Profile of drChengele

The Sturmtiger seldom sees light because it is not very effective except in niche cases (brain dead blobber, static fortified positions) and Stuka does better even in most of these cases.

I love the unit and try to build it as often as I can. Since the range nerf, it cannot shoot at infantry without its aim time being seen, which had a huge effect on its effectiveness.

I haven't actually played the beta yet, so this is armchair generaling but if the ultraheavies are now indeed underperforming and not just suffering from acute L2P, maybe their scatter could be reduced and AoE (for ISU) and damage (for JT) increased. It is only fair - they will be shooting much less now. When that ISU hits my bunkers I want to FEEL it. (I am a masochist).

Pretty much the whole time before WFA this unit was an absolute beast bordering OP. (Anyone else remember the unbeatable SU85 + sniper spam?)

No, the Su85 was nerfed to oblivion months before WFA. March deployment, april, may - these were NOT Su-85 friendly months.

The Su85 suffered a series of crippling nerfs. It was much more mobile, could rotate like a motherfucker, and the vision ability did not slow it down. I am pretty sure its frontal armour could deflect most panzer shots. It was steadily nerfed.

But this was in the olden times. Way back, when tanks costs and teching costs were completely different. Back when there were no Jacksons and Kingtigers and Jagdtigers. Back when the ISU was a laughing stock.

"It was overpowered before!" okay, yes. "Therefore do not buff it ever again!" <-- logic fail. The unit should suffer forever for having been overpowered in a three-month period a year ago?

I really really dont understand the resistance to limit fuel and munition scaling. I have been saying this since launch. Its really a no brainer. Each player should receive the same resources they receive in 1v1 and no more no matter what map they play on.

I am not sure I understand - each player DOES receive the same amount of resources in 4v4 they would in 1v1. The number of points is roughly the same.

But I think resources should be looked at. There is a qualitative difference between a single Panther in the field in a 1v1, and four panthers on the field, at the same time, in a 4v4. 4's never really devolve into four separate 1v1s, tanks of all players are usually able to support each other and move in a pack all over the map.

Yes, there is also more Allied tanks but Axis have Schrecks and PaKs. There is a critical point of Axis armour after which anything Allies throw at them gets brutalized by the Axis heavies (and Panthers, which have an armour of a heavy tank).

Typical 3v3+ engagement : two blobs of tanks meet, a few Allied tanks get destroyed, and a few Axis tanks get to 20% and are retreated and repaired with more veterancy, blocked by the other more healthy tanks. Alternatively, an Allied player attempts a flank and eats 12 Schrecks to the face. This is all true even for open maps like Steppes. Add in some choke points and the balance shifts even more in Axis favour (more availability of mines, specialized AT mines, more infantry based AT options).

As an OKW player : I will gladly have the munitions penalty back. It is true that we have on our hands a faction that was designed with great units but a lot of resource penalties which add up - and was refined to great units with just a small fuel penalty.

Or keep them as they are and lets pretend they don't wipe whole armies/assure win by annihilation when dropped on base sector.

Found your problem, you seem to have not updated to September balance patch.

AT NADES!?!?!? What are they? 125mp and 25 fuel just to counter an early Kubel that costs no fuel!?!?!.

Which is why a fuel cost for the Kubel would help mitigate this disparity, especially since AT nades are the one upgrade that makes Cons semi-useful into the late game.