Look, why nerf something that isn't over performing? it has it rewards and risks and its a static target for crying out loud people
That argument won't work.
Nerf in form of side upgrade is coming. |
The difference is you are pushing for new additions on the Allies side, but arguing against them for the Axis side.
Like pershing or new infantry types for sovs or archer or SU-100? 
The Panzer III was in service until the end of the war, the Model N was used as an infantry support tank. Besides, Relic never let rarity stop them, you should know, you've complained about that before!
A Medium Tank last modified in 1943 is outdated, but Light Tank last touched in 1940 isn't? Now you're just trying to troll.
Rarity is not relevant, I'm more concerned about potential roles, which already is filled by THREE other armored doctrinal units.
Besides, light tanks have significantly different role then mediums, P3, no matter how you'd like to look at it-is a medium tank. Early war one, stomped by T34, but medium nevertheless.
Lights were used as recon, specifically for that Luchs was made instead of abandoning P2 all together.
We're still going to stop 1 anyway, where all possible roles are already filled with other units and adding units for the sake of adding units is pointless, you either end up with completely useless piece of shit(M-42) or units overlaping each other, making one or another irrelevant. |
Regardless, the buff is rather noticeable.
Yes, for example we can notice that UKF have a unit like AEC, which no one ever heard of before. 
Last time it seen serious use was during alpha, where you could spam them and that would be enough for early mid game instead of crom/cent rush. |
The UKF grenade does less damage but there are other factors that should be taken into account into evaluating it.
1) AT IS is one of the few infantry that come with both an AT weapon and At grenade with no upgrade cost. That make them able to cause engine damage to light vehicles with little problems, fire a couple Boys round and the grenade will work.
Completely irrelevant as units aren't supposed to work in the vacuum but together with other units.
To finish off your argument, PTRS conscripts, pshreck partisans AT nade work properly.
I find it hilarious that you're trying to excuse relic confirmed bug.
2) They are one of the few infantry that have access to 2 types of AT grenades in the form of the gamon bomb.
Any changes to improve the AT grenade should take into account these factors...
Gammon bomb is as much of an AT nade as satchel is a grenade.
Unless you're fighting braindead zombie, you're not going to hit anything.
It works fine on paper and thats it. |
Katitof get out of my thread, you find a reason to complain about anything Axis related. Why don't you go complain about the Hotchkiss instead, unlike the Panzer III it's also a Stuka, I know you hate those! Don't come back here, I don't need you ruining my thread with your attitude. 
I find plenty of reason to complain about allied related stuff too(stock 34/85 ideas, SU-100, pershing to name a few).
And yeah, I could complain about hotchkiss with just copy pasting the post.
In addition, its pointless to bring long barreled version, because Puma exists, you might not like it, but the role is taken here.
Short barreled one is pointless for the same reason because of command P4 and StuG-E, no reason to bring exactly same gun on yet another platform that would be just smaller copy of command P4.
And last but not least, we're talking mp, which happens in 44/45 years, where P3 were undergunned and outdated, their use was limited exclusively to occupation forces instead of frontline troops, so it wasn't even used in the period we have in mp.
There, I've elaborated and covered both, balance and historical reasons why P3 is even less likely then hotchkiss.
You happy now?
|
A) Let's add the Pak to Ost T1
You) That would result in negative consequences 1,2,3
A) Ah, I see. Well how about adding the pak but then adding something to the US Lt tier
You) That could work but then D, E, F
A) Oh right. It's probably not workable then.
Yeah, thats how it should be.
Thing is, most people who open threads have closed their minds to any insight and are interested only in other people stroking their ego about awesome suggestion, which in practice is not as awesome as they thought. Overtime it increases salt levels and its hard to discuss things properly.
Instead what you do is get angry that they would even make an imperfect suggestion and write:
"Another scrub suggestion from a terrible axis fanboy. L2p, idiot."
In your reply above you wrote "Common sense took a week off and went to Bahamas?" This tone is unpleasant as I'm sure you know. If you want an argument or flame war, sure, use it, be sarcastic and condescending. But why? Why do you want that? Why do you want the conflict and why do you want so much conflict?
Yes, I know, reason in the paragraph above 
At least, when I see a change of attitude towards me, I immediately change mine to match.
I have less of a restrain when responding to people with specific reputation, but I'm not angry ball of hate, Kluge works this position full time so no need for another one
Everyone's going to make flawed posts. You too.
Never said I don't, there is a reason why I'm invis'd once a while.
The question is how to respond to it. With understanding or with vitriol and hate?
  |
|
P3 for ost, potent LMGs for cons, super heavy TD for US, forward reinforcement HTs for OKW and effective, mobile indirect fire for brits, no one is allowed to have a disadvantage anymore! |
Can someone please explain why USF is considered a mobile faction? How is it more mobile than any other faction?
No reliance on weapon teams and tank crews can quickly repair engine damage, increased reliance on fast, light armor instead of rush for meds, lack of slow, heavy armor. |
Can we please not fill this wonderful thread with unnecessary troll/rageboi/flame/nonconstructive/negative posts?
I WANT TO LEARN ABOUT THE GAME NOT READ YOUR DAMN WHINY COMMENTS
If you want to learn something, then have some of this:\
I often see people screaming about squads running out of cover and giving a chase, even some of the more renown streamers make that mistake so this is how you fix it:
If you're fighting more then 1 squads and want to switch targets, right click squad you want to attack and then press S(normal hotkeys) or STOP order, unit will change target, but will not re position or chase the squad then it retreats and will switch to another target after first one goes out of range. |
If this comment includes "miragefla" who wrote OP, I personally feel it is rather unjust.
The fact that he was created a mod with changes and tests regularly is proof enough that he does consider the effects on global balance...
Although I don't agree with all of the changes made in his mod, imo he deserves congratulation for the time and effort...
I know he got good intentions I certainly appreciate his effort, this is perfect example of how balance thread should look like, but he overdid by a long shot with the changes.
People often make long lists of suggestions and changes without realizing the effects and impact of small changes. If anyone have any doubts about the accuracy of my statement here, please, familiar yourself with recent AEC change and its impact.
Miragefla level of changes could be comparable to removing old AEC and putting Cromwell with increased range in its place-its really hard to agree with him on more then single change from the list. Range change alone would make it hardcounter its own hardcounters like Stuart, AEC or T70. |
1
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
