A Path Beyond Med vs Heavy

[des1206]

Does anyone else feel Heavy is the worse tank here? I know it's got slightly longer range than the med and slightly greater DPS vs buildings (+6% just like its +6% price), but it has the same DPS  vs vehicles (edit: vs Mammoth armor, it's actually worse. It takes 2 seconds longer vs the Med to kill a Chronotank).

The real kicker is its slow firing rate makes it misses much more often vs med. That combined with its slower speed, turret turn speed, firing rate, turret limitations, makes this tank all around worse. I really don't see how it's a "heavy" tank at all! 

Edited December 26, 2018 by des1206

[Pushwall]

It's called balance. If the tanks reflected their RA strength Soviets would just win every game and nobody would want to play Allies. Even the way it is the game is still Soviet favoured but definitely not to that degree. The MBT game has remained mostly unchanged for the past few years because nobody's actually seen the MBT game as the problem. The way Soviet wins get less frequent the lower the tech level (Guard Duty, Canyon River, NBNW are among the Allies' best maps) suggests it's more likely shockkovs are the problem - maybe if those are nerfed we can make HTs a bit better., but the trouble is, the power gap between it and the Mammoth is already much smaller than it was in pre-Delta so you can't buff it without pushing the Mammoth closer to obsolescence, and you can't nerf the Medium because it already seems to be obsoleted by the Light judging by peoples' preferences, so tweaking the HT would mean tweaking every MBT and destroying a meta that's been accepted for a few years now.

[JigglyJie]

I remember back in Beta that Heavies had an extra 25HP and Armour. Not a great deal (to be honest, it almost seemed kinda pointless) but I think that was the only advantage it had aside from the extra turret.

 

Right now, I think they're good enough, in fact ever since they got a mobility increase I do like to pick them over Mammoths most of the time as their lower profile allows me to get into fights quicker and retreat if necessary. Naturally they have to somewhat match the Med in terms of fire power, be it via fire rate or better mobility, so that Meds aren't hopelessly outmatched, especially since medmechwhoring doesn't exist anymore.

[des1206]

Would it work if we gave the Heavy a higher ROF, but lower damage, keeping DPS the same? A faster, more frequent shot would help missing shots less of a penalty. The med can do the opposite, lower ROF, higher per shot damage. It could make interesting strategy using its mobility to fire/cover-reload/fire. This is how Ra3 balanced its Allied/Soviet tanks.

Side note: Can we give the Mammoth regenerating ARMOR, maybe with a time delay? Not Ralistic I know. It won't make much of a difference in direct battles, but it will help the tank on larger maps have the staying power to get to enemy base. 

[Raptor29aa]

3 hours ago, des1206 said:

Side note: Can we give the Mammoth regenerating ARMOR, maybe with a time delay? Not Ralistic I know. It won't make much of a difference in direct battles, but it will help the tank on larger maps have the staying power to get to enemy base. 

 I Agree, because the Allies have a way to repair mid-field for extra staying power. But the soviets moreover the mammoth tank could use a mid-field relief considering how slow they are.

I also agree on testing changes with the ROF without changing the DPS of the tanks to better gameplay (most meds can dodge one of the two HT shots).

[Pushwall]

So... make the heavy tank's shells weaker than the medium's?

[Raptor29aa]

2 hours ago, Pushwall said:

So... make the heavy tank's shells weaker than the medium's?

If you land half the shots aren’t they already?

Besides a slightly higher rof with lower dmg  would actually be a dmg buff if an occasional second hit occurs (in per minute dmg basis) because math (I am too lazy to explain).

Edited December 26, 2018 by Raptor29aa
Clarity

[thedisclaimitory]

it does: and its a heavy tank it shouldn't have a 105 mm gun its should at least have a 120mm or 130mm gun bigger than the Medium Tank why because its classified as a heavy tank the gun has to count for the name heavy tank not just the tanks gun but armor; and a Medium Tank can easily shoot off its health I killed, 3 med tanks in like 1 min and 30 second's on top of a hill pLease upgrade the health armor and gun to the heavy  tank and the Medium Tank needs a little bit better armor PLEASE, and in ra1 I was rushing with hts against an a1 allied player and med tanks can destroy ht rushes so I dont see your point there push wall 

Edited December 26, 2018 by thedisclaimitory
grammar issue

[Pushwall]

39 minutes ago, thedisclaimitory said:

and its a heavy tank it shouldn't have a 105 mm gun

Red Alert's manual disagrees with you

39 minutes ago, thedisclaimitory said:

 the gun has to count for the name heavy tank not just the tanks gun but armor;

Red Alert disagrees with you (strength means hp)

; medium tank
[2TNK]
Strength=400
Armor=heavy
	 
; heavy tank
[3TNK]
Strength=400
Armor=heavy

 

7 hours ago, des1206 said:

Side note: Can we give the Mammoth regenerating ARMOR, maybe with a time delay?

Don't Soviets dominate T5 maps enough already?

[Pushwall]

Also people seem to be forgetting that a long reload is not entirely a downside. In any situation where there is enough cover for a tank to hide behind the heavy tank is favoured over the allied tanks because it can spend more time in hiding due to not having to fire as frequently, and any amount of time where a tank is loaded but can't fire back due to the enemy tank being obscured is wasted DPS - less wasted for the heavy since it has longer periods of being unloaded and unable to fire back.

[KevinLancaster]

For a small buff, remove the turret restriction from the fuel drums mounted on the back? It's a balancing feature from the original releases of APB long before the team had any access to W3D engine code. Should the drums be kept because they were on the original Westwood render they could be mounted lower.

[des1206]

14 hours ago, Pushwall said:

Also people seem to be forgetting that a long reload is not entirely a downside. In any situation where there is enough cover for a tank to hide behind the heavy tank is favoured over the allied tanks because it can spend more time in hiding due to not having to fire as frequently, and any amount of time where a tank is loaded but can't fire back due to the enemy tank being obscured is wasted DPS - less wasted for the heavy since it has longer periods of being unloaded and unable to fire back.

In practice, I find it hard to use that strategy given Heavy's lower maneuverability. Would love to get a second opinion on this though.

14 hours ago, Pushwall said:

Don't Soviets dominate T5 maps enough already?

I get the balance argument. Maybe like you said some other units (Volk/Shock) can be nerfed a bit to allow us to beef up the tanks some more. The AT mine layer does a really good job keeping Soviet armor in check.

 For the Mammoth, how about we trade 5 hp/second regeneration for 3hp and 2 armor full health regeneration?

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by des1206

[GaryOak]

On 12/26/2018 at 5:38 PM, des1206 said:

Would it work if we gave the Heavy a higher ROF, but lower damage, keeping DPS the same? A faster, more frequent shot would help missing shots less of a penalty. The med can do the opposite, lower ROF, higher per shot damage. It could make interesting strategy using its mobility to fire/cover-reload/fire. This is how Ra3 balanced its Allied/Soviet tanks.

Side note: Can we give the Mammoth regenerating ARMOR, maybe with a time delay? Not Ralistic I know. It won't make much of a difference in direct battles, but it will help the tank on larger maps have the staying power to get to enemy base. 

I think this idea would only increase the problem. Right now I feel the HT barely wins over the MED in direct combat, but just as you pointed out, in the HT, it's harder to land every shot. 

I think one of the reasons the shots are harder to land is because of the double barrels; the two barrels simply can't have the same aim, so you'll miss a shot or two in a pinch.

I feel that right now the outcome of MED vs HT is thus dependant on the 'skill'  of the HT driver to land every shot with his two barrels. If he can, HT wins. If he misses some, MED wins (Offcourse dodging and maneoevering play into this as well)

A HT ROF increase and damage decrease will actually increase the skills needed to operate the HT, whilst leaving the MED for what it is. 

Ultimately, I think Push has a point (I mean the guy is busy with APB balancing 24/7). This may be the best balance possible without making one of the tanks useless.

 

[Mezmerize]

I've never had a problem using the Heavy Tank versus the Medium. Out of all of these suggestions, letting the turret turn all the way around is the only one I'd endorse.

Shocks & Kovs are powerful versus tanks and buildings, their field presence allows Soviet to blow a lot of shit up. When playing Allies, you gotta be the underdog, that's what the whole faction is. As a Captain, if you aim well you can mow down a lot of infantry fast. The Captain is the go to solution for shocks & kovs, hell for all soldier classes basically. 

[Ice]

On 12/26/2018 at 6:20 PM, thedisclaimitory said:

it does: and its a heavy tank it shouldn't have a 105 mm gun its should at least have a 120mm or 130mm gun bigger than the Medium Tank why because its classified as a heavy tank the gun has to count for the name heavy tank not just the tanks gun but armor; and a Medium Tank can easily shoot off its health I killed, 3 med tanks in like 1 min and 30 second's on top of a hill pLease upgrade the health armor and gun to the heavy  tank and the Medium Tank needs a little bit better armor PLEASE, and in ra1 I was rushing with hts against an a1 allied player and med tanks can destroy ht rushes so I dont see your point there push wall 

By the standards of the time period RA1 takes place in (1949 - 1953), a 105mm actually would often be considered to be a heavy tank gun, depending on a given country's definitions. Not only that, but RA1's rules.ini (the coding document from which Pushwall quoted the tank's stat's) specifically lists the Medium Tank's weapon as a 90mm, which by comparison also makes the Heavy Tank's gun, well, heavy, compared to the Medium Tank's. Plus it has TWO of the damn things, compared to the Medium Tank only having one.

Also two 120mm - 130mm guns would be absolutely ridiculous for the RA1 Heavy Tank. Even the Mammoth, a superheavy tank, "only" has 120mm guns. 

Personally I've never had a problem playing Heavy Tanks. Their turret restriction is fine and doesn't need to be removed, and I'd rather not see the guns clip through the fuel barrels. A suitable alternative, however, would be to remove the turret restriction, but have the guns somehow be forced to elevate slightly when going over the fuel barrels, just high enough to clear them. If such a feature were technically possible, then this should also be applied, to a lesser degree, to the Medium Tank, to stop the gun from clipping through the engine deck.

[thedisclaimitory]

yeah that is true ice but theres modern tanks in ra1 like an M1 Abrams, why there is I have no clue; and I think the heavy tank for the soviets is based off of the t-80  I forgot witch tank but these tanks are not from the 1940's  to the 50's these tanks are cold war tanks not tanks from ww2 witch means you will have 100 to 130 mm guns or more, and if your going to have cold war tanks you must be true to keep to the information of the tank not just slap a 100mm gun to say idk a Sherman and say it was in the info now yes you did well on the Medium Tank for the allies but soviets they did not slap a 105 mm gun to what ever tank that was atleast maybe a 135mm gun maybe more 

[Ice]

2 hours ago, thedisclaimitory said:

yeah that is true ice but theres modern tanks in ra1 like an M1 Abrams, why there is I have no clue; and I think the heavy tank for the soviets is based off of the t-80  I forgot witch tank but these tanks are not from the 1940's  to the 50's these tanks are cold war tanks not tanks from ww2 witch means you will have 100 to 130 mm guns or more, and if your going to have cold war tanks you must be true to keep to the information of the tank not just slap a 100mm gun to say idk a Sherman and say it was in the info now yes you did well on the Medium Tank for the allies but soviets they did not slap a 105 mm gun to what ever tank that was atleast maybe a 135mm gun maybe more 

The Medium Tank in RA1 is not an Abrams though; it only looks like one externally. Same with the Heavy Tank. While they look like certain modern tanks that we know, they're different "on the inside"; WWII-style steel armour instead of composite, more primitive electronics, different guns, etc. Make sense? Meanwhile, the GDI Medium Tank would be much closer to the real Abrams in terms of technology.

Also because this is an alternate timeline, things developed a bit differently. So no, you don't need to make a tank exactly like its real-world counterpart. (otherwise the double-barreled Heavy Tank wouldn't exist at all)

Another way to think of it: Imagine if someone traveled back in time with the Abrams/T-80 designs, and attempted to reproduce them with WWII-era technology, inevitably making numerous compromises in the process due to the limitations of the technology available at the time (less armour, weaker engines, more primitive electronics, etc.), as well as the cost of production. That's pretty much what the RA1 Medium/Heavy tanks could be characterized as.