporting and limited terrain freedom (buildings in the way plus hilly terrain) = no running circles around the tiger ace" "Half dead panzer IV supporting and limited terrain freedom (buildings in the way plus hilly terrain) = no running circles around the tiger ace"

Did that got it across or should I upgrade to a 76mm flood cannon?

@ Spoon (I feel like i'm talking to myself when I say that, Spoon has been my nick for over 8 years now :P ) i'm saying that any other tank (normal tiger included) would have been dead by the amount of firepower fired on it. The ace can simply take way way too much punishment for what it costs.
Cause you know, putting good crew in a normal Tiger tank will suddenly allow it to soak up 50% more damage right? :rollleyes:

Sure sure I could have build AT cannons and be put in the defensive and sure I could have done that and this and that but with the way the ace is now, I'm gonna scream OP. Cause with a little AT support the Ace is invincible when you are throwing any sort of allied armor against it and heck you don't even have to have any fuel to buy that monster.

Demonic Spoon

9th Oct 06, 12:51 PM

@ Spoon (I feel like i'm talking to myself when I say that, Spoon has been my nick for over 8 years now :P ) i'm saying that any other tank (normal tiger included) would have been dead by the amount of firepower fired on it. The ace can simply take way way too much punishment for what it costs.
Cause you know, putting good crew in a normal Tiger tank will suddenly allow it to soak up 50% more damage right? :rollleyes:

Sure sure I could have build AT cannons and be put in the defensive and sure I could have done that and this and that but with the way the ace is now, I'm gonna scream OP. Cause with a little AT support the Ace is invincible when you are throwing any sort of allied armor against it and heck you don't even have to have any fuel to buy that monster.

1) AT guns can be used offensively.

2) I would agree to a small fuel cost...nothing huge, maybe 50...

3) Tanks aren't supposed to kill it. The weakness of the Tiger is its speed. It is hellishly vulnerable to AT guns compared to other tanks, and can't really do much to avoid sticky bombs making it even more immobile.

Busby

9th Oct 06, 12:56 PM

Then force the Tiger to fight on your terms Sporky, don't engage it, build up a ambush point that you know the Tiger will have to go through, preferably open and building less. Urban maps this may be harder, then just have AT guns set up so the Tiger will have one AT gun attacking from the side (or rear if possible) and one from the front.

Sporky

9th Oct 06, 1:11 PM

Aside from the AT guns, I did that on the ramp.
Riflemen sticky's (2 of them) + barrage calliope and a 2 striped vet sherman and some mines. But the Tiger can simply all soak it up, be it penetrating hits or not because it has a abudance of health.

AT guns might have been the answer here but I just refuse to accept that an Ace cannot be brought down any other way...

Demonic Spoon

9th Oct 06, 3:42 PM

AT guns are a critical unit unless your tank force is far superior. Try going a game without building any riflemen.

Seeing as how the Tiger is a slow, powerful tank that is ment to annihilate other tanks, its obvious vulnerability is AT guns.

raydude

9th Oct 06, 5:29 PM

I would have killed the half dead panzer IV first, so I could run circles around the Tiger Ace. I mean seriously, you know the Panzer IV is the weaker of the two, but yet is the only one preventing you from flanking the Tiger. Yet you concentrate on trying to kill the Tiger first, knowing the whole time that the Panzer IV is preventing you from getting the optimum rear shot? That's crazy talk!

PrinceMyshkin

9th Oct 06, 6:00 PM

Hmmm...

I personally think that Tiger/Panzer turret is bugged. This is not micro. People exploit a designing error here.

As for Sherman's vs. Tigers match up... In world war2 Allies would never go under 4:1 to Shermans vs. a Tiger match up. So people please don't complain. :)

Tiger should be simply OP in battle.

On the other hand the only way to win a panzer is combined troops. Like mass AT guns, Anti-Infantry/Anti-Tank infantry, Air-support, Artillery, Tanks and mines is the only way to victory.

When I hear things like we had 10 tanks. All I can say is lol. 10 Tanks alone are useless.

Infantry >>> Visual range than Tanks. So with half a dozen tanks + half a dozen AT support + half a dozen Infantry squads you have better chances.

Why people always want to spam the most OP unit and expect to win by that? ^^ This is not skill.

For the record in ww2, tigers had big problems vs. mines. What mines do vs. tanks is destroy the caterpillars and the wheels. In Tigers you had to remove like all the wheels to replace one. So if you guys want to improve something you can easily increase Tiger repair time by a factor of 1.3-1.5, and make Tigers less OP.

Thank you.

holymoly

9th Oct 06, 6:25 PM

err... AP rounds? Stickies? smoke? mines? hello? if he has a tiger, and you dont know how to use any of the above, then he doesnt even need a tiger to win... if you cant kill a tiger what makes you think you can kill panthers?

Alcorr

9th Oct 06, 8:52 PM

The ace can simply take way way too much punishment for what it costs.
Cause you know, putting good crew in a normal Tiger tank will suddenly allow it to soak up 50% more damage right? :rollleyes:

Sure sure I could have build AT cannons and be put in the defensive and sure I could have done that and this and that but with the way the ace is now, I'm gonna scream OP. Cause with a little AT support the Ace is invincible when you are throwing any sort of allied armor against it and heck you don't even have to have any fuel to buy that monster.

The tiger ace takes more damage than any other tank in the game, but you have to remember, you can only get one, and thats the main strength of the terror doctrine.

Allied armor company on the other hand, gets allied war machine, field repairs, raid, two pershings (max) an unlimited calliopes, and thats all armor abilities.

To compensate for that, terror tree main strength is that it gets one super tank.

So whats the problem again?

Also, if you are saying that you can't flank a tiger tank, that its unbalanced, well thats just not true. If he has his flanks protected, then thats him doing a good job, and you in a bad tactical position, that doesn't mean that the tank itself is overpowered.

Besides, there isn't a single time in this game where its completely IMPOSSIBLE to flank something.

The key is to keep the tiger busy with AT guns in the front while you send an M10 to the back.

The turret turns so slow, by the time he trys to attack your M10, just withdraw and keep flanking him with other units until he dies.

82ndTrooper

9th Oct 06, 8:56 PM

if anything the tigers need a small boost and the at guns need a little nerf in the amount of damage they can absorb, they are too hard to kill atm in my oppinion.

Sporky

10th Oct 06, 12:27 AM

@Holymoly your retarded. Go read the things posted first then come back.

@ PrinceMyshkin, The tiger turret really was that slow to turn. Not just ingame

The tiger ace can blow through the AT guns armored skirt with 2-3 shots btw, completely destroying it.

Now to show an other example. I played an other game yesterday and got a tiger ace on the field as well. I was building a panzer for support remembering how invincible that combo is from last game.
My ace was engaged by a sherman and a 2 vet striped M10 and Calliope. He immediatly used the terrain to position the 3 tanks around the ace, having the m10 at the rear the sherman in front and the calliope at the flank. My ace got like 2 shots off on different tanks cause the guy pretty much ran away the tank that got shot.
So I was like "ah well, ill just drive my tiger home for some repairs and link him up with the panzer" and ordered the ace away. While in the mean time the M10 must have gotten 5 rear shots off and continued to get a couple more along with the calliope at the Ace's rear.
Did the ace care? "Nah, I still got 25% left" and he easily managed to get back to my base while he must have taken an additional 3-4 shots in the rear.
2 Pioneer squads started to fix him up while the panzer moved in as support. My opponent seeing that he was no way in hell getting the ace destroyed with 3 half way damaged tanks, he drove into my base in a desperate attempt to kill the panzer command and blablabla
Conclusion: The ridicilous amount of damage the ace can soak up = OP

Unsupported it takes a lot of the allies to take it down already. Supported it just becomes an impossible job.