Patch Suggestions

[peow130]

I would say that, the T80U being the best tank available for the past 20 years, makes this tank an all around more balanced machine.
How about this tank is like a god tank that kills anything, including air?

[X warrior411]

I would say that, the T80U being the best tank available for the past 20 years, makes this tank an all around more balanced machine.
How about this tank is like a god tank that kills anything, including air?

So....This 'god tank' could kill even the worst of things...you?

[Bonescorpion]

Thats funny my tests of 23 m1's vs 20 at guns have shown that the m1 wins. This is with micro and a live opponent.
I also have tested out the max damage marine against 2 m1's. The ratio is about 7:2. So factoring in cost even with max attack M1 still wins. I think its closer then people may have expected, but the RPS holds true in this case.
As far as AT guns beating tanks. People are getting stuck on the names. M1 vs 120 mm gun. M1 is almost even.
As far as increasing tank armor and it affecting its effectiveness against Marines it wont. Marines already do max 1 damage unless they have the civ upgrade of damage where it can only do 10 damage. This is already counterable with the current armor upgrades so it wouldnt effect that part of the tree at all.
My point all along is that 120 mm guns are not the counter for the M1. The german tank (leopard, asian guy called it tiger, i figured calling it the german tank would help stop confusion). The 120 mm gun does kill the M1 but in almost equal numbers it is very close.

I think that answered your post pretty well. Minus the Columbus part which was a funny typo, you got me there.

You claim that my arguments are stupid. But so far we have come down the road that At owns M1, to AT kinda owns M1 to M1 can overpower AT guns in some situations. The pattern is there. I have used the number 1.15:1 for the whole post. My argument has stayed the same but others have changed.

Testing showed that marines needed to be at about 7:2 against M1 tanks with Max attack (52+26). 7 marines cost 60 resources and an M1 costs 200 resources. I made a quick mistake in the resources. The testing showed that the resources would be about 420 spent for marines and 400 for m1 tanks. Interesting balance if you ask me. It is easy to conuter with armor, but not everybody is smart enough to do that.

I have said before that AT guns are not the counter for M1 tanks. Leopard tanks are. At guns do kill m1's reasonably well, just not what a normal counter would, IE marine vs At gun or At gun vs Leopard tank. People are so hung up on the name of a unit. 120 mm >>>>Leopard>>>>M1<120 mm

I will be able to play in a few days to get this done and over with. I need to get internet at my new place and it may take up to a week. I doubt I could play empire earth at work.

[ben55]

Um there has been no trend of saying M1 are equal to AT almost everyone has called you stupid, and proven you wrong, but for some reason you refuse to see that.

Also when you are going to use mathematics to prove your points at least get the costs right. Infantry are 80 or 64 resources never 60.

[taco]

id also like to add, no1 has denied that lepard tanks are great against m1s, we have argued that at's do infact counter tanks yes its not as drastically as tanks> marines, but u should only expect that if u look at the cost, common sense tells u to stop, and what do u do? u press a more then pointless issue, to prove to ee that ur a stubborn moron, only de-crediting his name of "ee2-3 tester" or what ever title u wish to hold. u only have to look through history to find that simple maths wont win a war, strategy and what not doesn't always work, i will give it this tho, a in-depth mathematical formula which incorporates all the variables is a good indicator, but that is all it is.
urs is far from proving anything

[Captain Nemo]

Okay mister math idiot:

Testing showed that marines needed to be at about 7:2 against M1 tanks with Max attack (52+26). 7 marines cost 60 resources and an M1 costs 200 resources. I made a quick mistake in the resources. The testing showed that the resources would be about 420 spent for marines and 400 for m1 tanks. Interesting balance if you ask me. It is easy to conuter with armor, but not everybody is smart enough to do that.

lets see... marines are 80 if you concider no cr. The upgrades you require would take 7*80+48*2+96*2 = 848

Tanks: 2*200 = 400

Interresting? No!

Btw I guess theres no point in telling you that 23 AT will still beat 20 M1 cause you seem not to get that through ur big fat skull.

[Bonescorpion]

M1 vs. AT - to a certain extent.

i no ghost, but meyb its just me but there arguing over common sense, its not as if marines can never beat tanks, nor can tanks never beat at's etc, different upgrades and variables will either make it worse, or better for the countered unit, any1 who has played mod knows this.. just like any1 who plays mid knows that with the right upgrades knights can > ca, however if there is alot of hills in the map, the favor is still tipped towards the ca player even after knights become uber knights.
i only ask, if u are going to continue to post in this thread, say something constructive, non of this bs

An M1 can beat an AT gun if they have thing(s) the AT guns do not have(morale, healing, upgrades etc). M1s are fine they aren't intended to kill their anti and they don't in even playing field, but they can in favorable situations, and most situations where that would happen isn't due to costs or balance issues. It is a skill issue which may be why you are defending this so strongly .

M1s are very good early game because the cost difference between AT and them isn't noticed since animals are present and the metal's gathering are =. Allowing you to mass them very well, but even then an equal skilled player would hold them off if they made 2 AT for your 3 M1s. 10 on 10 would be even more doom for the M1s unless they had the favorable situation(s) mentioned above.

As for snipers and bazookas they aren't intended to be pure counter classes they bring special niches to the table that the pure counter classes cannot do. Snipers have AMAZING los use which makes them more than worth the cost, you pay 100 more resources for a balloon that is invisible 90% of the time, and can one shot kill infantry. Bazookas are very cheap but squishy and are not bad as defensive units if they were as good as AT why make AT?

Funny on the marines, had played a pre vs computer and was thinking of clubs earlier in the day, it also was after a 12 hour day . Shouldnt have been doing that at 2 am. My mistake.

[ben55]

LOL I really wish you would stop you make yourself look less intelligent every post. All three of those posts have a common concept the M1s need help from outside sources to beat Anti Tanks, and the Anti Tanks can't have any help. I mean does that prove M1s can beat ATs yeah technically, but I mean almost any unit can beat any unit with a variable(s) the other doesn't have. And the scenario you made 23 M1s vs 20 AT the only variable you mentioned was tank attack, but even with that the Tanks need more variables while the AT have none that is hardly countering or being equal like you suggest, because the M1 needs a vast amount of inequalities to become equal to an AT.

[Bonescorpion]

First off, M1's are a viable counter for AT if you use the attack upgrade. They cannot go 1:1 vs AT but they hold their own, especially with morale. Leo's are a counter to tanks/infantry while M1's are a counter to AT/Infantry.You would think that if you had ever played Modern AOC you would know who I am. My reputation is very good, and the fact that you have never heard of me is enough for many to dismiss you.
For those that think that Antitank rifles were not in use I present a simple wikipedia search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle. If you note the special attention to what is called the K Bullet. It says issued to only snipers and advanced marksmen. I rest my case since it was during WWI.

Where is the realism in a marine with max attack (civ and in game upgrade) killing a tank? Nevermind fanatacism.

By Nemo's arguement Inf>AT>Tank>Inf thats too simple a triangle. First off where do Zooks and Snipers fall in? Neighter can effectively kill AT, and what about the German Tank>Tank debate. German tanks kill tanks at the cost of being more vulnerable to AT guns, while M1's kill tanks poorly at the expense of being less vulnerable to AT and cheaper. The armor upgrade is a way to improve your unit. Just like any other upgrade.

Also it seems I must explain the triangle again. M1's do NOT beat AT as it is now nor are they close to a 1-1 relation. The cost makes the difference as u can have more AT than M1's when gathered the same. Modern is a very complex age and there is no such thing as a simple triangle as it is in middle (where other units also play their part, for example persian that also only beat one of the 3). Air plays a huge role, artillery probably the biggest role of all modern units and I didn't even count them in. Line of sight is ULTRA important in modern warfare if you know how to play it. You being an aoc player do not, Im sorry. I've played much mod tl on aoc and no one have discovered the power of much artillery with snipers to scout..

[ben55]

And? I am confused on the point you are trying to make. You underline you saying M1s are viable vs AT, then an underline of Nemo disagreeing with you.

[Captain Nemo]

I think he gave in

[ben55]

I hope so, and as for Patch Suggestions from a Mod Tl standpoint; Nerf Mortars(Lower the attack or make them same price as a machine gunner)

[Captain Nemo]

mortars are far from overpowered. idk why u aoc guys like to mass them but they're actually not that good. They're ok but just get some art to aim at them and they're completely dead. Snipers will do the line of sight for u and shoot them down if the guy hasn't got anything infront of them. You could also have units moving infront of ur army to take the fire from units like art and mortars. They will waste most their shots hitting nothing at all.

[taco]

and whats ur suggestion for morts explore nemo? snipers are a hella lot more expensive to defend ur entire eco from them

[Bonescorpion]

And? I am confused on the point you are trying to make. You underline you saying M1s are viable vs AT, then an underline of Nemo disagreeing with you.

I made the point that M1's are viable against AT with the attack upgrade in civ. Then the counter was that they are never viable from Nemo. This was pages ago. Now I see arguments that they "can" be viable against AT with certain circumstances. This to me is changing the argument. The level of disagreement has changed. This was my point a few posts ago.
No I have not given up.