I already did propose it but balance
Well same would be for panther as it has 50 range Vs the is 2 50 range at vet 2
Stug could use some changes tho maybe vet 1 ?
maybe stug can have an upgrade option that costs either munitions or MP and Fuel, that buffs its main gun Pen and range while nerfing its ROF |
Let's just make Panzershreks a copy of the USF standard bazooka in every way if this is considered a problem.
I can't wait to see the Shreks UP threads that follow.
allies generally have lower armour tanks, bazookas stats with its ROF will be very deadly.
Personally, i just wish Pshreks was more accessible or at least bit more accurate |
I have the feeling stats from the WCS 2019 will certainly shows that Heavy tanks are not in their right place at the moment. They bring too much in comparison with other doctrines and top players choose the best heavy tank doctrine regardless of faction because they know that.
Last tourney we had OKW special ops every match for a reason called command panther and now we have Pershing, Tiger or IS2 for the exact same reason. 1 unit micro able to do many things very well and enough resistant to mitigate your own mistakes to a certain extend. In two words: best value.
When you call a heavy tank, you pay and have it until it dies. When you call said P47 rocket run, you pay it and it last a moment and leave whenever all planes die or not. And then you have to pay for it again to use it.
Now in my opinion, if we would want to have the P47 rocket run (and all other variant from other factions) being competitive (as abilities available from doctrine) with heavy tank as they stand today, we should already apply the same logic. You pay for it until it dies. It doesn't necessarily mean the ability have to last until all planes die but you don't pay for it anymore until all planes die. The ability keeps the same duration, same cooldown but you don't pay munition until all planes die.
And even with that I'm not sure it would still be balanced, heavy tank can be repaired for free and get veterancy bonuses while abilities don't.
Another solution would be to simply remove heavy tanks from doctrines and put them in tech structure like the King Tiger. So we can elaborate balance around being sure everyone have access to them and balance doctrines around abilities and not those units.
yeah and dont forget to add manpower, fuel and popcap to those planes |
UKF - need mobile mortar + upgrade option to sapper that makes them more combat effective
SOV- is2's armour should be lowered so its counters can be more effective,
t70 is fine
ost - slight panther acc increase, and MAYBE slight range buff for brumbar to make t4 better
USF - Nerf jackson moving acc to 0.5 |
the mistake ur already making is comparing it with certain TD's like the jackson which many people believe is to be over performing, it would be better to look at those TD's first. TD's and the panther are already making meds irrelevant, any buffs will just make the gap further |
Don't Obers have this the other way around? They definitely at least used to be extra vulnerable to explosives.
yes i thought that too, don't obers have some sort of multiplier that makes them extra venerable to explosives? or has it been removed? |
RE 5th man is earned. If you lose your squad that is it. No more 5th man. It doesn't raise the floor it is a ceiling. There is a huge difference
And yes. The fussies are a decent example as it is a choice that Removes the option for 2 Shreks. It's a decision the player has to make and once they make it there is no going back. You can't take the extra Man AND double sling AT too. It's a tactical decision.
Same with grens even. The 5th man removes the option to get the lmg42 which centralizes their DPS so even as they drop models they are able to keep the pressure up. A choice.
Notice what doesn't have a drawback? Bolster.
The Soviet 7th man has many buffs provided but it either costs SUBSTANTIALLY more or requires a full tech and THEN takes up their only weapon slot. You have a few choices to make there.
Why bother with anything then? There is actually more to this game than just costs. Or there is supposed to be. The fact of the matter is you can buy 25% more dps and health and appearently thr only way to balance that is to make it so the unit isn't viable unless you do. That's bad design. That's very very bad design.
And Tommies are 270mp long range unit designed to excel in cover. As a member of the balance team it's a bit alarming that you are flat out saying "it doesn't matter if you are using the unit EXACTLY as it's intended to do and the enemy is using NONE of the tactical features like cover or vision and are supposed to win because their unit costs 10% more.
At what point are Tommies supposed to be able to win, if not under ideal circumstances and with the enemy doing nothing at all to reduce incoming damage?
Can we get a statement on the record as to if the direction of the balance team is to ensure that the only variables that matter in infantry combat what so ever going forward is cost?
Is this going to start applying to vehicles as well? Will a p4 driven in reverse (because no attempts what so ever to reduce incoming damage while at the same time making a mockery of core game mechanics) lose outright to a t34/76? Keeping in mind there is a decent cost difference in play here.
No. If the sturms were closing in yellow cover at even partially I would buy this reasoning but not closing head on against a squad that that is dug in and is SUPPOSED to excel under those very static restrictions.
funny i've been wondering the same when using volks and grens. IF sturms close in from max range vs tommies, sturms lose quite alot of times and MIGHT win some, same with riflemen closing in on grens(pretty sure rifles stomp it harder), but let me guess thats ok tho right?
Changes to IS makes them balanced, all they need now is indirect fire changes like a motar and ther good to go |
Thanks serrith for explaining what I was trying to say better than I could. I was getting frustrated and it wasn't helping me say what I meant.
As soon as your IS gets in range you just have to stay still and engage simple lol, you dont have to move around like a clown. if you want to close in just use commandos/or sappers. This has nothing to do with the ability or faction when your simply cherry picking a scenario where your choosing not to rely on IS strengths, which is at long range and staying still. |
well yea it would be boring af playing a faction that auto mass retreats whenever someone starts shooting at them
loool
But back on topic, when it comes IRL, US soliders were good and decently trained, but when it came to volks, some divisions performed exceptionally well, whilst others performed poorly so, since this game is set in 1944-45, i would say at this time the soviets had the best and battle hardened soldiers, whilst the Germans lost most of thers.
But i do agree, dual equipping, a moving riflemen blobs is an issue |
If allied TD's get looked at, t4 wont need buff |