Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Pleb Squasher
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue 4 Nov 2014 06:35
Contact:

Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby Pleb Squasher » Thu 5 Jan 2017 12:36

I play armoured mostly in ranked, it's tough but it's the deck I can usually get the most out of. Part of the reason I really like armoured, is because having reliable tanks, that I can expect to beat other tanks of the same price, fits in very well with my play style, however there's one issue that really annoys me when I play armoured and that's when you compare the reliability and subsequent killing power of my high vet tanks vs the comparatively low vet tanks (hardened or trained) that other decks operate.

So the big issue:
A big reason I run armoured is because I like having super heavies with an edge so I can reliably beat other players tanks of the same sort. In practice however taking armoured has almost no effect here and the bonus is unfairly mitigated. How is it mitigated? Almost almost all high end tanks sport very high accuracy ratings, fair enough, but what's the point of having the extra veterancy when the enemy tanks hit every time anyway? Well there's the morale factor, however this doesn't really make any difference in these sorts of engagements. It's actually extremely frustrating, when I roll out my super heavy's, expecting them to perform above and beyond comparable enemy options, only to find myself in evenly matched fights. Honestly, it really unnecessarily mitigates the advantage I'm supposed to get from running armoured which is straight up unfair, armoured deck's tanks are supposed to perform flat out better, there's nothing else to it.

The issue also arises when fighting some other units with ridiculous accuracy ratings, like Leopard 1s. They aren't at any real disadvantage when fighting comparable tanks because of their stupidly high accuracy ratings. Lets be honest, the main reason you upvet units, is to benefit from accuracy buffs, so that in a head on fight, you hit and they miss and you win the fight. Wargame unit's lethality has only increased more and more in RD, perhaps eugen should think about reviewing this and seeing how the scales could be tipped so that players using the spec decks, actually receive the edge in combat they sacrifice a diverse deck for.

I think super heavies should be available at rookie 2/hardened 1 for non armoured decks. These tanks with 70% accuracy simply don't need any additional stat buffs to be competitive and when running an armoured deck, you deserve (and need) the advantage offered by having way higher vetted tanks so that in a head on slug fest, you can expect to win, just like all other spec decks do with their preferred units.

Armoured is already extremely limited in ability in many ways, there's absolutely no justification for their tanks to be lackluster.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby urogard » Thu 5 Jan 2017 14:28

Units are capped at 70% accuracy
Anything beyond that simply increases your chance at dealing criticals (more damage, debuffs, etc)
Taking armored with superheavies therefore allows your tanks to deal criticals on a very regular basis

And 4 Leopard 1A5 have close to no chance vs any superheavy anywhere outside of forest minimum ranges

User avatar
CandyMan
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sat 11 May 2013 01:24
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby CandyMan » Thu 5 Jan 2017 14:33

Armored lets you take normally crap accuracy tanks without having to pray to RNGODS they hit.
Image
Your standard pinko Commie swine...
Rabidnid wrote:NK has a veritable cornucopia of mediocrity to choose from when it comes to inexpensive vehicular recon!

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby Killertomato » Thu 5 Jan 2017 14:37

CandyMan wrote:Armored lets you take normally crap accuracy tanks without having to pray to RNGODS they hit.


This has a muuuuuuch larger effect for some nations than others though.

How many Israeli tank tab units have bad accuracy?
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7497
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby Razzmann » Thu 5 Jan 2017 14:50

urogard wrote:Units are capped at 70% accuracy

Pretty sure that original statement meant that there is no (non-naval) unit with more than 70% base accuracy.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby molnibalage » Thu 5 Jan 2017 15:02

urogard wrote:Units are capped at 70% accuracy
Anything beyond that simply increases your chance at dealing criticals (more damage, debuffs, etc)
Taking armored with superheavies therefore allows your tanks to deal criticals on a very regular basis

And 4 Leopard 1A5 have close to no chance vs any superheavy anywhere outside of forest minimum ranges

How many times will post this statement? Or the calc. ACC value above the weapons are false? You can see way higher values than 70%... Or are we speaking about base ACC?

User avatar
morpher
Major-General
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 21:03

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby morpher » Thu 5 Jan 2017 15:05

molnibalage wrote:
urogard wrote:Units are capped at 70% accuracy
Anything beyond that simply increases your chance at dealing criticals (more damage, debuffs, etc)
Taking armored with superheavies therefore allows your tanks to deal criticals on a very regular basis

And 4 Leopard 1A5 have close to no chance vs any superheavy anywhere outside of forest minimum ranges

How many times will post this statement? Or the calc. ACC value above the weapons are false? You can see way higher values than 70%... Or are we speaking about base ACC?


1 - Base acc is capped at 70%.
2 - Displayed acc in game is true.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby wargamer1985 » Thu 5 Jan 2017 19:47

Razzmann wrote:
urogard wrote:Units are capped at 70% accuracy

Pretty sure that original statement meant that there is no (non-naval) unit with more than 70% base accuracy.

Crotale strikes again!
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

Kastev
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu 30 Jan 2014 20:46
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby Kastev » Thu 5 Jan 2017 20:00

CandyMan wrote:Armored lets you take normally crap accuracy tanks without having to pray to RNGODS they hit.


That feel when Elite Sheridans actually hit things with their missiles

I mean yeah, that stuff still doesn't usually die, but hey, ELITE SHERIDANS BABY

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: Tanks, high vet vs low vet

Postby Mister Maf » Thu 5 Jan 2017 20:03

Armored is incredibly useful for Eastern tanks with weaker fire control systems and low-accuracy missiles. The Moderna turns into a real superheavy with the accuracy bonus, and other tanks land hits with their Svirs much more regularly. Lower-end tanks with poor accuracy suddenly become able to smash enemy tanks of a comparable tier. Higher-end tanks are able to precisely fire on the move with their boosted stabilizer accuracy.

The morale recovery and stun resistance are also pretty huge in a combined arms situation where there missiles and artillery shells flying all over the place.

Armored is fine.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shifu and 51 guests