Microing units are an essential part of the game; the suggestion to change shooting in the FoW for ATGs doesn't make sense. Your suggestion adds another gameplay complexity and mechanic inconsistency and you'd have to apply that new rule to everything that related to FoW/Shooting (otherwise there's an inconsistency). You can shoot in the FoW with a mortar (and other units) too ... If your building gets shot at by an ATG, find the source and counter it. Buildings have enough HP to provide enough time for players to react. No need to change the game for that based solely on you not liking it.
But Vipper suggested to reduce damage vs structures, not to disable ground targeting in FOW?
Regarding what Vipper said, I technically agree with him, although I doubt it would be good to indirectly buff defensive structures again at this point.
As a side note to the FOW shooting: I'd rather had it gone too. Yes, it allows good players to get some extra performance out of a unit, but even with all suspension of disbelief possible I always find it weird that units are able to do a pin point shot at something they have absolutely no line of sight on. It also really diminishes the value of smoke. Removing that mechanic would take away from micro focus, but put more emphasis on positioning and defense in depth. |
Uhm no. Op HE sherman fills that role.
Kind of, yes. But we have already 2 stock + 1 doctrinal mortar unit. There's overlap in both directions, but as mini Brummbar the overlap is smaller. |
i like the idea of bundling both molotov and at nade into one package and reducing the price somewhat to make it less prohibitive (albeit not too cheap to turn it into a complete no-brainer).
however, in case of getting just one conscript squad for the occasional sandbag and at nade in support for a t1 build this might still prove to be too expensive. maybe a squad-based unlock instead of a global upgrade could help alleviate this? ofc the price would have to be adjusted accordingly, maybe to 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of a global molo/nade unlock, but this would allow some more flexibility in terms of mixed build orders.
I mean I can agree that it would allow more build orders, but on the other hand it would be confusing af if the Conscripts do not get a different symbol since you never know which Conscript got which upgrade and always have to click though them to check visually on the info bar. |
StuG ausf.F TWP (now called HEAT Shell) doesn't stun, it disables the gun/turret and vision. Since the StuG isn't a vehicle that can easily chase, it should be easy for any medium to escape. The ability also forces a reload, which is why it's deemed okay to give it full 160 damage.
Oh ffs, I still confuse these abilities since they were all called TWP before but did different things.
My bad then, overall it might be okay although I think it might still be on the strong side. |
I am not sure about the current Ostheer changes. These are quite big buffs.
Med Kits
-> good change
Bunker
-> not too sure about that, but alright
StuG TWP
-> I think it is too strong. This could allow a lucky StuG to kill a medium without too much reaction time (shoot, insta-stun, third hit is still within stun time, fourth hit needs to be a bit lucky in the pursuit but nothing extraordinary). I'd rather keep it as a support ability which it is now. If necessary, make it cheaper. But it is already very good to take out expensive tanks for a couple of seconds and reduce the damage potential, that way the StuG scales nicely into the late game.
Brummbar barrage
-> good
Osttruppen
-> let's see. Might turn them not viable anymore. Overall I think it is bad to give the same unit different mechanics as it is very hard to communicate to the player why that is. Especially if someone buys the commander he might be disappointed. |
Regarding the v2 Scott change:
Why so much focus on the barrage?
USF already has a mortar and the PaK Howie, another mortar-like unit is gratuitous. If it is supposed to be the replacement for rocket artillery, a swap of Calliope and Scott would fit better.
And USF also has a doctrinal mortar carrier already.
Overall a mini-Brummbar like function would fit way, way better in terms of unit diversity. |
Yes, sure it has it. My point was, that considering its price and role, Jackson is a jack of all trades, unlike other defensive TD like units. By damage I meant AP rounds, if you need them.
As for panther, you can count rof\turret. But imho, considering its not a defensive TD and cant be directly compared to other TDs, thouse are essentials to its usage, so armor\speed\health is what makes panther stand out.
What ever, read more carefully next time and trigger less.
I don't argue about the Jackson being stronger than it's price suggests, but we've had plenty of discussion about this already in other threads, so I'll leave it at the note that in my opinion this is due to USF faction design that otherwise has no reliable and easily available high pen unit.
Panther and Jackson are both "jack of all trades". The Panther is just more expensive an durable.
Overall though, I'd say comparing the Panther to the Jackson without faction context is pretty flawed by design. |
With the wording you've used, could be interpreted either way.
Reading comprehension 404.
Isn't that petty "discussion" about phrasing while the actual meaning is pretty clear exactly what you usually complain about?
|
So Mobilize Reserves no longer comes free with T4, but T4 itself is cheaper? Sounds reasonable and would certainly improve T-34/76 timing, but as you mentioned it would have impact on timing of call-ins. I think it wouldn't be THAT big, but I bet there's one specific scenario where it's busted. Earlier Katy and SU-85 does t sound so bav, neither really has much of a shock value as T-34/76. It would definitely require solid testing all around.
Yes that was the idea. Make Mobilized Reserves not free anymore, but T4 cheaper to almost offset the cost. With the total cost of both being slightly higher than currently to not give an overall buff to Conscript builds.
I'd rather focus on encouraging the use of other T3 units instead of more T4 med rushing.
20 extra health for M5 at vet3 would go a long way as it arrives already when AT is abundant, it would do nothing vs dual shrecks or puma, but would be of tremendous help vs ATGs, SU-76 is being addressed, 7th man might not even need a change anymore if PTRS AT in mid/late game issue will be solved and M5+7th man could become a valid T-70 alternative leaving the decision to either go for T4 or pick SU-76 depending on situation.
I don't think that the changes to neither M5 nor SU76 are enough to make them meta in the early-mid game. The SU76 struggles from the Soviet mid game weakness without an LV, and I the M5 just can't compete with the T70 in terms of AI firepower that Soviets need in that period. The best chance for the SU76 is if it gets something to distinguish it from the SU85 in the mid-late game (which is planned in the current patch). There is overall little reason to the the SU76 in the early-mid game for Soviets, so unless you propose a complete rework of the unit the SU76 is barely an option as a first unit.
But in the end these choices do not have to be exclusive.
Pls lets not shorten the timing of units even more. If there is an issue with the T-34/76 timing and that is big "if" it the other main battle tank that should be delay and not the T-34/76.
If the the T-34/76 become available earlier it should also become more expensive since it should cost at least as much as Centaur/Ostwind.
Problems with proposed changes:
Very fast KV-1/Sherman 76
Overlap T-70/T-34/76
Getting the T34 earlier is the whole purpose, because currently Soviet tech costs (185 fuel T1, 190 fuel for T2 +10 for at nades) are higher than Ostheers (175 fuel). If we assume that all mediums are balanced to their price, the T34 can come at almost the same time as the P4 in current T2 builds. Meaning you have the weaker medium tank for the same cost at the same timing. In my eyes that is the main reason why the T34 is considered a bad choice: You're on the backfoot for the whole time until you get the second T34 and even then only barely equal. The only way to reach a critical mass with T34s is at 3 tanks. Ostheer is obviously a bit special because of their T4, that's why I suggested to increase the total tech cost for Soviets a bit and offset the earlier medium.
The overal of T70 and T34 is intended by design and as I stated in my post it would potentially help reducing reliance on the T70, which could create more build orders for Soviets.
Regarding the call ins: I already stated they might be an issue. However the 76mm Sherman then comes at around similar timing as the OST P4, which is fine since these units are similarly strong. KV-1 needs a slight nerf regardless of this.
Bear in mind though that ALL of this "very fast" fielding of units how you call it means that Soviets get neither a T70 nor 7 men Conscripts. So their performance is not comparable to the current meta. Soviet AI would be bad if they decide to rush a tank. Which is actually good, because it allows more choices in gameplay again. |
Panther has 90 rear armor, t34\76 long range penetration is 80. Anything shooting at panther rear will be a penetration shot.
Jackson considered OP, because its has ALL the advantges of proper TDs (range, penetration, damage, accuracy) and on top of that ALL the advantages, but armor and AI, of a medium tank (speed, turret, ROF).
What advantages panther have? Frontal armor, premium medium health, penetration, speed, turret.
Even with accuracy buffs, panther is: much more expensive, has lower range then other TDs, has to exposed to the enemy, has to be involved in a much more risky play then other TDs.
If you count the 160 dmg and ROF of 6,925s / 5,43s (vet 3) of the Jackson as an advantage, you should maybe also count the 160 dmg and 6,9s / 5,28s ROF on the Panther? Plus penning all Allied stock armor from vet0 with 100%, too?
And if I am not mistaken, isn't the turret rotation also 34 vs 35 or so? |