Another round of nerfs to SOV? I don't even know what to say. |
The mg on the 250 Halftrack also floats (and originally it didn't have one), result of limited modding tools. It's really only visible if one zooms in.
Result of wrong animations most likely, unsure if it can be fixed. Iirc there are some other weapons with misplaced mags in certain squads. Again, hardly noticable without zooming in.
Fair enough, it's just something I noticed when checking out the new UKF upgrades. If it can get fixed, lovely, if not, no harm done. |
The new Churchill pintle Vickers lacks a mounting stand, it just floats in the air.
AT Tommies have the magazines of Boys AT rifles floating below the gun instead of attached to the top. Sniper's rifle is fine. |
The attack ground on AT rifles is a good addition, could that be also applied to Boys AT rifles? Also the models of Boys on AT Tommies have currently bugged magazines (but Sniper is fine). Just a visual bug, but could be fixed easily I assume since Sniper has its model correct.
Another minor nitpick, could the position of the two forward squad members in MG squads be moved back a bit? Right now they stand inside the firing arc of the MGs, which looks/feels weird. I assume incoming squads will still fire on the closest models no matter their distance from the main gun, so putting them so much forward seems unnecessary. If you want to maintain the spread, they can just be moved a bit more to the side to compensate. |
Now calculate the probability of allied TDs hitting a PzIV once they get their accuracy bonuses and calculate at what range each of them has 100% to hit it.
I'm not against the change, which is something you can notice if you read my whole post. But comparing TDs with Panther is not appropriate, as those are completely different unit types. One is a fast and durable brawler with mutiple uses, good for breakthroughs and dives. The others are fragile, can do only one specific thing and, except for M36/M10, are also slow and clunky. |
Panther (and other units) become less accurate vs medium in previous patch by roughly 10% with size reduction.
That was the point of the change. To make mediums less likely to die in late game.
I dont agree that the panther is a mix of mediocre characteristics.
Its very mobile, the heavy crush allows it to move around unhindered while being about as fast as any medium. Its armour is only reliably penned by dedicated td's. It has more range then any medium, it has more pen and more acc then any medium.
Just by glancing at its cost and stats shows the panther is not meant to be the answer to every tank. Its meant to be a heavy counter. The stug and jp4 do a more then adaquate job vs meds. Even both p4 do a good job vs mediums then allied meds do vs p4,'s.
Panther is not just a heavy counter, it's just meant to be a massive pain in the arse, which is something it already does well. It zones out allied mediums, it can't be ignored by infantry, it takes a lot of resouruces (muni, manpower, damage taken) to force it away, because frontally it doesn't take damage from anything else other than vetted up AT guns and tank destroyers, and constantly threatens with flanking/diving with its extreme mobily and veta ability. It just causes a lot of stress, having this thing around.
I generally support changes that increase consistency/reduce RNG, so I don't care about this particular buff, since I already assume Panthers land 100 % of their shots when facing them, but for the same reason I dislike the nerfs to allied TDs and the generally low pen on ZIS. I feel that this kind of small bounce RNG on AT guns and TDs specifically has no place in a competitive environment. |
Once again good changes.
My preferred solution would be encouraging a mix of penals and cons by moving the PTRS upgrade to Cons and having it unlocked when T1 is built. AT satchels remain on penals and get unlocked with AT nade tech. This directly solves Problems c. and a. because a mix of Cons and Penals combined with AT nade tech would lead to normal amounts of snares and Penals no longer have to waste their AI strength by upgrading PTRS. It would also partly solve Problem b. because cons bleed less when getting slaughtered by the vehicle they're fighting. In addition I would decrease the Penal Buildtime to give the T1 opening quicker map presence. It would still be significantly weaker than a con opening in this regard.
This is a brilliant suggestion, that would solve several T1 and T0 related issues at once. |
I am talking 1v1 perspective where sov late game is extremely strong.
I'm also talking 1v1, 2v2 at most.
its strong but not because of the T-34... the zis 3 SU-85 vet 3 7 man conscripts and katyusha all contribute to soviet lategame performance alot more than the T-34-76 does... making the T-34 any better wont make the soviet lategame any stronger... especially since the katyusha just received a massive nerf with the -20% reload at vet 2... not to mention the zis 3 and SU-85 nerf...
besides weve seen soviet lategame potential with a proper high quality medium like a T-34-85... and it isnt exactly OP...
Mostly this. I wouldn't call the nerf to Katy "massive", though it's definitely more noticeable than with other faction arty in 1v1, since SOV often relies on Katy killing power in late game more than others. But yes, the scope of SOV nerfs is quite insane. It's not massive nerfs except for T70, but the overall impact will be great due to the sheer number of nerfs. Bounce/hit RNG will become even more frustrating because of the Panther/SU changes, mid-game power spike is reduced, clow car strats is even riskier because of the armour change (I wonder why would anyone waste fuel and build T1 because of something that really struggles against small arms). ZIS arty got hit hard... And those are just the nerfs that affect 1v1 specifically, not mentioning others that are relevant to team games.
This debate and thread wouldn't even exists if the balance team offered something in return in the light of so many nerfs in the first place.
|
100 % true although it can depend on the map to some extent.
However regardless of the map, the longer the game goes on the more likely soviets will win due to the attrition war.
This is not true if both players play equally well, and it showed even during the recent WC. SOV has better manpower economy, but not late game tools to really capitalize on that. Your statement would be true if SOV could for example use this to eventually build an equivalent to Brummy or Panther and really start bullying the opponent in some department. If the game drags for long enough without any decisive engagements, Axis can just stall the game with AT guns and wait for proper late game tech, which is something SOV has trouble answering again. |
I mean if you look at the forum here you'll notice most posts are made from the point of view of playing against USF, UKF, or Soviets. Most OST posts go the other way.
The point is, if you're playing against USF you are supposed to hate Jacksons, Pack Howitzer, double BARs ect. That doesn't mean any of those units should be nerfed.
They never will nerf the MG42 or Panzergrens.
And that's why balancing should be based on statistics, not forum complaints. Player opinions can be a source of inspiration how to tackle imbalance, but not a way to identify it. But I assume the balance team knows that... |