My probelm isnt okw, its your suggestion... and you brought it up in this thread
I tried to bring it up in all thread since the system in ver 1 was inconstant and illogical.
Now I am not sure what you do not like but I see little reason why OKW would be able to call-in a KT and not Tiger or JT if they lose a T4. |
|
Current issue is that the performance of this TDs is practically same from range 60 to range 40.
There many parameters that can change to solve this issues like:
Lower accuracy at long ranges so they at least can miss vs PzIV, increases their ROF at long range so that they benefit at closer ranges and so on... |
...
The unit will not see play by just nerfing the Su85. Reminder that the Su76 receive plenty of nerfs just so the unit will give space towards the Su85.
We went from having Su76 spam been meta (because barrage was free) to barely seeing it used. At the same time this happened, the Su85 was not buffed but nerf (popcap increase).
Not really sure what to do with the Su76, trying a small range Stug-E like version could work.
It will see more action if the medium tank phase of the game actually starts to exist.
Currently there is little reason to build mediums tanks and thus even less to built medium TDs... |
i dont care about consistency when OKW is the only faction that would profit from that change.
What about the KT? As far as i know OKW is able to call in a KT when its T4 is destroyed.
If you want consistency, allies should be able to consistent punish greedy OKW player without a backup Tiger
If your problem is OKW I suggest you debate in the OKW thread and not the ostheer one.
And it is a bit silly that OKW would be able to call in a stock KT without the T4 and not a Tiger... |
Copying from main thread:
I dislike the Grenadier reinforcement change because it homogenizes the factions. I also prefer when reinforcement costs are consistently 50% of the entity's initial cost.
So, instead, I'd recommend improving their cost-effectiveness by increasing their firepower. It has the added benefit of scaling control. You could increase rifle DPS for early game, or MG DPS for late.
Imo their could be acceptation different rules for different units types and as little as possible exceptions.
For instance it would make sense for CQC units to be something like 15-25% cheaper to reinforce to bleed less. |
Why? except for okw, when your opponent is destroying your base... well you lost the game already. And you need to able to punish greedy okw T4 buildings. If you dont want your HQ destroyed as OKW - and this might surprise alot OKW players - you can actually build it in your base sector.
Overall the changes are fine imo, i dont know if the brumbar needs more armor but i guess its ok.
Consistency is a good enough reason. USF/UKF/OStheer could produce their super heavies soviet/okw would lose the ability. |
While this poll is interesting, we cannot disregard the general faction that each TD has to work in. Of course the Jackson is too good for it's price, but that's because everything else in USF loadout does not reliably deal even with a P4.
...
And that is part of the point of ostheer, the being under pressure in infatry and light vehicle phase and they are supposed to be able to push in the medium tank phase. If their PzIV is zoned form range 60 by a M36 they need to become stronger in the infatry and light vehicles phase...
And the claim that USF can deal reliably to PzIV see a slight exaggeration... |
...
The question then is which to balance them around? Which tank destroyer is at about the right power level right now?
None...
These units simply need an overhaul and a veterancy bonuses overhaul. Their base stat where buffed while keeping most of their veterancy bonuses. (accept of the FF which gimmicky).
If someone forced my hand and since OP has rated FF as the worse, I would say the FF. |
|
I would rather see a "camouflage ambush" ability on stug that would allow it to fire a couple of round before it has to retreat.
Ability:
Unit become stationary, gains 20-30 rotation and 10-15 sight range.
As for the SU-76 it does need a dual shell in my opinion. It problem is the performance of the unit but the better options. Nerfing the other option in specific areas will create room for the unit.
|
The problem is nobody has solid solutions to the Jackson problems. So I would rather not see drastic change to the Jackson and make USF least playable faction after the Brits buff.
Me and others have plenty. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
