...
I think ram plays a more vital role on teamgames than in 1v1. On 1v1 you have enough space where you can still bully single infantry units way into the late game as well as outmaneuver vehicles to account for the lack of AT performance on the unit.
You have to take into account that ram on itself is not a good ability as it requires another unit/ability to synergy with.
IL2 bombing strike is not used on 1v1 and Airborne tactics saw a single game been used.
My point is that T-34/76 is presented like a bad tank without "Ram" like a broken record. All medium tank are less effective in large modes and I see little reason for T-34/76 to be more effective since it already dirty cheap with fuel cost lower to Ostwind/Centaur.
Turning it into a sort of Battlephase, so a research in T3 required to build T4 and with the cost deducted from T4, is always still an option to further smooth out the Soviet mid game changes. I brought it up but for now we will first see what the current changes will do before taking such more drastic measures.
Or you can simply toned it down and move it to T3...
That would also solve the issue of 7 conscripts beating 5 men grenadiers.
For their cost, yes. For their strength, no. 290mp for a 4 man unit that has non complementary weapon stats (sniper+close range carbine), a full 1.0 RA value and relatively poor offensive vet- oh and expensive reinforce, 33mp per model wasn't it?
If you double BAR them, they do get stronger but its still non complementary weapons as BAR is at its best in close-mid range.
Not saying they are worse than pios but pios only cost 200mp.
Pathfinders are primarily taken for recon, not combat though they do have to chip in. If we have to increase the vet requirements for them, I'd also suggest giving them a sizeable reduction in RA but removing a weapon slot. This means they will be more durable when they hit the field, but wont scale as well through combat capability.
Glad to see that we agree about the XP value. Their DPS is enough to make vet very fast (more so for IR Pathfinders).
Pathfinder (and JLI) should simply be of lower power level and act as support unit. Lower pop(more of problem in jli) lower cost and be there for the utility and not damage.
Since JUNE 21st 2016 when Penals where first buffed they become one of the most controversial units.
After spending sixth months in totally broken state where Penal where sprinting around burning everything up they where patched again and ended up with PTRS.
Now after year the problem started to resurface and multiple buff are introduced for them.
I think it is time to finally address the Elephant in the room and admit that Penal are simply BADLY designed and adding more bandaids in pile of bandaids will simply not solve the problem.
Power Creep
When first Patched Penal completely dominated the meta and continued to do so for years which is unhealthy for the game. As result conscripts received a number of buff so that they now dominate the meta. The change in Ostheer that made Ostruppen more viable was the "coup de grace" since although they could keep up against the Penal they could simply out cap the.
Now there a number of planned buff on Penals. In sort penal dominate meta, so conscripts are buffed, conscripts are dominating the meta so Penals are buffed. This is vicious circle of power creep in purest form and it should simply stop.
Identity issues
Does anyone really know what Penal are supposed to be?
Are they supposed to be a mainline infatry?
If so why to have "semi-elite" having a power level higher than riflemen when riflemen where already designed to be OP because the whole faction was designed around them?
Are the supposed to an "alternative mainline"?
Is so why are they not designed as PF a unit that start weaker but can upgrade? Why to they get satchel instead of grenades
Are they supposed to be an Anti-light vehicle unit?
Then why do they have snare that only suitable VS heavy tanks?
Are they supposed to an antitank unit? So why do they have all this AI at start and get more accuracy bonuses?
Neither the riflemen model nor the PG are suitable for Penal. The difference between USF and Soviet are so many that it does not work and the number of PG units is allot smaller so again it does not work.
Penal need to get specific role and be designed around that role.
If T1 has issue penals simply can not be the solution to all of them.
The design that one should build only Penal or only conscripts (and do to regardless of commander or map) is simply not feasible.
The idea that T1 and T2 should be equally viable for all map and commanders is again not feasible.
Can we pls adress the elephant in the room and redesign the Penal giving them a specific role to fill and create a strategy around T1 and stop with the baindaids?
Some decent changes I was hoping for more radical changes on Penals, some notes at first glance.
SU-76
Imo the mobility bonuses need to be looked at since SU-76 becomes allot more mobile than other case mates at vet2 (2088 XP) while:
speed:7.6 accelerations: 1.9 rotation 40
For comparison reasons:
Stug III at vet 3 not 2 (6040XP)
Speed: 7.2 Accel: 2.1 Rotate: 33.6
Panther at vet 3 not 2 (8160)
speed: 6.6 Accel: 2.4 Rotate: 36
ISU-152
Concrete Piercing
Since concrete piercing shot now has 1.000 penetration should be redesigned as an AP shot only and lose AOE? Is there any reason why this shot should be used vs ATGs?
Penal
Penal PTRS accuracy from 0.15/0.105/0.06 to 0.3/0.21/0.16
At vet 3 with the vet bonuses the Penal PTRS (0.47/0.33/0.25) will have similar accuracy to Guards PTRs 0.69/0.58/0.253 further blurring the lines.
In addition with 3 PTRs you should consider removed the chance of PTRS causing critical to vehicles since PTRS spamming can become a problem.
At first glance some decent changes, here are some notes:
Raid Package added
; provides 1 scoped Lee Enfields, +33% capture and decapture rate and a 15% speed boost when not in combat. Removes the penalties for fighting out of cover, but increases construction time by 75%. 40 munitions."
Passive sprint should not be available to any unit (including USF officer).
OKW lot of good changes, (tech changes need allot of testing).
251 Walking Stuka
Can you clarify the damage reduction vs vehicles?
Is the new penetration values fixing the damage vs vehicles?
Is the damage reduction actually reducing the deflection damage?
Are the Other rocket artillery able to do equal or more damage with the multiple rocket hits?