The dozer upgrade on itself is an interesting change, I didn't say anything about its actual cost or efficiency. I just pointed that such upgrades are the way to go to make medium relevant on the late game.
You actually brought up the the cost:
"A good example is the sherman dozer blades, that's an interesting upgrade that make sherman more appealing on which the player need to sink munition and force the opponent to adapt."
On the other hand, TDs aren't the main reason why you stop building mediums, TDs are a part of the reason but, and this is my opinion, not the main factor.
From my game experience and cast I've been watching, TDs alone can't kill medium (unless bad play such over-extension), there is always a combination of various factors and the most critical one being the engine damage dealt by an infantry squad around the corner.
My opinion is that medium tanks suffer much more from damage engine than any other tanks which is exactly what make them so unreliable late game since they need to close the distance and take risks to achieve their goals in case of offensive.
Now imagine such individual upgrade only available for medium tanks that would change the damage engine trigger to 50% from 70% (example), that would give an interesting opening for mediums to fight TDs and infantry since they're less likely going to be rooted by the 2nd and finished off by the 1st.
I can imagine it and can see medium being used to crush infatry and the ATGs (especially the RW) circle strafed to death. |
I personally dont have a problem with Churchills. The Stug spam or JagdPanzer can easily do good amount of damage against slow Churchills and easy to faust after. Kv-1 is a complete joke and I never ever worry about this tank.
Well according to Sander93 the Kv-1 has around 85% chance to win vs the OKW PzVI and that make it hardly a joke. |
I carefully used "upgrades" which is not "buff". Upgrade comes at cost of resources and suppose a dedication into it.
A good example is the sherman dozer blades, that's an interesting upgrade that make sherman more appealing on which the player need to sink munition and force the opponent to adapt.
Such individual upgrades are interesting in term of gameplay, we could imagine an upgrade that change the trigger for the damage engine to a higher requirement (dunno, example to 50% health) so medium tanks with that upgrade would be less subject to mines or atnade creating new opening to chase behind the lines. etc...
The dozer is "upgrade" is not interesting and after the patch it will cost fuel and manpower not MU.
The majority of Allie medium do not need buff or upgrades, they are cost efficient. The main reason that they do not see action is that Td/infatry spam is better/safer choice. |
All of these units are also limited to one and have (some significantly) higher frontal armor then churchill.
The fact that Churchill is not limited to one makes it even more OP.
Church can be knocked down frontally by ATGs or StuGs/JP4s, others you've mentioned are at best hard to counter frontally, at worst impossible to(ele/JT) and to keep balance, they still need a weakness.
If you losing a Churchill to a single RF, a Pak or Stug is rather hard to achieve.
Churchill weakness is its very slow speed and while good, hardly excelling frontal armor for a heavy tank.
Slow speed means little when it hardly provides opponent with an advantage. The unit has very fast rotation, acceleration, stock smoke, a tone of HP and high rear armor reducing the effect of the slow speed.
I'm quite positive that if there is a churchil around, P4 can't do much about it.
And just because it won't die to it, doesn't mean its not a hardcounter, infantry escape from being hardcountered all the time, I'll never understand why people think that if vehicle isn't destroyed in first engagement, then it doesn't face a hard counter.
The role of the KV-1 and Churchill is that of a break thru tank, it's role is not that of a hard counter to medium tanks. There are other units for that role available to the faction.
Why? Churchill literally can't contest anything above P4 with its gun(and even that is hard vs vet2 ost P4 or OKW P4) and it costs MUCH more then P4.
Because flanking should be rewarded in similar manner it is rewarded for other heavy tanks being flanked by mediums. |
Yes, that's probably why the best way to deal with JTG or Elefant remains Arty saturation or AT strafing runs after being able to damage engine them.
It may blow your mind (credit Katitof) but powercreep is a matter of all factions and if we cannot simply nerf on side without doing the same process for the other, yes including Ostheer.
You haven't really demonstrated your various points about the panther while I was simply pointing out that Panther and allied TDs haven been redesigned in a whole finding strategic changes to make them unique but balanced and that if the panther were suffering anything today is that only the Super-Heavy tank factor that shadows him.
Again, I'm not giving a judgement, just pointing out a fact. And the fact that with so many variables balance has its own boundaries more tied than we can suspect.
Although I agree with you, reducing the over dominance of Arty and TDs shouldn't goes through directly buffing mediums but probably nerfing Arty and some other stuff going again medium tanks play. Personally I don't think TDs need to be nerfed if we can make medium tanks more reliable on the late game (using various upgrades)
The time to buff unit has past many patches ago, it is time to start nerfing. Else completely remove RNG mechanics and replace armor with damage reduction. |
Su85, having high pen is fine, as it has glaring weaknesses in its speed, rotation and lack of turret whilst jackson is the main culprit of blatantly OP TD. Personally i would also prefer if they reverted the vet re shuffle on the panther. Its slight buffs to its offensive bonuses were enough
Su-85 punches way above it price and pop especially when vetted. Once vetted the unit has nearly 100% chance to hit and penetrate most Axis vehicles while it ROF is very good. |
Panther durability was made more consistent and that's all, I don't know what you are trying to explain here.
I am clarifying your claim that "panthers have seen their health increased" at your request. The claim can lead to misunderstandings since the Panther become stronger at vet 0 weaker at vet 2.
Allies TD's dps have also been made more consistent vs it through different variables for the sake of balance, here again I don't know what your are trying to demonstrate.
Again I am clarifying in your claim that "Jackson dps has been lowered...", M36 has received serous buff and it much stronger than it was during its "glass cannon" design.
The same goes for SU-85.
We all know Jackson or SU85 are good counter vs the panther and from balance perspective this is the goal to achieve. Now are they too good is a problem of various faction's design choices where allied TDs also need to fight other types of armor bigger than the panther and the fact that what the panther is supposedly countering being not so meta at the moment.
As far as I see the game, panther still counter very well sherman (all variant), T34/85 or cromwell and is the get to go vs churchill, pershing, IS-2 or ISU. Sadly yes, those units, at the exception of the churchill aren't see so much on team game which consist today on spaming arty and TDs for both sides.
The problem is quite simply that effectiveness of allied TDs/Heavily armed infatry is so high that creates a still meta.
And continuing to buff allied Tank to make them a more a attractive alternative to TD/Infantry is a step in the wrong direction. |
How exactly? All of those tanks have significantly better guns or frontal armor to protect themselves. If the Churchill was easily destroyed by a cheap flanking medium tank, no one would ever build it. Its survivability is literally all it has, compared to the doctrinal heavy tanks who all have significantly better offensive capabilities.
I did not claim that a Churchill should be easily be destroyed be a cheap flanking medium tank. It should however have a worse penetration chance vs a flanking PzIV.
Keep in mind that the same applies to those other heavy tank, they had the rear reduced so flanking with mediums would be more rewarding. Relic simply forgot to apply the same change to some units.
Given the fact that the generalist heavy tanks KV-1 and Churchill will confidently win in the majority of fights versus the generalist medium tank P4J that costs approximately the same I'd say my point is pretty much proven, but yeah whatever I'm sure it's "simply flawed" for unknown reasons.
These tank are slower than a PzIV who will simply disengage from the fight, just because they can win that does make them a "hard counter."
The role of these unit to spearhead attacks or hold the line soaking up damage, it is not to hard-counter mediums.
The fact that they are perform so good vs mediums is an indication that they OP not that they designed as hard-counters to mediums.
But feel free to have your own opinion. |
If panther armor was lowered it was purely to give allied TDs a chance to counter it and remove the preponderant RNG effect of that match. So how lowering as well their penetration rate would help in that matter?
That was not what the Panther change was about. The Panther's durability was moved from vet 2 to vet 0. Panther is now more durably at vet 0 but less durably at vet 2.
Jackson dps has been lowered in exchange for this sole reason, so the match vs panther is less of a flip coin party.
Not really. M36 got less damage but Higher ROF and Penetration. Its DPS was probably increased vs Panther.
At the same time the SU85 has seen changes so it specialized more in countering panthers and bigger cats and less medium tanks. On the other hand if I'm not mistaken (you tell me you are the expert here) panthers have seen their health increased and balance team did their best to make it more accessible at the cost of also making brumbar more accessible.
SU-85 has no trouble dealing with medium tanks since it has nearly 100% chance to hit and penetrate them at all ranges.
Allied stock TD are meant to engage JT, Elefant and other frontally since the balance team failed to give allied factions other strategies than that or callin airplane or arty saturation or suicidal flanking.
Although we're agreeing on one point, JT and such should have seen their armor being more reduced and removed their status of super heavy to get a better overall balance between factions.
Not really. Elephant and JT are specifically because there is little else Axis has to use against allied TD protected by heavily armed infatry.
And allied do have another of option vs Elephant and JT including durable heavily armed AT squads. |
Yes it's almost as if all those tanks have other significant charactarizations while all the Churchill has are its HP pool and armor.
And that does not justify having more rear armor than they do while having less frontal armor.
Penetration is mostly RNG because both have approximately the same chance to pen on average but the KV-1 has way more effective HP.
It's not really a close fight at all, in 20 engagements on all ranges the KV-1 won 17 times, with 13 KV-1s left standing with 25-50% of their health still left.
Now do the same test VS Churchill...I suspect it perform even better.
Your claim that because a tank is label "heavy" it should win over a "medium" is simply flawed. Heavy tanks simpy not "hard" counters to mediums tanks. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
