Turretless tank destroyers are a terrible addition to BFV - change my mind

«134
WinterWarhurst
1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
edited January 17
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate (turret less) tank destroyers in Battlefield V.

They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tank destroyers up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.
Post edited by WinterWarhurst on

Comments

  • TheGM86
    683 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    But this Stug isn't a tank, it is an Assault Gun.
  • Stahlmach
    921 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate tanks in Battlefield V.

    They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

    Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tanks up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

    Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

    I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

    The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

    Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

    Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.

    I appreciate all your afford but i think we should simply accept the one ugly truth:
    Dice doesnt care about Tank balance or Tanks at all. They made them because they look good in Marketing videos ( especially the Tiger ) but beyond they have no idea what to do with them.
    No even more than that: New Dice simply doesnt like Vehicles, to them they are Nuisances, disturbing their beloved Infantry gameplay.
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    TheGM86 wrote: »
    But this Stug isn't a tank, it is an Assault Gun.

    That's completely besides the point, and is dependant on whether you define tanks as having rotating turrets or not. Technically this is a tank insofar as it carries a gun, has continuous tracks, and engages targets with direct line of sight, unlike other Self-Propelled Artillery. Yes it is technically an assault-gun, however I wanted the title (and text) to be as accessible as possible, so people didn't think I was talking about the half-track tank destroyers too (which I am also not particularly fond of due to their insane damage output, ROF, and infinite ammo, but that's another, albeit related, matter).

    I would like if you could share some constructive feedback.
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate tanks in Battlefield V.

    They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

    Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tanks up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

    Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

    I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

    The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

    Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

    Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.

    I appreciate all your afford but i think we should simply accept the one ugly truth:
    Dice doesnt care about Tank balance or Tanks at all. They made them because they look good in Marketing videos ( especially the Tiger ) but beyond they have no idea what to do with them.
    No even more than that: New Dice simply doesnt like Vehicles, to them they are Nuisances, disturbing their beloved Infantry gameplay.

    I think they want to give us a great gameplay experience with tanks, but it is very complicated to balance, that's why our feedback is important. That is why they encourage it. I think we should give feedback where we care to, because it's one way to make things better.
  • Hawxxeye
    3535 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    the assault tank on Bf1 was also turret-less but it did not had the mobility of a turtle
  • M_Rat13
    347 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate tanks in Battlefield V.

    They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

    Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tanks up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

    Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

    I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

    The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

    Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

    Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.

    I appreciate all your afford but i think we should simply accept the one ugly truth:
    Dice doesnt care about Tank balance or Tanks at all. They made them because they look good in Marketing videos ( especially the Tiger ) but beyond they have no idea what to do with them.
    No even more than that: New Dice simply doesnt like Vehicles, to them they are Nuisances, disturbing their beloved Infantry gameplay.

    Or maybe they made them to be less OP than BF1.

    Becuase, that's what people asked for!

    But now it's 'oh no, I don't want this thing that I asked for'.

    Bunch of hypocrits....
  • y_j_es_i
    601 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I agree, tank destroyers are a bad idea
  • Hawxxeye
    3535 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 17
    M_Rat13 wrote: »
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate tanks in Battlefield V.

    They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

    Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tanks up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

    Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

    I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

    The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

    Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

    Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.

    I appreciate all your afford but i think we should simply accept the one ugly truth:
    Dice doesnt care about Tank balance or Tanks at all. They made them because they look good in Marketing videos ( especially the Tiger ) but beyond they have no idea what to do with them.
    No even more than that: New Dice simply doesnt like Vehicles, to them they are Nuisances, disturbing their beloved Infantry gameplay.

    Or maybe they made them to be less OP than BF1.

    Becuase, that's what people asked for!

    But now it's 'oh no, I don't want this thing that I asked for'.

    Bunch of hypocrits....

    I do not remember people in BF1 ever claiming tanks were OP. They were also either camping or being hailed by AT grenade spam. they just moved a bit faster. I guess the technology of the tanks regressed over the years after ww1
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    M_Rat13 wrote: »
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate tanks in Battlefield V.

    They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

    Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tanks up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

    Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

    I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

    The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

    Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

    Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.

    I appreciate all your afford but i think we should simply accept the one ugly truth:
    Dice doesnt care about Tank balance or Tanks at all. They made them because they look good in Marketing videos ( especially the Tiger ) but beyond they have no idea what to do with them.
    No even more than that: New Dice simply doesnt like Vehicles, to them they are Nuisances, disturbing their beloved Infantry gameplay.

    Or maybe they made them to be less OP than BF1.

    Becuase, that's what people asked for!

    But now it's 'oh no, I don't want this thing that I asked for'.

    Bunch of hypocrits....

    I do not remember people in BF1 ever claiming tanks were OP. They were also either camping or being hailed by AT grenade spam. they just moved a bit faster. I guess the technology of the tanks regressed over the years after ww1

    I was expecting BF1 comparisons, because many of the tanks were turretless, I am trying to critique tank destroyers within the game mechanics of BFV, and I don’t think they are a good idea. I think they will only add to the frustration we already face.
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    M_Rat13 wrote: »
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate tanks in Battlefield V.

    They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

    Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tanks up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

    Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

    I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

    The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

    Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

    Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.

    I appreciate all your afford but i think we should simply accept the one ugly truth:
    Dice doesnt care about Tank balance or Tanks at all. They made them because they look good in Marketing videos ( especially the Tiger ) but beyond they have no idea what to do with them.
    No even more than that: New Dice simply doesnt like Vehicles, to them they are Nuisances, disturbing their beloved Infantry gameplay.

    Or maybe they made them to be less OP than BF1.

    Becuase, that's what people asked for!

    But now it's 'oh no, I don't want this thing that I asked for'.

    Bunch of hypocrits....


    I think the tank mechanics, and infantry mechanics for that matter to balance tanks against, are quite different from BF1, so I am not sure it’s possible to compare them meaningfully, especially in regards to the specific gameplay style tank destroyers are going to encourage in BFV.
  • FrancoSuperWhip
    82 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 17
    .....
  • FrancoSuperWhip
    82 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    stug will play like 3inchGC
  • cso7777
    819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 17
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I do not remember people in BF1 ever claiming tanks were OP. They were also either camping or being hailed by AT grenade spam. they just moved a bit faster. I guess the technology of the tanks regressed over the years after ww1
    Actually there was a lot of complaining about this.

    Tankers often went 80-5 in a normal conquest round in BF1, they were overpowered. Also the infantry weapons against tanks were pretty weak (needed too much teamwork and often at close range.). Tankers on open maps could often roam almost freely.

    BF4 was perhaps even worse. Tanks were almost silent and had mobility of a Ferrari. Many maps were awful to play as infantry, because of (too many) overpowered vehicles. Tankers also had ridiculous scores in BF4.

    BF-games always had vehicles, but the balancing has always been an issue. Considering most players play infantry, the way things are balanced in BFV are probably the best way.

    Tanks are still very deadly, but now takes a lot more skill than in previous BF-games. And why not? Vehicles was easy-mode in previous titles (considering the scores and K/D of vehicle players)...
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    cso7777 wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I do not remember people in BF1 ever claiming tanks were OP. They were also either camping or being hailed by AT grenade spam. they just moved a bit faster. I guess the technology of the tanks regressed over the years after ww1
    Actually there was a lot of complaining about this.

    Tankers often went 80-5 in a normal conquest round in BF1, they were overpowered. Also the infantry weapons against tanks were pretty weak (needed too much teamwork and often at close range.). Tankers on open maps could often roam almost freely.

    BF4 was perhaps even worse. Tanks were almost silent and had mobility of a Ferrari. Many maps were awful to play as infantry, because of (too many) overpowered vehicles. Tankers also had ridiculous scores in BF4.

    BF-games always had vehicles, but the balancing has always been an issue. Considering most players play infantry, the way things are balanced in BFV are probably the best way.

    Tanks are still very deadly, but now takes a lot more skill than in previous BF-games. And why not? Vehicles was easy-mode in previous titles (considering the scores and K/D of vehicle players)...

    I think were all the frustrating bugs and glitches and misbalances fixed, BFV would be my favourite game for tanking yet. There are a lot of improvements to be made in my opinion, from the physics model, systemic damage, to splash, and the resupply depot system... And I'm not asking for major changes, just some minor tweaks that will make for a more enjoyable experience, while ensuring the tanks don't become OP.

    The issue I have with these tank destroyers is that they will make the gameplay less enjoyable and more frustrating than it already is, I think the existing tanks need addressing first before they add even more counters to them.
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    cso7777 wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    I do not remember people in BF1 ever claiming tanks were OP. They were also either camping or being hailed by AT grenade spam. they just moved a bit faster. I guess the technology of the tanks regressed over the years after ww1
    Actually there was a lot of complaining about this.

    Tankers often went 80-5 in a normal conquest round in BF1, they were overpowered. Also the infantry weapons against tanks were pretty weak (needed too much teamwork and often at close range.). Tankers on open maps could often roam almost freely.

    BF4 was perhaps even worse. Tanks were almost silent and had mobility of a Ferrari. Many maps were awful to play as infantry, because of (too many) overpowered vehicles. Tankers also had ridiculous scores in BF4.

    BF-games always had vehicles, but the balancing has always been an issue. Considering most players play infantry, the way things are balanced in BFV are probably the best way.

    Tanks are still very deadly, but now takes a lot more skill than in previous BF-games. And why not? Vehicles was easy-mode in previous titles (considering the scores and K/D of vehicle players)...


    Sure but I know infantry, especially amongst competitive players, that can get 80 kills too... At the moment the top infantry are generally outscoring and outkilling the top tankers IMO, other than perhaps Aerodrome.

    They are deadly under certain circumstances, but I think you have to farm from a distance, rather than play the objective. I want to PTFO, and that doesn't mean I simply want to dominate and be unkillable, as people often assume that's what people are asking for.

    Either way, I think tank destroyers will camp and troll from spawn, and force tankers to PTFO even less than they already can... Basically it will pin them more to depots or their own spawn. I don't like the play style it encourages, I think it is a terrible addition, just as self-propelled artillery, or indirect fire mortars would be for infantry players.
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    stug will play like 3inchGC

    I agree, however I think it will be more manoeuvrable and with a lower profile, yet less forgiving armour and potentially a slightly lower damage output. Its low profile may mean that it will sneak out of spawn thru defilades and try and find a campy position on the edge of the map to shoot enemy tanks in the side. It's the tanker's equivalence of snipers that camp the perimeter.
  • SirBobdk
    2979 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Stahlmach wrote: »
    Don’t get me wrong, I love the Stug life, but there is one glaring problem with casemate tanks in Battlefield V.

    They will be best used camping on the edge of the map, or trolling enemy tanks from the edge of their spawn, where they will be impossible to kill, as they can simply rush to their protected spawn depot.

    Far more so than the current tanks, nobody is going to push casemate tanks up the map because they will be easily flanked, nobody is going to PTFO, and if they do, they will be instakilled by flankers, people spawning in behind them, or disabled and quickly overrun.

    Currently the Churchill Gun Carrier is already a chore to use, and an even greater chore to counter. The Tiger has 18 stock HE rounds, which do 15 damage max frontally to the Gun Carrier. If they hit their emergency repair at the perfect time, they are little more than a waste of ammo to engage with, unless you are sat camping a resupply depot with decent cover.

    I love the Stug life, but I can’t see myself using it to do anything other than camp or troll enemy tanks, for which the 17-pounder on the Archer will be even more ridiculous for.

    The archer will simply go hull down, spam you with one of the highest velocity, penetrative, and most effective cannons in WWII, and then race off to spawn to resupply due to its reverse design.

    Meanwhile we still haven’t felt any noticeable rebalancing to make the heavy tanks more viable... Surely this will make heavies even less effective!

    Change my mind that these are a great idea, I see people are generally positive towards them, but I do not think they have truly thought through the implications, especially considering how many people are complaining about tanks camping in spawn, and elsewhere.

    I appreciate all your afford but i think we should simply accept the one ugly truth:
    Dice doesnt care about Tank balance or Tanks at all. They made them because they look good in Marketing videos ( especially the Tiger ) but beyond they have no idea what to do with them.
    No even more than that: New Dice simply doesnt like Vehicles, to them they are Nuisances, disturbing their beloved Infantry gameplay.

    Planes and tanks are in this “infantry game” so it still can be called a battlefield game. The whole concept is infantry orientered and planes and tanks have some wierd place and dont realy fit in. Planes word better than tanks but all the changes they hav made also makes them wierd.
  • ragnarok013
    1636 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Tank destroyers are meant to destroy armor so my guess is using turretless variants like the STUG is a balacing decision. I think using a turreted one like the M-10 would make it too good at everything in the balance department.
  • WinterWarhurst
    1189 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited January 18
    Tank destroyers are meant to destroy armor so my guess is using turretless variants like the STUG is a balacing decision. I think using a turreted one like the M-10 would make it too good at everything in the balance department.

    I suppose this is part of my concern, with so many already complaining about the state of tanks such as the Tiger underperforming, adding 17-pounders to the game which will most likely have incredible effective range, and AT damage output, and camp hull down around spawn, will just make the situation even worse in terms of tank vs tank balance, and engagement enjoyment (or lack of!).

    I am not entirely against tank destroyers however, when the Americans arrive, I will be begging for the M18 Hellcat, I don't care if it's a glass cannon, it will be so speedy and fun! I'm more concerned about turret less spawn dwelling snipers.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!