Profile of Vipper

My suggestion about the ST:

Move to another doctrine (overwatch?) the unit does not benefit form heat round and commander. The unit competes with KT that does benefit from those abilities.

Redesign the unit:
Allow unit to piece world object and ground so that shot become reliable.
Greatly reduce wipe potential.
Greatly increase durability.
Add lots of utility:
The smoke grenade replaced by explosive mines around vehicles vs infatry
Shell do less damage but completely ignore all cover bonus delivering constant damage maybe cap number of kills.
Shell now bypass some of brace damage reduction units can not be used to take 17p the same way Avre can take out 88.
Shell now deliver long lasting debuff to enemy units like:
vs vehicles injured driver,gunner,commander.
vs infatry "shell shock" reduces DPS
vs support weapon "shell shock" reduce reload/ ROF
vs emplacement "shell shock" reduce reload/ ROF


(as for the commander itself make 221 and 223 separate vehicles or at least move fuel cost to upgrade)

Jackson is not significantly faster than PIVs, they have a .2 difference in top speed. The only difference is Jackson accelerates faster. And apparently you're at the ELO where you think flanking is accomplished by driving directly into the middle of the enemy's forces to get at their tank, so I can understand why you would think that's a problem. And you don't need an overwhelming advantage to beat jacksons, only a minor one, but even if you did, why exactly should generalist mediums be any better at beating specialized tank destroyers? Is having nearly the same top speed, almost guaranteed penetration, and enough damage to wipe them out in the same hits your PIV can take against it not enough for you to figure out how to beat them?

Imo you should take into account more parameters and their effects:

For instance:
The chance to hit and penetrate on the move for both vehicles
The chance to score collision hits when one misses
The importance of acceleration when traversing terrain and when using glide shots

Nope. Volks and grens have very similar weapon profiles, it's just volks do .8 the damage individually for similar squad DPS outputs.

At close range:
gren=5.9*4= 23.6
volks=4.7*5=23.5

Grens have less effective health though. 4/.91 = 4.3

I'm not sure whether the stats on the database for tommies are in cover or out, but i think it's without the cover bonus, and is better at long range, slightly worse at close range. The database lists .8 RA for tommies though, and .91 RA for grens.

It a little more complicated than that since the K98 does 12 damage and it take 7 shot to kill a model leading in a 4 damage overkill and thus the theoretical DPS is 5% higher than the practical.

To make thing even more complicated the ST44 does 4 damage and there might not be any overkill if a K98 and ST44 fires on the same entity.

I think pretty much everything involved in balancing the game at this point is opinion. The only facts the balance team has to work with are unit stats.



I mean switchable rounds are more complicated than non-switchable rounds.

I don't think that's a contentious statement.



A rough impression from reading the forums. You're the only person I recall complaining about the Jackson/P4 matchup.



Now that's a question and a half.

Empirically, I'd say Relic's current method has worked so far.

Ok then imo the current performance of the M36 makes PzIV obsolete even when the PzIV is vetted.
That imo is problem because the PzIV is can not be refunded and end up either being drug taking up pop or feeding experience to the M36. (the problem affect other units also and not just m36/PzIV)

A solution imo are the different types of munition. This solution imo does not affect the M36 Panther relationship and should be rather easy to implement.

Now if I understand your point of view the relationship between PzIV is not an issue.

Would in your opinion the relationship be an issue if the M36 gun had the stug's characteristics or Su-76 or M10?

Is your only objection that it will make the of M36 more complicated for the user?

Because if that is the issue one can simply not switch munition as someone using the Sherman vs AI can choose not load HE but keep the AP that still get the job done vs AI. After all it will be an option.

What is Relic current method?, I am sincerely curious. It used to have a developer and closed beta team and then switched to open betas/previews. I am pretty sure it is not "voting" to find the common viewpoint on everything.

It's a good solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Are you stating a fact or expressing your opinion?

If, as you suggest, you give the Jackson one set of shells for heavies and one set of shells for mediums, you can balance them independently and change the performance of one without changing the performance of the other. You trade simplicity for flexibility.

No you simply balance the performance of the unit vs medium and super heavies separately, it does not have to do with simplicity or flexibility.

An alternative would be to increase the target size of Super heavies and reduce the size of mediums so that it has a good chance to hit Super heavy and bounces and will always penetrate mediums and some time miss.

But there isn't widespread agreement that there's anything wrong with the Jackson vs Panzer IV matchup in the first place. You think there is, yes, but it doesn't seem to be a common viewpoint.

Are you stating a fact or expressing your own personal opinion?

If you have any stat on how many people think there is something wrong with Jackson vs Panzer IV and how many people think there is nothing wrong with it pls share.

Finally how much weight do you put in "common viewpoint" when ti comes to balance? I know some people who have turned claiming that only Top player opinion matter when it comes to balance into a carrier.