First, let me try to break down Warhawk's argument to something more structured and less rambled.
Statement of Fact: Tigers over perform relative to Allied counterparts, Tigers under perform relative to Axis alternatives.
Argument 1: Tigers are on par or better than nearly all Allied tanks.
Also do you really belive that a Tiger is so much worse than a pershing although both are simiiar effective and resistant/vulnerable to each other factions weaponary?
A Tiger is now as cheap as a Pershing but retains its 1000 HP, 90% accuracy at max range and vet long range shot.
...
If you screen a tiger just with volks, it can be hell effective and a huge pain. Providing long range one-shot capabilties with superb accuracy and able to tank severel pen shot hits.
The direct Buffs tiger already received since debate broke out:
1. First cost drop when you took over controle of BK.
2. Gun damage buff
3. Gun range buff
4. Gun accuracy Buff
5. Now second cost drop.
(perhaps i forgot a few)
Indirect buffs:
1. HE shots hit their targets (which made esspecially big calibre guns very dangerous)
2. All AP shots dont gain extra damage anymore. Guns like 17 pdr max damage with AP thus dropped from 812,5 to 650 damage. Means you need more often 3 shots instead of 2 pen hits with 17 pdr to kill it
3. Ambush standardisation with damage/pen drop. Thus 17 pdrs dont deal 975 damage anymore from ambush. With AP and ambush the max damage dropped from 1218,75 to 812,5! Means Tiger got from "regularly oneshoted from 17 pdr ambush" to "immune to 17 pdr oneshot" (unless you trigger 5% chance.)
4. That being said, the 17 pdr was the main threat of Tigers which got nerfed massively by Ambush nerf and AP shot nerf.
5. Shermans got more expensive (along with HP buff but thats neutralized by higher gun damage for tiger)
Argument 2: Tigers as a "late game tank" are under performing relative to other Axis alternatives
Why do you want to keep the tiger so valuable for late games where tons of other stuff is already available... and that at all cost? There are already Panthers, King Tigers, Jagdpanthers....
You try to make Tigers late game effective. Ok, lets see with what it competes with when it comes to armor and firepower:
1. King Tiger
2. Jagdtiger
3. Elephant
4. Panther
5. Jagdpanther
6. Jagdpanzer IV/70. Yes, its armor is quite comparable to Tiger, at least in terms to armor effectivness vs 76 guns. I would say that the IV/70 is the better choice bc its much harder to hit than Tiger.
7. (Nashorn in terms of defensive firepower and long range anti tank).
So they already have an excessive late game supply compared to which the tiger looks like a boby car.
In other words its like having Porsche or Ferrari cars reaching from 1 million dollar High premium class to 200K Dollar Lower premium class car. The Tiger is the cheapest. Sure it looks bad compared to the higher classes. You just want to sell something that cant compete with the others so you make it stupid cheap. And on the other side its still deadly effective against pretty much all tanks the enemie can get.
Statement of Value: The balance changes are bad because it will allow an over-performing tank (Tiger) to be overly prevalent rather than useful.
Every economic student would tell you that this is just a bad idea and that you should try to either change the product or that you try to sell the product elsewhere or to aim at a different customer class. And this would be the "mid game german players", not the "late gamers". If anything axis lacks in mid game, its a heavy tank. US has its jumbo (inf doc), CW its churchills, just axis have non in mid game but therefore an excessive supply in the late game.
And this game is simply "economic". When you have better stuff or cheaper stuff that does the job, why getting the expensive one? Its more a false identification of the problems (which is not its strenght as such, but the stuff you want it to compete with).
And srsly? look at the ammount of units the Tiger has to compete with in late stage. I listed at least 6 axis tanks which beats the Tiger in aspects of armor and firepower (and beat them also in other aspects such as target size, mobility...)
Statement of Policy: The Tiger should be balanced by changing its CP instead of its price.
I will respond to this one as soon as I confirm the above two statements are your arguments. The argument here is different in nature.
I actually thought that Kwok as new dev member would understand it.
So tell me, do I understand it? If you think I do, then I'll respond otherwise it's just going to be more wall of texts and this forum isn't a battle ground for attrition fights especially when it takes time for patches to come out and bigger reworks are coming.
