TwistedTotsie's games are so much fun to watch but the knowledge that stems from them is simple: good players show especially well which elements in gameplay mechanics are just a bit wrong. The game is great and well balanced - this is just one more detail to polish.
Imo halftracks with zooks/shreck shouldn't be better than tanks or at guns. They shouldn't spot mines and be able to "step on" for free. All the above makes the game too arcade/too far from players' 'realistic' taste.
Boy, do I have a surprise for you then
Regarding part 2, if open topped transports were supposed to be used as you claim, they wouldn't allow to shoot ALL weapons from out of them.
But they do, ever since the first game, its as intended mechanic as it can be.
It also ignores more or less suppression, battles in green-cover to green-cover are easy-wins. Vickers is desinged to perform best as garrison. So why it gets the mechanics?
Go un-scrub yourself and learn how green cover works.....
Like why brits were able to use grenades without min. range? (before I request with full heart to patch) and still don't have the suppression range nerf if suppressed?
I see it when I get it as Beutewaffe, then you can see the performance. ;D
Oh yes.... that massive 1,8 DPS at long range against green cover, so dangerous! So bold!
Playing a game clearly doesn't make you have a slightest clue about what you're talking about.
This is a cop out answer. MG damage matters when green cover actually decides to work and stops suppression. You cannot dislodge units from safety if you don't deal damage. The vickers gets bonus suppression with vet to cover some of its issues, why not give the MG34 bonus damage with vet.
I believe situation like that is called "intended positional counter to HMG" as it would need to have overpowered damage to threaten any infantry squad in green cover that's able to shoot back.
I'm fine with IL-2 bombing run as its significantly more costly and arrives slower, making it useful only against super heavies and only on smaller maps.
Ram+bombing was never an issue and there was never any kind of large scale complains about it because of the costs and time involved.
Its literally just the rocket strike that's too effective.
Only alternative is, if the ability as you(rightfully) point out, is one a unit can live without, then just replace it with something that would be useful in the context of the unit, but ram itself, once it no longer was 100% immobilization with gun destroyed on opponent, was never an issue these last 5 years, it only "became an issue" because of one, single ability.
To me, natural and logical course of action is to address the ability that's causing the issue, not the one that, clearly, wasn't complained about last half a decade.
T34 itself is much better tank then it was back then, sacrificing it is no longer no brainer and soviets aren't exactly the muni floating faction they were years ago.
At the time, T34 was also even cheaper then it is now, below 300mp and at 80 fuel.
Its already too expensive to use it against mediums in situations other then certain loss.
Why do you want to nerf already extremely underused and niche ability, because it has too good synergy with off-map that instead could lose potency and cost instead is beyond my comprehension.
Using it already costs you a tank, unless you're in really favorable position to recover it and you rarely are if you need to use it, paying additional cost to lose a tank doesn't seem like a sane solution at all to me and your solution makes ram even worse of a choice in situation where you don't have that one or two doctrines with offmaps to support it.
Therefore, as I have said, the ram should NOT disable T34 if it was to cost anything or, if it penetrates, it should disable opposing tank the same way it disables T34.
If offmap is too strong with it, again, reduce potency and cost of the offmap in question, don't break the ability for ALL of situations just because of one.
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
