Have you considered increasing the cost of the flame HT and reducing the cost of grenadier’s mg42?
This would make Osttruppen into Flame half track cost more, while giving a slight early game buff to grenadiers and keeping the grenadiers+flame HT timing roughly the same.
What do you think of this?
From what I'm seeing in ML3 everyone almost always goes for the 222 anyway (all vs USF though), and even if that's less so the case in automatch, there's a good chance it would simply push players to the 222 rather than the 251. Osttruppen builds are also very light on munitions so I don't think increasing the ammo cost for the 251 would achieve much. Besides, I think the LMG 42 is a strong upgrade that is worth its 60 munitions cost. Grens generally have different issues I think, mostly durability and the timing of their stock scalability (competing with more efficient alternatives).
Personally I would go for a m1 carbine upgrade as it would be far more unique. If you want a Thompson squad you can get can rifles, paras or rangers
For the record, 5x elite carbines would have similar or worse dps in every category compared to 3x M1 Garand and 2x BAR. They'd be significantly worse at long range. They'd only have better moving DPS at close to mid range.
The entire playerbase on the Master League discord was in an uproar about Osttruppen a few days ago. I recommend you have a chat with the top players there about their perspective on Osttruppen.
I'm aware of the Osstruppen trouble in 1v1, but I don't see much gain in those changes. The cost increase seems negligible (player has to float anyway because of the recharge timer) and adding 10-20s to the the recharge timer itself would force the player to float 350-410 manpower after building an HMG 42 before being able to deploy their first Osttruppen squad. Those sound respectively like inconsequential and overnerfing changes to me on first sight, especially when combined with the T1/BP1 switch, but I don't play 1v1 or Osstruppen so correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise I'd be happy to try them.
Missing from the notes is Osttruppen +20mp cost and +10/20sec recharge on call in.
I'd prefer to try the T1/BP1 fuel cost switch first, as that would hopefully solve several issues at once (amongst which Osttruppen), before touching on too many things at once and potentially overnerfing them.
Just apply any version. Should fix a lot of issues. Is ostheer 2 men recrew still one of the proposed changes?
This change was removed because there were several good arguments brought up against it - the most important one being that it would be a nerf as much as a buff, because it would also force players to recrew with 2 models which would make stealing a weapon under fire (when you need 3 models to get away with it a lot of the time) a lot harder.
Some of the disputed changes should be put to voting. Personally I would like to have one on the schreck changes.
I consider the list to ultimately become a first iteration of a preview patch, with another 1-3 months of hands-on / tested feedback to flush out the more controversial changes. That's why I'm keeping them in for now. For example these Panzerschreck changes are something that I think I and everyone else would need to experience in practise to get a proper feel for them, rather than dismissing them based on theories.
Well the problem start from the fact that TDs are so effective that make tank disappear in seconds and in large modes so people build artillery instead.
People generally flock to artillery because most maps are overcrowded and laney and tend to favour the defender digging in with a wall of AT, i.e. the perfect scenario for howitzers and rocket artillery and the worst scenario for any regular tank. Blaming the effectiveness of TDs for that is rather far-fetched, because bigger maps like Steppes or General Mud generally see mass tank engagements instead of artillery even though said maps are great for TDs.
I have been reading recently a number of post portraying a picture of axis TDs being on parallel with allied. I have simply pointed out that this not the case.
With low target size, high ROF, high accuracy, camo at vet 1, 800hp at vet 2 and other good veterancy bonuses, as well as the possibility to use HEAT shells, I would definitely rate the Jagdpanzer IV amongst the top of all the TDs.
ROF for TD hardly means anything without penetration. Firefly has a garbage ROF but its still very usefull and powerfull TD simply because of its raw penetration, its less effective against medium armor while being effective against heavy targers.
Ironically the Firefly is actually the worst of the Allied TDs in terms of penetration at 260/240/210, and most importantly it doesn't get a veterancy penetration bonus unlike the others. Its "raw penetration" is rather lacklustre (which is why it gets Tulip rockets), especially versus highly armored targets like the Tiger II or the Elefant.
As for your comparison, the Firefly vs Jagdpanzer IV, when both are vet 0 the Jagdpanzer IV actually has a faster theoretical time to kill against similar targets (Tiger with 300 armor and 1040hp vs Churchill Croc/AVRE with 290 armor and 1080hp) than the Firefly at 55s versus 66s.
Acceleration thats how fast they get up to top speed or “move” basicly shermans really slow panther again faster, why?n
The Shermans have 2.1/2.2/2.3 acceleration/deceleration compared to the Panther's 2.4. Again, that's barely a noticeable difference. They are not "really slow" compared to the Panther.
Netherlands
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
