why the tr love to footzerg

juggalokilla · 2005-02-17, 10:34 AM

Ok im back to stir up some more drama today. I have played tr on emerald for a year and a half now, mostly cause i love the difficulty. I started thinking the other day as we were getting our butts handed to us on a continent we were zerging. What goes wrong when we have 60% and cant take a base. For the most we rarely feild as many vehicles as the opponent. Reason: the ignorant reasoning that the devs decided we need so many more guners on them. it says nowhere in our fighting style that we need more gunners, only that we prefer faster firing, less accurate weapons and heavier armor. It really screws us. Good thing they didnt make our maxes ride piggyback on each other /one walks+one shoots. Or maybe 3 soldiers have to hold hands to fire one mcg. In an ideal battle say either against nc or vs with an even population. 100 troops either side. 10 MBT's, 5 deli variants, 5 empire specific buggies, 5 reavers, 5 mossies, 5 random vehicles

TROOP USAGE FOR VEHICLES
NC---------------- VS----------------- TR
20 mbt------------ 20----------------- mbt 30 mbt
15 deli var.-------- 15 deli var.--------- 25 deli var.
10 emp. buggy---- 10 emp. buggy------ 15 emp. buggy
5 reavers---------- 5 reavers----------- 5 reavers
5 mossies---------- 5 mossies---------- 5 mossies
5 random---------- 5 random----------- 5 random
_________________________________________________
SOLDEIRS LEFT OVER FOR INFANTRY WORK/ BASE DEFENSE
NC=40 VS=40 TR=20

Ok based on the generalization that all vehicles are evenly balanced to each other that would make an armor battle good, but how are we supposed to supress the extra infantry? Cant cause we're screwed. The more vehicles we pull, the less infantry we have to defend inside our bases or to take bases. To make an even fight we need more than 60% of the population just to get the same amount of infantry. if we were forced in a strictly vehicle fight, we'd have significally less vehicles. I started the above breakdown with more mbt's and deli variants but tr ran out of infantry. NC and VS could get 20 more mbt's where TR got 6. Lets just say the logic they gave us is very wrong. In a balanced world 2 raiders should be equal to 5 thunderers or 5 aurora's. Why not its 10 troops right? or 10 prowlers should take 15 vanguard or magriders. Why not its 30 troops right? dont the devs see this?

It gets even worse when we start on a cont without a tech. Our heaviest non-tech ground armor is a raider/5 troops per vehicle. i played nc and vs on the other servers and had trouble finding a gunner for my thunderer, try finding 4 gunners! Prowlers are as bad cause nobody wants to have the little gun cause you get few kills yet that gunner is needed for the prowler to be equal to the one gunner in the other tanks. Basically when we feild armor, we're screwing ourselves and if we keep it down to as much infantry fighting Ie: footzerging it gives us a more even fight.

Would there be a way to fix this? Balance it in some ways? I once suggested the raiders guns were controlled by 2 gunners instead of 4, 2 guns trained on same target like how the collossus chainguns aim together when fired at same time. Just an idea. Or up the chaingun and main gun power a little on the prowler and make them one gunner controlled like the vanguard. Not 150mm but like 120 so that van has bigger bullets and we have bigger armor, it wont make them imbalanced cause even though they are more powerful, only one fires at same time, or just up the rate of fire on each gun. Any other ideas? I know loyal nc and vs will argue that regardless of the numbers i've shown that everything is equal cause they dont want to lose this "advantage" but keep an open mind that i've played all empires and have been playing a very long time.

My god this is a very long post. Thanks for taking the time to read this. See you in battle.

Lartnev · 2005-02-17, 11:50 AM

There are many a player on these boards who have mentioned this very fact.

juggalokilla · 2005-02-17, 11:57 AM

yeah i seen them in the past i've just had a stressed week and wanted to vent. Plus this gives an opportunity to hear some newer peoples opinions or ideas. I havent visited the forums much up until last few days and have felt compelled to type... a lot.

internetn · 2005-02-17, 04:04 PM

Well I've played the TR and NC on the emerald server and can't say I have had any problems

I was playin NC last night and we got our ass's handed to us by 3 prowlers vs maybe 30+ infantry 1 lightning (that was me) They weren't firing there chainguns so I suppose that they didn't have a extra gunner

BTW with like the vanguard its not like you can shoot the 150, and the machine gun at the same time, who uses that dinky gun for anything but (trying) to scare off newb mossy pilots

When I play the TR I never have problem filling my prowler because I gots a good outfit

That said, we have all been steamrolled by one empire or another, and when you get mad about it, you go vent it on the forums... same old, same old

Jeffey · 2005-02-17, 05:53 PM

more gunners = more ownage

the Vanny has a machine gun and it's cannon operated by the same guy. Meaning the prowler spits twice as much lead as vanny. The magrider driver's gun forces him to engage directly, as opposed to Prowler tank drive by tactics. I didn't even mention the insane armour the prowler gets. For all the above reasons I think the extra gunner is a worthy price

as far as the delivs go, I've gunned for jacked Thunderers and Aurora's, it might just be me but the raider seems much more effective against other medium vehicles and infantry, armour is a no no. Again the way I see it, 2x the guns and 2x the target count

Marauder is the only real toss up, I haven't had much experience in marauds simply because no one pulls them. So again I don't see much of a problem, since the other empires don't seem to pull thrashers and enforcers in turn.

From what I've seen, we do pull alot of vehicles, however people seem too lazy to try and get gunners, since 9/10 vehicles I see pulled are mossies, reavers, ATV's, or lightning.

Hamorad · 2005-02-17, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Jeffey

as far as the delivs go, I've gunned for jacked Thunderers and Aurora's, it might just be me but the raider seems much more effective against other medium vehicles and infantry, armour is a no no. Again the way I see it, 2x the guns and 2x the target count.

Nah, auroras are much better against infantry, just point and spew 6 shots, if only two or so hit, you've still got a kill!

The thunderer is much more effective against vehicles. Over water those things are almost invincible, firing their little gauss guns and blowing away armor.

The raider is probably best at AA. With 4 machine guns, Reavers and mossies that attack raiders don't last very long.

Warborn · 2005-02-20, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Jeffey

The magrider driver's gun forces him to engage directly, as opposed to Prowler tank drive by tactics. I didn't even mention the insane armour the prowler gets. For all the above reasons I think the extra gunner is a worthy price

Any Magrider driver who thinks he has to engage directly because of his front gun is a moron and should stop driving tanks. The best strategy for a Magrider is to stay the hell away from the enemy tanks and snipe them. Magriders are difficult to hit at a distance (especially over water) but their main gun will have no trouble hitting the big, slow Prowlers from an extreme range. The Magrider is hands-down a far, far superior tank in all but infantry-suppression roles. Having driven a Magrider a lot recently on Markov, I can well understand why TR like to zerg more than draw armor. Our tanks don't have anything on the VS tanks.

Also, the Vanguard has more armor than the Prowler, and the Prowler is the slowest.

juggalokilla · 2005-02-20, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Also, the Vanguard has more armor than the Prowler, and the Prowler is the slowest.

That always puzzled me. shouldnt most armor= heaviest= slowest= worst handling

KIAsan · 2005-02-21, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by juggalokilla

That always puzzled me. shouldnt most armor= heaviest= slowest= worst handling

Well, originally, the Prowler was supposed to have the most armor. But TR kept owning the field with it, so it got nerfed. On a head-to-head comparison (up close and personal): Van > Prowler > Mag

However, if the van gunner misses a few shots, the prowler (because it fires faster) will own him (more room for mistakes). Also, TR gunners are generally more proficient with arc weapons (since almost all our big guns are arc weapons, even AV maxes).

KIAsan · 2005-02-17, 06:36 PM

Prowler is bigger (as in target area), slower, has less armor and requires more crew to be equally effective. Vangaurd is faster, smaller, more armor. The main benefit of the prowler is that it can engage two targets at the same time, where the vanguard can only engage one.

As to why TR foot zerg on Emerald? Little leadership from CR5s, other than to call a primary and leave it at that.

Jeffey · 2005-02-18, 12:11 AM

Vanguard has more armour than Prowler?

Lartnev · 2005-02-18, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Jeffey

Vanguard has more armour than Prowler?

Yup

drsomewhere · 2005-02-19, 03:13 PM

vanguard is a mammoth armor wise, while maintaining its sleek, low to the ground style, which makes it pretty hard to hit with anything other than a striker. GO TR!@!@!@

Breed · 2005-02-22, 07:33 AM

It sucks basically.
Takes 33.3 % more manpower to get a 15% increase in DoT
TR have been screwed over for a long time, i guess we just have to get used to the fact that we'll never be on top unless we get really lucky or the enemy gets lazy.

And if you want to throw all the stats out the windows just listen to the people who play this game, the TR complain so much, not for the sake of it, but b/cus there frustrated that changes arent being made to better facilitate them.

I won't make suggestions how to improve us, thats the DEV's job, i just wish it was an even playing field.