...
Why would anyone spend fuel instead of just getting a more reliable Zis Gun.
Because it has a superior barrage with veterancy and because he went T1? |
Some call-ins are tied to tech, if that tech is destroyed you shouldnt be able to call it in. Atleast in my opinion.
No idea what so hard to get about that. if you dont agree, fine.
...
The problem is that it can not applied to all faction is similar way due to different base mechanics.
USF and UKF base can be repaired.
If the same rule applied to every faction it would less of problem, currently it does not and it is more complicated to implement. So I prefer JT and Tiger call in condition become consistent with other vehicles of their class the restriction is removed. |
Another quote completely out of topic. Risk and reward is totally irrelevant to doctrinal units access.
Itis your "time to move on." |
The major isnt the tech structure, thats actually in the pizza base. You dont build units from the major, captain lieut... and yes, if thats destroyed you shouldnt be able to call in a Pershing. Not that it matters, cause its game over anyways when youre opponent is in your base.
1) The Persing is not build it is a call in the same way the Tiger of the JT, so the building is actually irrelevant to not being able to call it in.
2) If USF lose their T4 they can still call-in a Pershing
3) The USF base can be repaired if destroyed for cost. Replacing trucks has a cost.
Youre right, faction design is OKW ability to build Tech structures on the battlefield.
Consistency thru all factions would be to be able to get rewarded if your risky move, like foward t4, works and that you get punished when not.
You do get punished you lose a a production structure and can not produce the units that come out form it. A call in unit is irrelevant to the T4.
Consistency would have USF/UKF duidling as durable as trucks and with cost to replace.
Again there is nothing to justify losing access to JT/Tiger when losing a T4 building. |
We had a medium tank phase before Heavy apocalypse, specially during Ostwind buff.
And we should have one again. And actually the Ostwind power level should be lowered to around 280/90. The unit has very little reason to be more expensive than T-34/76. |
Then please tell me which ones. I just discussed the AT options they have and they are not reliable. They also don't have easy access to standard mines to snare. The overall tank defense of USF is EXTREMELY micro intensive unless you get a Jackson.
Sherman76, Sherman Dozerr upgrade, Easy8, M10, bazooka Paras, bazooka Paras support, Bazooka ranges, Pershing, M20 mine, riflemen mines, M36 itself that does not have to become completely incapable of fight a PzIV.
The P4 is a very efficient tank for its cost.
PzIV becomes obsolete once they heavy TDs appear since they can damage at range 60 with a probability close to 100%.
I'd say the heavy tank meta should be fixed, because everyone is saving for a heavy instead of getting a medium. Pushing heavies back and creating a longer gap IS a good start.
I'm not sure why you think increasing T4 availability was done to compensate for a limited time frame for the units. T4 provides end game units. This will obviously not help to prolong medium play, but since T4 was rarely used in smaller modes it is good in general that this issue is addressed. I think fixing the heavy tanks will do more for the game than many suspect.
No it does not. People started spamming Panther/Brumabars because they become available earlier and they where no longer "end game units" but mid game units.
TDs will become less prevalent in the mid game. At the moment heavies come so early that getting a medium will only cause problems, because you don't have enough fuel to get a TD when the heavy comes. Conversely, getting a TD instantly is a safe bet because the heavy will come anyway. If this gets fixed than players have to decide if they really want to get a TD to shut down a single medium. Which is fine, because they then lack AI capabilities and it comes down again to positioning and micro if that choice was worth it or not. Otherwise they could just go medium as well which again emphasizes micro and positioning.
Time will tell if balance team pulls the right levers with this patch, but I think their idea is clear and concise.
As long as allied TDs can counter the majority of vehicles with chances up to 100% from range 40 to range 60 with equal easy, while being available this early there will be little room for mediums tanks play. |
i dont care about 4v4 balance at all
in 1v1 you cant rely on your teammates arty to kill a T4 that can create a no-go area for the entire match, atleast as long as the okw player defends it properly. Destroying it should be rewarded.
And again, every other faction does get punished when you destroy their base structures, CAUSE THEY ARE DEAD, its gg.
But if you want consistency, fine, bind every single call in to the tech structure. Or dont let OKW build tech outside their base sector, thats not really consistent, isnt it?
Whatever the solution im fine with it as long as greedy okw player can get punished
You are confusing consistency and faction design. Each faction has its own trademark and OKW being able to built outside their base is one of their trademarks.
If OKW losing a T4 should deny their Tiger, then USF Major who comes with allot of utility should have an added 90 fuel cost and be required to be alive to call-in a Pershing...
Bottom line is that requiring T4 to call-in a JT or Tiger does not have to with balancing OKW that still have access to KT but has to do with the respective commanders and denying access to this units is not a good way to balance these commanders. |
The KT has been a special case since forever, i dont think it fits the comparison.
My only problem is, that i dont like the idea of OKW T4 buildings being expendable. If allies destroy one, the OKW player should be punished and this doesnt happen when they can call in a Tiger even without the T4.
If youd ask me id say the same should be true for the KT but i guess thats out of scope.
If OKW wants the upside of a Tech building that can guard points it also have to feel the downsides. No other faction has this issue since every other faction is simply dead when you destroy their base or can build their tech on the field
Well in a 4vs4 it is almost certain the OKW will lose their T4 so I do not see why they should be punished by losing a access to a doctrinal unit. They already have lost a production building.
And should other faction be punished in similar way if they lose their buildings? Because currently they do not. |
How to show everyone you don't play USF at all.
I have over 1.500 games in my record playing as USF, how many do you have?
Sure let me use my sherman, bazookas or AT gun vs a p4, I'm sure they will pen it eventually 
I am pretty sure that sniping PzIV from range 60 with 100% chance to hit and penetrate with a M36 that is more mobile than the PzIV is a far better design.
If you nerf the jackson too much and don't compensate the faction with proper AT and the USF meta will become surrender when the tiger rolls in or make 5 m10s and suicide them.
When did the PzIV suddenly become a Tiger?
One can nerf the M36 vs PzIV with little impact in M36 vs Tiger. |
Well I would not call a pen chance of ~60% (bazooka) or 76% (ATG range 40 , unless you constantly invest mun) against an OST P4 very reliable. Yes, the ATG somewhat makes up with higher ROF, but this combination makes these fights either hit or miss for both sides. Against OKW it's about 15% worse.
The USF have tools vs PzIV there is simply little reason to invest in them since one can get m36 instead.
I know the design of OST. I think they can be designed without a classic light vehicle, since their very lights are actually pretty cost efficient. But that's not the point of this thread here, so let's rather discuss this somewhere else.
Imo the "advantage" ostheer are designed have in medium tank play is crucial in debating and balancing the TDs.
Current medium tank play is almost non existent and that forces the MOD team to increase T4 availability (once more) to compensate. That imo is a step in the wrong direction.
(and that makes another medium TD thread running because without medium tanks there is little reason for medium TDs)
Simply increase the window of opportunity of units to pay off for the investment instead of buffing thing thru the roof to compensate for the limit window of opportunity... |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
