Hector´s way of fixing light vehicles and call ins

The MG on the 222 never was fixed, despite Relic claiming otherwise for more than three years (post #11 on the official changelog thread).



The problem with the 222 is, that Relic manoeuvred it into a corner when raising its health ridiculously. What it needed instead was a simple armour buff instead, which Relic didn't want to do, because the 222 (for some arbitrary reason known only to Relic) needs to be the only light vehicle susceptible to small-arms fire.

Only? Huh.....

By raising their cost, you are making sure that no one ever builds them anymore and instead go for medium spam.


A more sensible solution is reducing their damage by half.

so you think that halting their damage to half whitch means you need to spend 140 F and 400MP to get them same result as before whereas in my change you only need to spend 70 F and 400 MP, point behind my choice is that you WILL get lights much sooner than mediums with big impact, but they would also cost a lot in terms of manpower so you are crippled in terms of 1 squad if you lose it prematurely

Only? Huh.....

Yes, depending on your definition. The other "light vehicles" affected by this are troop carriers, which form their own category. The Kübelwagen could also be called a light vehicle in the broadest sense, as by now it lacks the suppression that turned it into a more mobile MG.

That said, in terms of gameplay, nobody would lump the 222, the Stuart, the T-70, the Luchs, the Puma, and the AEC in the same class as the Kübelwagen. In fact, the only two vehicles that are comparable to the Kübelwagen are the now decrepit 221 and the M20.

Yes, depending on your definition. The other "light vehicles" affected by this are troop carriers, which form their own category. The Kübelwagen could also be called a light vehicle in the broadest sense, as by now it lacks the suppression that turned it into a more mobile MG.

That said, in terms of gameplay, nobody would lump the 222, the Stuart, the T-70, the Luchs, the Puma, and the AEC in the same class as the Kübelwagen. In fact, the only two vehicles that are comparable to the Kübelwagen are the now decrepit 221 and the M20.

Time to update game.

251/17, M15A1, Puma.

222 - the problem is total lack of balance - when facing US ost light vehicles face:
1. riflemen with at grenades
2. almost any US unit can be equipped with at least 2 bazookas
3. a rifleman squad can have both the bazookas and at grenades
4. US at guns have extra ap shells – intended for heavies but can be used agains any vehicles
5. ost vehicles can only be repaired by pios
6. 222 susceptible to small arms fire
All the above density of AT solutions and lack of easy, quick repairs means ost should have a light vehicle that is actually stronger than stuart to balance the game. All the changes you suggest will just make it a bit more balanced but will leave ost still at a disadvantage tbh.

I wrote all the above to make all US fanboys finally start thinking of how much imbalance there is between those armies - not necessarily because of unit stats.

4. US at guns have extra ap shells – intended for heavies but can be used agains any vehicles

AP shells are completely superfluous for the 57mm against light vehicles - they provide no damage increase unlike the M36 Jackson's and increase armour penetration by 50% which the 57mm already cannot fail to penetrate with basic shells.

What about adding a side tech for the Stuart and Luchs, then slightly reduce the cost of the vehicle?

AP shells are completely superfluous...

think he is referring to hmgs AP rounds...

think he is referring to hmgs AP rounds...

Entire sentence sounds like they completely have the 57mm in their head to me.

I meant 57 - its true though you may one shot 222 without AP round, but for puma it works nice; I simply forgot about mgs - with or without AP rounds they kill ost lights especially rus call in mg.

AP shells are completely superfluous for the 57mm against light vehicles - they provide no damage increase unlike the M36 Jackson's and increase armour penetration by 50% which the 57mm already cannot fail to penetrate with basic shells.

didnt't know about that, but that's good. Still, forgot to add two bazookas that they get. 1 with arnored car and its crew (for free), the other on captain (just 50 muni).

and why the hell would I ever build one then?

so you think that halting their damage to half whitch means you need to spend 140 F and 400MP to get them same result as before whereas in my change you only need to spend 70 F and 400 MP, point behind my choice is that you WILL get lights much sooner than mediums with big impact, but they would also cost a lot in terms of manpower so you are crippled in terms of 1 squad if you lose it prematurely

This suggestion was based on in-game experience using jane tools for hours. After nerfing the damage against inf using target tables, The Stuart had shockingly powerful LMGs and even with the %50 nerf on the cannon, it was still over performing against infantry at mid range.

In case of the T70 though, it needed to be close in order to deal enough damage. In order to make up for that it could have its cost reduced to 45-50 fuel and or have its hitpoint increased.

Andthe AEC shouldn't damage inf to begin with.

Andthe AEC shouldn't damage inf to begin with.

because?

Actually I didn´t ever find stuart all that potent, it never deals thaaaat lot of damage and if it gets mid range it get fausted, t70 with its scatter on the move is bigger problem against infantry I think

Stuart mgs:
m5a1_stuart_m1919a4_30_cal_coaxial_mp 7.05 7.05 5.96 4.89
m5a1_stuart_m1919a4_30_cal_hull_mp 7.05 7.05 5.96 4.89

for comparison:
m1_garand_rifle_rifleman_mp 6.76 4.33 2.81 1.98

So at range 20 (close to mid range)the 2 mgs of Stuart have a bit more dps than 4 riflemen entities.

Time to update game.

251/17, M15A1, Puma.

Except for the 251/17 (which, again, is an entirely different class of vehicle in terms of gameplay), all of these have enough armour to basically become immune to small-arms fire, especially the Puma with 25 frontal armour. Short of HMG AP-ammo abilities and handheld AT weapons, no infantry weaponry will get through them.

...no infantry weaponry will get through them.

The limit is 30 armor against weapons with penetration of 1 (if I am not mistaken above 3%).

The limit is 30 armor against weapons with penetration of 1 (if I am not mistaken above 3%).

The chances are so abysmally low with armour above ca. 15, that it doesn't really happen. Combine that with the relatively high health of vehicles compared to infantry damage, and you see why it quickly becomes entirely irrelevant, unless infantry is capable of penetrating every single or every second shot. Missing is also almost entirely negated, due to the combination target sizes and infantry accuracy.
So the Puma basically doesn't have to worry about this, and (as written above) the 251/17 and the M15A1 fulfil different roles anyway. Not that the 251/17 couldn't use some sort of adjustment, but this shouldn't come in the form of armour buffs.

The 222 on the other hand would actually work better in its intended role if it had higher armour (and less health to even it out against other vehicles). It could then more reliably fight infantry, while staying effective at finishing off light vehicles. It would of course lose the ability to outright play "hunter/killer" if used in pairs, but that strategy was stupid from a balance perspective in the first place.

The chances are so abysmally low with armour above ca. 15, that it doesn't really happen...

was not actually disagreeing just clarifying.

At 15 armor the chance is 6%, at 9 for 222 and 251 it is 11% which see to be enough especially for fast firing weapon like smgs to penetrate.

Oddly the M5 (Soviet/USF) has 28.5 so it takes very little damage from small arms fire.

Not going to check numbers or discuss the point, but what you have to realize that even small numbers might make a lot of difference. It's not about the raw damage small arm weapons can do, but moving the threshold of numbers of shot required to kill through AT sources.

It might not be the most frequent situation, but anything involving PTRS, HMG/MG upgrades, indirect fire and even nades, might make seemingly non consequential small arm fire lethal.