Patch Suggestions

[peow130]

...I didn't think ANYONE in the EE community was able to do math...

But yea,anti stuff should kill what it was ment to kill.

Hey, queen Peow130. Go fuck yourself.
You're not high and mighty, and nobody thinks your funny.
I for one am tired of your constant bitching.
Frankly, i don't even know why you come to these forums or even login to the EE Server, because all you do is piss and moan.
Get off your high horse and shut the fuck up.

Wow,peow,why are you talking to yourself?

My point exactly.

[Ghost]

Further off topic posts or posts about tank armor will be deleted.

[Bonescorpion]

Whoa wait a minute. Why any more posts about tank armor? A marine can beat a tank (its counter) with a civ upgrade, so why cant a Tank beat its counter with a civ upgrade. They both will be counterable. This debate is far from over IMO.

[Captain Nemo]

A marine, can beat A tank? Care to change that statement a little?

[Ghost]

TWO marines with attack in civ and two upgrades to attack, two to range, and 1 hp, AND with 4 houses can't even kill ONE plain-Jane tank. Please, don't make yourself look like a fool.

[taco]

i gave up on this thread along time ago.. the topic has changed so many times that its hard to no what the point of it is anymore.. tanks, anti-tanks.. marines.. armor etc etc, in amounst all that we managed to incorporate actual history.. fanasty.. as well as meaningless statistics.
imo if this thread is to remain on topic or even have some meaning behind it.. we need to summarise wtf is going on(i would do it.. but i would only assume i would get it wrong in some ppls eyes)

[Bonescorpion]

A marine, can beat A tank? Care to change that statement a little?

Should have elaborated, but you should have read the whole statement as well. I said with a civ upgrade. With max attack a Marine can do 10 damage against a tank, they also have 2x the rate of fire of a tank, and you can build 2.5x more marines with the same resources (and everybody seems to have bashed me by saying that the game is only balanced on cost).I dont have much time to do some math, but I believe it is much closer then I have been given credit for. I could be wrong since I havent tested it or mathed it out, but my instinct is that it should work.

[PeLlE]

Bonescorpion your argumentation is just weird and against all reality. Marines can't beat tanks, kkthnxbye.

If you want to keep on discussing bout tank armor please open another topic somewhere

i gave up on this thread along time ago.. the topic has changed so many times that its hard to no what the point of it is anymore.. tanks, anti-tanks.. marines.. armor etc etc, in amounst all that we managed to incorporate actual history.. fanasty.. as well as meaningless statistics.
imo if this thread is to remain on topic or even have some meaning behind it.. we need to summarise wtf is going on(i would do it.. but i would only assume i would get it wrong in some ppls eyes)

good idea, if you ever come to results on what to change, in another thread, post it ehre as suggestion for further patches


Oh and I deleted some posts just in case someone is wondering

[Bonescorpion]

Bonescorpion your argumentation is just weird and against all reality. Marines can't beat tanks, kkthnxbye.

If you want to keep on discussing bout tank armor please open another topic somewhere

i gave up on this thread along time ago.. the topic has changed so many times that its hard to no what the point of it is anymore.. tanks, anti-tanks.. marines.. armor etc etc, in amounst all that we managed to incorporate actual history.. fanasty.. as well as meaningless statistics.
imo if this thread is to remain on topic or even have some meaning behind it.. we need to summarise wtf is going on(i would do it.. but i would only assume i would get it wrong in some ppls eyes)

good idea, if you ever come to results on what to change, in another thread, post it ehre as suggestion for further patches


Oh and I deleted some posts just in case someone is wondering

Not sure what is weird. Try maxing out marine attack with the civ upgrade, should be 52+26 IIRC. This allows some damage to bypass the tank armor. Add in the better rate of fire (2 seconds as oppossed to 4 seconds for tanks) and the lower cost and Marines can destroy tanks based on the whole balance based on cost argument.

[ben55]

LOL Bonescorpion if you upgrade intelligently(2 armor) when you see 52+26 attack marines they are pretty much back to square 1. And not effective at all vs tanks. Also I think a Leo shoots 2 shot for every 4 marine shots, while an M1 shoots 2 for every 3 have not tested it just going off of feeling.

[Ghost]

Bonescorpion, did you even read my post? Just give up please.

[Captain Nemo]

A marine, can beat A tank? Care to change that statement a little?

Should have elaborated, but you should have read the whole statement as well. I said with a civ upgrade. With max attack a Marine can do 10 damage against a tank, they also have 2x the rate of fire of a tank, and you can build 2.5x more marines with the same resources (and everybody seems to have bashed me by saying that the game is only balanced on cost).I dont have much time to do some math, but I believe it is much closer then I have been given credit for. I could be wrong since I havent tested it or mathed it out, but my instinct is that it should work.

Oh yeah now u changed it thankyou. First it was like 1 civs upgrade and ONE (a, u said a) marine could beat ONE tank. Thats infact why I put the a in the other post in capital letter. Now you also want the ingame upgrades? Sorry those are kinda expensive and you wont have 2.5 marines vs a tank anymore. And if you add the tank armor we're back to square one again. Tanks superpwn inf no discussion there and if they don't pwn them enough try leopards

[Bonescorpion]

Absolutely correct, its easy to counter the whole "Super" marine tactic. My point was that with certain upgrades and player indifference the RPS triangle can be circumnavigated. Marines can beat M1 tanks and M1 tanks can beat AT guns, even though in theory Marines should not be able to kill tanks and tanks should not be able to kill AT guns.

[Captain Nemo]

they can but in the long run they lose, and in the short infact, but they're not completely useless against each other. However, I would say tanks kill marines easier than AT kills tanks. That, however, does not make AT a weaker unit than the tank. Take indy as an example. Only one unit is able to kill dragoons effectively (cost advantage does alot there too) and this units gets killed badly by a bunch of things. Their ability to kill dragoons, however, makes them the perhaps strongest unit in that age or at least the most vital unit for succes in most cases (TL and SH only).

[Bonescorpion]

they can but in the long run they lose, and in the short infact, but they're not completely useless against each other. However, I would say tanks kill marines easier than AT kills tanks. That, however, does not make AT a weaker unit than the tank. Take indy as an example. Only one unit is able to kill dragoons effectively (cost advantage does alot there too) and this units gets killed badly by a bunch of things. Their ability to kill dragoons, however, makes them the perhaps strongest unit in that age or at least the most vital unit for succes in most cases (TL and SH only).

This is why the combined arms approach is so important.