Elefant ACE

[Krieger Blitzer]

Somehow managed to score plenty of kills with my Elefant ^^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmeFHid4pQ

Wouldn't happen without the AA support though...

[Warhawks97]

you have been toying arround with this poor US dude.

Its sick that schwimmwagen spam still works to this day. A mate used to build nothing else but jagdpanther and schwimmwagens. You dont need inf when you have 6 schwimmwagens whos mg is more deadly than HMG versions and tank mounted weapons of its kind.

[MEFISTO]

I think Elephant feeds better in Defensive doctrine and Nashorn in SE.

[Warhawks97]

My personal favorit would be in TS doc. There it would be the alternative to the normal Tiger tank.

In SE i do miss my nashorns afterall. Havent made any good use with Elephant there yet. In def doc i am OK with the Nashorn actually.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

TS already has more tanks that it can ever afford due to their high cost and lack of fuel trade ability. Besides, Jagdpanther is better in every aspect. Therefore, most of the players will prefer to wait for 2 CP more and go for a better unit.

[MEFISTO]

My personal favorit would be in TS doc. There it would be the alternative to the normal Tiger tank.

In SE i do miss my nashorns afterall. Havent made any good use with Elephant there yet. In def doc i am OK with the Nashorn actually.

It’s sad to pay 1000mp and 150 fuel for the only tank able to face to face a Churchill everything else is going to bounce on them except if you have a bit of luck, Defensive at least have L70 that perform really good vs Churchill and Nashorn is not as expensive as Elephant.
Yesterday that happens to me in a game, I use infantry and hetzel and everything bounced on them, I went for the expensive Junk (Elephant) and get immediately immobilized by tulips and Churchill artillery, so no worth and to expensive for SE.

[Consti255]

My personal favorit would be in TS doc. There it would be the alternative to the normal Tiger tank.

In SE i do miss my nashorns afterall. Havent made any good use with Elephant there yet. In def doc i am OK with the Nashorn actually.

It’s sad to pay 1000mp and 150 fuel for the only tank able to face to face a Churchill everything else is going to bounce on them except if you have a bit of luck, Defensive at least have L70 that perform really good vs Churchill and Nashorn is not as expensive as Elephant.
Yesterday that happens to me in a game, I use infantry and hetzel and everything bounced on them, I went for the expensive Junk (Elephant) and get immediately immobilized by tulips and Churchill artillery, so no worth and to expensive for SE.

Meanwhile Kwok is laughing with his quote "i can kill churchills all day"

[MEFISTO]

My personal favorit would be in TS doc. There it would be the alternative to the normal Tiger tank.

In SE i do miss my nashorns afterall. Havent made any good use with Elephant there yet. In def doc i am OK with the Nashorn actually.

It’s sad to pay 1000mp and 150 fuel for the only tank able to face to face a Churchill everything else is going to bounce on them except if you have a bit of luck, Defensive at least have L70 that perform really good vs Churchill and Nashorn is not as expensive as Elephant.
Yesterday that happens to me in a game, I use infantry and hetzel and everything bounced on them, I went for the expensive Junk (Elephant) and get immediately immobilized by tulips and Churchill artillery, so no worth and to expensive for SE.

Meanwhile Kwok is laughing with his quote "i can kill churchills all day"

Lol

[Krieger Blitzer]

I think Elephant feeds better in Defensive doctrine and Nashorn in SE.

I think Elefant shines a lot more in SE doc.. in Def doc it was available too late and did nothing.


@Hawks
Schwims can be countered so easily with 50.cal & RL jeeps.

[MEFISTO]

I think Elephant feeds better in Defensive doctrine and Nashorn in SE.

I think Elefant shines a lot more in SE doc.. in Def doc it was available too late and did nothing.


@Hawks
Schwims can be countered so easily with 50.cal & RL jeeps.

SE is naked vs heavy tanks except for that expensive junk( elephant), defensive have already cheaper counter vs heavy tanks like L70, panther bunker, flak 88.
Nashorn in my opinion feed better in SE, it is not as expensive as elephant and it’s really good vs any tank.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

What do you guys think about making the Nashorn a reward unit to Elefant?

[MEFISTO]

What do you guys think about making the Nashorn a reward unit to Elefant?

I like it because I prefer to have a Nashorn than an Elephant. But I feel like we are going to lost a tank the same way we lost Jumbo 76mm, almost no body use it.

[MarKr]

If it is just about having a cheaper unit that can counter Churchills, how about giving to SE PaK43? Emplacement could be built by PGrens, mobile version built in base or possibly spawned by some unit (same as Def doc has it with the 28mm HT).

[Krieger Blitzer]

If it is just about having a cheaper unit that can counter Churchills, how about giving to SE PaK43? Emplacement could be built by PGrens, mobile version built in base or possibly spawned by some unit (same as Def doc has it with the 28mm HT).

Sounds like a good idea.. can be unlocked together with Elefant, it's just 5 CP.

Would definitely help since that Elefant is expensive and limited to 1 unit, being the only single unit available to the entire doctrine which counters MK7s reliably...

[Warhawks97]

If it is just about having a cheaper unit that can counter Churchills, how about giving to SE PaK43? Emplacement could be built by PGrens, mobile version built in base or possibly spawned by some unit (same as Def doc has it with the 28mm HT).

nah, i think that kind of sturdy defense should be kept in def doc.

SE as a PE faction is in general more mobile. You dont rely on bunkers, emplacments and stuff like def or RE doc with that "no step back" mentality. Its gamestyle is more "make it as hard as possible to advance" for the enemie and use some sneaky stuff to slow your enemie down and causing him to lose as much as possible. And for that you have sector arty, booby traps, vehicles that can lay mines, or sabotage points, use big ass mortar or use mobile hard hitting AT that can relocate quickly. That last capability was lost when nashorn was removed, Nashorn was just the ideal unit for that tactics. Right now you can make enemie advances quite a painfull one till the moment they show up with Jumbos, sandbaged shermans or churchill tanks.

In contrary to def doc that can make its emplacment more sturdy, build more and repair more of them and quicker at once due to its masses of pioneers, SE doc is just way too different from that as that it would benefit from any kind of "wall defenses".

Also with stgs and SS squads and the usefull officer squad it always felt that advancing is easier as with def doc. That forth and backwards defensive style is much easier applied as with def doc where i feel like i have to fight for every inch because taking it back requires more skill. You just dont have heavy PEgrens, SS squad in def doc or any stg squad or sneaky krads for quick recap.


Def doc is a wall that should never break. SE is more a off an elastic defense style in my opinion. Thats why Nashorn was just ideal in this doc.


Generally i would make it so that SE gets the double schreck upgrade for its AT grens and the Nashorn. That way it has a nice mix of heavy defense options without being that kind of "bunker in doctrine" like def and RE doc.

[MEFISTO]

Yes I am with Hawks, I don’t want another camper doctrine, I like Nashorn for this doctrine, not sure about double schreck it will give them too much AT capability. But Nashorn feed perfectly in SE, so it will be like he said a mobile defense and not a static defense as Defensive doctrine.
Double schreck should state only in TS, it is too strong to be in all PE doctrines.

[MarKr]

SE as a PE faction is in general more mobile. You dont rely on bunkers, emplacments and stuff like def or RE doc with that "no step back" mentality. Its gamestyle is more "make it as hard as possible to advance" for the enemie and use some sneaky stuff to slow your enemie down and causing him to lose as much as possible.

I would agree with this argument if someone suggested to give to SE emplaced flak 36, PaK40, PaK43 and Pantherturms. But one emplacement doesn't make you "rely" on it. Moreover, this whole suggestion of a choice between Nashorn and Elefant has been brought up because of situations where SE faces Churchill rush. So the PaK43 wouldn't be needed in every single game but in case your opponent goes RE, it would give you some options to counter Churchills without sinking a crapload of fuel into Elefant.

PaK43 can camouflage so "sneaky stuff" is there. It would make it pretty hard for enemy tanks to advance, and would cause some losses, so that is there too.

Yes I am with Hawks, I don’t want another camper doctrine, I like Nashorn for this doctrine, not sure about double schreck it will give them too much AT capability. But Nashorn feed perfectly in SE, so it will be like he said a mobile defense and not a static defense as Defensive doctrine.
Double schreck should state only in TS, it is too strong to be in all PE doctrines.

Nashorn isn't exactly built for "aggressive attacks". It is most potent in defense when shooting from camo, so it is a "camper" unit too.

[Diablo]

I'd actually like to see more Pak43s, maybe to be deployed by the Bergetiger?

But only the naked ones.

[MEFISTO]

SE as a PE faction is in general more mobile. You dont rely on bunkers, emplacments and stuff like def or RE doc with that "no step back" mentality. Its gamestyle is more "make it as hard as possible to advance" for the enemie and use some sneaky stuff to slow your enemie down and causing him to lose as much as possible.

I would agree with this argument if someone suggested to give to SE emplaced flak 36, PaK40, PaK43 and Pantherturms. But one emplacement doesn't make you "rely" on it. Moreover, this whole suggestion of a choice between Nashorn and Elefant has been brought up because of situations where SE faces Churchill rush. So the PaK43 wouldn't be needed in every single game but in case your opponent goes RE, it would give you some options to counter Churchills without sinking a crapload of fuel into Elefant.

PaK43 can camouflage so "sneaky stuff" is there. It would make it pretty hard for enemy tanks to advance, and would cause some losses, so that is there too.

Yes I am with Hawks, I don’t want another camper doctrine, I like Nashorn for this doctrine, not sure about double schreck it will give them too much AT capability. But Nashorn feed perfectly in SE, so it will be like he said a mobile defense and not a static defense as Defensive doctrine.
Double schreck should state only in TS, it is too strong to be in all PE doctrines.

Nashorn isn't exactly built for "aggressive attacks". It is most potent in defense when shooting from camo, so it is a "camper" unit too.

We were talking about mobile defense not static defense, that is why Nashorn is better, you can move a Nashorn and set it on camouflage, you can’t move an emplacement.
Pack 43 is a good idea but still it takes ages to move one, so it is like a static defense, it is going to shot one time and then will get destroy by enemies artillery right away.

[Warhawks97]

Pak 43 is either emplaced (in this case RE will just tulip it or bombard it with 95 mm) or slow as fuck. Was trying to use the naked pak 43 as def doc a few times but there my choice now is usually nashorn. It can back your inf up more easily and escape more easily from trouble than normal pak 43.

So in any way for PE it does not fit. As def doc you have stuff backing your AT gun up like cheaper volks, snipers, bunkers and whats not.
For PE an emplacment would just keep your combat squads squad on repair duty and will not really help to stop churchills since its visible all the time. And the naked one does not really enjoy the ammount of "stuff arround" and any slight retreat would leave the pak 43 very exposed. So even when its a naked version, not an emplacment, its not as embedded into a composition of forces as it is in a WH doc. It depends on support structures for its own survival.


The Nashorn is not an aggressive doc as SE isnt in general. However you can move it up much quicker behind your attack forces and retreat it.
In def doc, i only got the pak 43 in emergency situations when i had the CP already spend, the 28 mm vehicle up and enemie tanks coming. But i kept it very close to the overall bunker line i had. I supported my pushes only with Nashorn and Jagdpanzer IV/70´s but kept the pak 43 at places where i had all my other stuff like bunkers and never went far from it.

So, when i find AT emplacments and pak 43 only partly usefull in def doc (and funny enough i never got any of them when i played vs RE when i remember correctly), i dare to say that i wouldnt any good use in PE at all for any kind of such emplacments and units.