|
The problem is that osts p5 is in an overpriced tier that offers no fancy pants passive bonuses or upgrades just for getting there. They should be forced into that to face a stock unit. You keep saying the allies pens are topped at 220/260 like thats some major draw back but you are ingnoring that those units are in their STOCK line up. You want a 525 armoured death cannon? Ok but ONLY with the 1 doctrine limiting support options and its going to be limited to 1 meaning if the match drags on you cant pump out an army of impenetrable steel death.
YOU SHOULDNT NEED A DOCTRINAL ANSWER TO A NON DOC UNIT
This is why allied TDs have pens all above 200. Axis stock TDs dont get to those levels because they dont have the need to and adding a 320 armoured tank shifts the balance. Keep in mind axis "TDs" ontop of lacking the pen of allied TDs, also lack the range (jp4 has 60 range, but has even less pen, 175 at max iirc, meaning only a 70% chance to pen the CURRENT churchill. Why should it fall to 54% chance to pen while exists the non doc firefly for brits to counter 320 armour panthers and the like?)
So to reiterate, a slightly squishier KT without the cannon would be an issue because the axis nondoc roster isnt designed around facing. Introducing relatively high opposing armour is a MASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSIVE balance changes (remember the KT? the tank that increased allied TD pen across the board?)
Besides, the bloody kv-1 can be a tough little number, i cant imagine a non doc version with more armour and more health... |
240 armor is hardly enough for something that's suppose to be a shield. It's not high enough to reliably bounce a good deal of the weapon from the axis.
It's quite literally the end cap unit for the british, it should provide an incentive for the axis to pull out their own big gun as well, not just concentrate fire from pak40 or stug.
190/240 = 79%, which is high enough to consistently penetration with some bounces.
The allies penetrating weapon caps out at around 220 at max range, which against the panther is 68% chance.(220/320 armor).
Even if we ignore doctrine unit (like the elephant and jagtiger), both axis have the panther and the okw have the King tiger. The panther should be enough to solo a churchill.
and the churchill is also slow. It needs the durability to get out and get in.
Why should it be bouncing units whos sole job is to damage armour? Being able to bounce 20% of backbone AT and STILL able to survive 8 penetrating hits is very tanky. Health is more reliable than armour anyways. (It will ALWAYS take 9 standard damage pens to kill, you are guaranteed that PLUS a 20% chance to bounce paks, meanwhile a panther even with its imcredible armour CAN be killed in 5 shots if RNG says it will.
A dice roll decides if armour works and there are tools to neutralize the advantages of armour. as you mentioned, things like the more expensive panther, or super heavy single purpose AT units (god forbid 260 fuel of AT be effective fighting a tank...) But the health is STILL there. Even with units like the pak 43 dealing 320 damage the churchill STILL takes more shots than a standard tank does vs standard AT..
And you are right, its full tech for brits which is why for 20 fuel more than an okw pays for a p4 you get 6 more armour! Well that and more than 2x the health. |
|
im in favor of buffing their vet 1 personally. Something more suited to mechanized infantry. Something that suits the Wehrs intended adoption from static team weapons on the defensive to more aggressive light vehicle and infantry pokes. Increased rof would be nice, or accuracy. Slightly smaller target size, increased LOS. |
|
I dont agree with the usf getting a free squad, i think they should build them because 1) free squads wtf, and 2) POPCAP. being forced to take on a reduced mp income because you teched up (and healing also takes up pop cap btw) is wrong. Make them an optional buildable unit instead of free forced pop munchy.
But by all means have usf teching close out tech when wiped, but they too must cost no population. Ill see you after that change on your thread bitching that the OP usf are causing bleed with 0 pop bonuses that came with nothing more than teching up.
And losing access to your tech because you lost your schwere is YOUR problem. Its a tech building FIRST and offers additional advantages. Treat it as such and act accordingly. If you feel you are incapable of countering a single mortar with your own options address that problem, if you are unable to assault an army of mortars (i.e. mp dump) thats also your problem as for every mortar they build you can nearly match it with a volks squad. The schwere isnt the problem, its players thinking that because it has a gun on it it should fight the whole enemy army by itself and since its a tech structure it should also require the entirety of said army to destroy (whom, looping back, should be obliterated by the schwere because it has a gun on it) |
|
How much pop cap does an emplacment take up? How much does a schwere take up?
What units are required to build an emplacment (and how much pop do THEY take up?) And what units are required to set up a schwere (and how much pop do THEY take up?)
To boot the bofors has 25 pen (mid) and 30 damage while the schwere has 45 pen (mid) and 40 damage
So im not sure where the "my superiour, pop free, self building, included with tech area denial cannon doesnt have all the abilities the 10 pop, binary side tech similar weapon in an enemies roster comes from...
If YOU cant defend it you dont deserve to reap the benifits it yields (although even in base you can benifit from the 100% free AA ability)
Perhaps try playing againt easy okw bots so you can see how a complete retard builds them and aspire up to that |
(using the figure from vipper)
the firing arc of the frontal hull and the side mg doesn't overlap. It's just big enough to provide 320 degree frontal coverage.
You can face the churchill to have three of those weak mg to fire on the same squad, but they will be firing on different individual soldier.
The mg themselves are pretty weak to begin with. even with the front coaxial, one side, and one hull you're only putting down 11.79 dps. That's still worst than the 12.38 on just the axis coaxial and hull.
the 75mm on the churchill also have a somewhat long reload time at 6.56 second. It's actually longer than the reload time on the wehr panther (6.4).
and the grenade is close range, on one of the slowest unit in the entire game. You could slowly crawl up to a pak to grenade it, while eating shell the entire way.
the mk7's firepower is "decent" at best, mediocre at worst.
Which is fine because its there for a long time not a good time. Ya cant have a tank that can bounce some shots, take 9 penetrating hits AND melt infantry. The tech required is anvil. Its a supposed to be a wall you grind the enemy against. Its potent enough to be a threat (so as to draw fire) but not a wonderweapon that all you need to do is build an army of them (like at launch) its a part of your army filling a role. |
I feel like the King tiger's enormous damage and dps make it harder to balance.
historically the kwk43 used the same/similar projectile as the kwk 36 but loaded with more propellant. of course, damage and hp is kind of arbitrarily to begin with.
the IS-2 should really have been the one with 200-240 damage, as its 122m was a huge caliber gun for the period. On the other hand, it was also infamously slow to reload due to the same fact.
Launch is-2 had 240 damage and a long reload, but it would frequently bounce a p4 (and would actually lose to the ass of a tiger) so they increased its rof and reduced damage (instead of ya know... Increasing pen...) To nake the bounces and misses less devastating. Wouldnt mind a rework tbh... |
This would be fine if you also nerfed infantry AT and stickies.
Depends on how good the mgs are. If mgs were the primary source of AI then AOE could be reduced. Some specific units would retain a more potent AOE (various stubby guns, is-2, 15cms, sherman HE, sturmtiger/AVRE ect) but the standard tanks would be flinging mostly AP shells more or less (panther level aoe?) They could then be more accurate/ relationships between target size could be better tweaked without risking nuking a squad every other shot. MGs as a primary source of AI makes sense as its a slower but reliable AI. Its easier to tweak too without creating other problems (well the is-2 is OHKing infantry so for the next 3 years it wont hit a solider, tank or building ever ever ever EVER again type changes) |
|
The choice is yours. Do you want its primary function to be its supression or its production? Plop it on your cut off and get the best of both. |
|
Now now children....
Katitof he provided the into you requested. The side hatch MGs are relevant as they come with the church, vet locked but included in the price. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
