Before I begin, thanks for all the helpful replies, it's good to see that most of you are taking my concerns seriously ^^
(I was worried at first -.-)
It is obvious than the Axis "Super Tanks" are better than Tiger because you can call them just once, so they better should worth it.
We are not going to change anything regarding CoH balance because that's what Relic decided to implement, but we can tweak IS2 and IS3 vs Tiger because it concerns EF balance... but that's up to balancers.
You have a good point here, but I do not really think that their status as one-time call-ins should give the other tanks
that much of an advantage over the Tiger. The point here is that their disadvantage will only kick in if they are destroyed, and while the loss of one IS-3 or KT will almost certainly cause you to lose the game, a lost Tiger will have a quite similar effect... Recovering from such a loss is rarely possible, as even though you can instantly replace the Tiger, you'll still have lost 800 MP and (probably) a major battle, which is usually nothing you can make up for with another Tiger... The relatively low power of the Tiger while it is on the field just doesn't seem to be totally justified by the fact that you're allowed to lose it.
Well I dont think an IS-2 can beat a Tiger but if statistically they can then I guess that's something that should be looked at. And also I wouldnt really know cause most of the time, ppl have at least vet1 when the Tiger arrives which is a game changing factor.
I didn't want to imply that a Tiger loses to an IS-2, it doesn't, sorry for not being clear enough about that. Also, I agree on the whole veterancy argument - it augments the tigers expendability in an effective way, and makes it somewhat useful as a damage sponge, but it isn't really great at that either, and, most importantly, it can't really do anything else, whereas the KT absolutely excels at said sponge job, the IS-3 has the mobility and firepower to control a large area on the map, and the Ace is so fast that it can really mess with most opponents flanking strategies - and the latter two can still be damage sponges if they need to be. So, straight 1v1 strength isn't the only thing the Tiger is lacking, it's more about general utility and it's impact on the battlefield (yeah, I know i keep on rambling about that...).
+1 for effort
Thanks
To give a balancer position on it, the IS-3 has received some pretty significant nerfs against the Tiger (But is still strong) and the ISU has received some buffs VS tanks, but can really only win a standoff with a turreted tank with ample support.
Of course the Tiger Ace, King Tiger, and Jagpanther/Jagtiger are stronger than the Tiger. They're 1 time call-ins. The King Tiger offers no other units to support it, so it has to be strong, only offers some off-map options and an active + passive ability.
That's quite interesting to hear, though the IS-3 still trashes the Tiger no matter what. Which is fine, if only a living IS-3 had
any disadvantage, or any area where it isn't better in comparison to a living Tiger. It currently takes more damage than a Tiger, deals more damage than a Tiger and moves faster than a Tiger (which is a considerable boost to both zone control and survivability). Sure, a dead Tiger beats a dead IS-3, but the Tiger is, for obvious reasons, much, much easier to destroy. The same goes for the Ace, and to a lesser extent for the JP and KT, though these do have some slight disadvantages: The KT is even slower and the JP has no turret. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not raging about the Ace and IS-3, I believe that the EF team did a great job both designing and balancing these units. It's just that I feel like the Tiger can't really keep up with them anymore, and it's replaceability doesn't seem like a sufficiently lager advantage to make up for it.
Sounds like you aren't using Tigers to their fullest extent anyway.
While this may be true, you'll have to agree that the Tiger doesn't really offer too many options to a player, especially not in comparison to its more mobile counterparts. Also, from what I've seen in most of the replays of the pros around here, I've never seen the Tiger make too much of a difference. The KT is an impenetrable wall. The IS-3 can do pretty much everything. And a well-played Tiger Ace is among the most game-changing units I've seen so far. The Tiger however? It tries to be all of that, but it just doesn't seem good enough to actually accomplish much.
A for effort but I don't agree with your post.
Tiger I is incomparable to the 1 time tanks.
vs Pershing:
The upgun actually has a 2% chance not to penetrate at long range (huge I know 
). The Tiger has very strong vet which heavily swings the battle in its favour. Vet1 and 2 are super important for Tiger vs Pershing battles, and vet3 will also help dramatically unless the Pershing is also allowed to gain Vet2. Vet1/2 will not help the Pershing against a Tiger.
Most of the time, these battles end in the Pershing retreating because it is losing. The Pershing can win if it stays at long range and the Tiger will win if at close range or has vet. This is pretty fair. The Tiger can also use Blitz to move the odds in his favour considerably.
I agree about the direct match-up being fair, but the Pershing still offers way superior zone control. The two units are roughly equal in direct combat power, but both utility and survivability of the Pershing are better due to its speed.
About BT doc
We are in the process of reshuffling BT doc because the RHS is too accessible while at the same time totally MP callins. This doctrine will be closer to Armour doc from US when we are done (no Calliopes/Kats though). It will have much more synergy with T3/4 strats and much less with T2 strats because some callins are being removed and abilities altered to give benefits to Tank Hall units.
That's good to hear, especially when linked to Cranialwizard's argument about the KT deserving it's strength due to a lack of supportive doctrinal call-ins, which the IS-3 obviously doesn't suffer from. Looking forward to it
The Tiger I is a meatshield unit. It's designed to soak up damage while also dishing out quite a lot, especially against infantry. 1 shot 4 riflemen dead? No problem, Tiger 88mm does that easily.
Especially compared to King Tiger and Jagdpanther the Tiger I creates such a huge manpower drain for the enemy that it's very costly to attack the Tiger without having appropriate heavy armour support. If you support the Tiger with Panzerschrecks, paks and/or Panthers there shouldn't be much that your enemy can do about it.
Also, like Dennis said, you absolutely NEED veterancy on the Tiger. A vet 0 Tiger is weak, but a vet 3 Tiger is a beast.
I have to admit, I didn't consider the Tiger's anti-infantry capabilities to be too much of a large advantage, I'll have to think about that once more. My point about other units doing exactly the same and more things still stands, however - Both the Ace and the IS-3 have got the same anti-infantry power, and a vet 3 Pershing may even surpass them (without upgun, so it's not much of an argument, but w/e). Also, the Ace isn't a designated meatshield - it can however easily become one if it needs to be, and still go back to striking the enemy where it hurts and quickly retreating in a moments notice.
So well, I hope I made my point clear, you're arguments certainly gave me a much better view of the situation. I still believe that the Tiger needs a slight buff to make up for it's utter lack of utility and zone control in comparison to its counterparts, but it doesn't seem quite as bad to me anymore.
Thanks again for all the helpful and well-argumented replies, and I hope you'll reconsider your opinions.
With best regards, Major Hochstetter
Show Posts
They looks awesome! The MG Gunner und the Marksman..., all Infantery pictures looks great!