Profile of Junaid

That's probably a problem with the SU-76 being too good for cost.

+1 agreed.

Reading this thread encouraged me to make my first post on this forum. It seems that many people are advocating for a performance increase for the Panzer IV. I don't think that this would actually fix the problem. It seems like this would shift the tank burden to UKF (Cromwell),USF (Sherman) and SU (76). Both USF and SU would have to select their corresponding doctrines just to stay competitive with a stock do-it-all Panzer IV. The poor Cromwell would be completely outclassed. This would force Allied players to buy TDs for a stock unit, and that would solve nothing because that solution already exists for Axis.

There are several solutions that do not require throwing this delicate tank balance. 1) Doctrine tanks or other units (cough... flame rifles) are indeed too powerful and require toning down a bit. 2) Maybe a different approach of tackling these two doctrinal tanks: players selecting these doctrines are doing so (in part) because of the specialized tank. Buying a TD might be the best bet. 3) A healthy combination of the 1 and 2. 4) Fix the teching issues so that Axis players can get to the Panther in a timely fashion to combat these two tanks.

The EZ8 might need to cost a bit more fuel if it severely outperforms the Panzer IV.

This is my admittedly (very) limited view on the balance of the Panzer IV. I may just need to play with the tank more to see how it holds up.

Thats very well thought out imo. +1 mate

Farewell old familiar gunshot bug. I hope you don't return, and yet, still hope that you stay

I think the PIV needs to be cheaper. Actually all of Ost T3 should be cheaper when you compare it to the abomination that is Brit T3

True that. Was outplaying a brit on 1v1 kholodny ferma. Had fuel superiority (both fuels) for quite some time too, throughout the match. He built a wasp, AEC and had all 3 HQ upgrades. I build a 222 and HT. We both had first tanks (crom/pz4) out at the same time. Clearly, there is a fuel price issue here.

Attention: Alex and other people discussing win loss ratios in this thread.

Show Spoiler

He's right. Please open a separate thread for the w/l discussion as it doesn't contribute to this. And the reason why is doesn't is because w/l data only provides a global picture of balance. Grens are a local problem, not global.

So please, lets try to keep this thread On Topic, not Off Topic.

Wall of text below. Summary: standardize squad sizes to 5 man axis and 6 man allies

Expanding on my previous post: I think rng is a big factor in gren performance. And this is due to their squad size and weapons. With 4 men, they present 4 entities for any opposing squad to shoot at, while they shoot at 5 or 6. Trouble is, this leads to a higher probability of 'unlikely' events, both favourable and unfavourable. Take cons/rifles for example. Lets say probability to hit an entity with k98 is x and for garand is y, and remember both x and y are less than 1. (Idk the actual stats, just follow the math here).

So: probability of all 4 grens getting hit by garands is y^4 but probability of all rifles getting hit by k98 is x^5 (smaller).

Hence for grens, generally, taking or dishing out extreme amounts of dmg is more probable than it is for rifles. Similar issue with cons. The probability for extreme events in the opposite direction (all grens evading their shots etc.) also becomes higher. THIS plus the fact that they have high dmg, low RoF bolt-actions, compounds the issue.

The smaller squad sizes make these RNG blips more important for grens than any other infantry (except early game tommies). Losing a squad member means 25% less dmg AND 25% less health (technically even less health than 25%, cause now the opposing entities have more enemy entities they can focus on which skews the 'to-hit' probabilities more, but I'm trying to keep it simple here). This of-course affects all squads as they lose entities, but grens more so due to their small size.

Which is why I argue for squad size standardization. 5 men for axis. 6 men for allies. We'll retain the element of flavour this way too. [I'd argue for 6 axis/7 allies or higher, law of large numbers and all that, but maps will then be need to be redesigned so no point] Adjust dps and Received Accuracy accordingly to retain current damage profiles. It'll enable better balance of snipers and explosives too.

Also, I am of the opinion that fausts need an animation speedup in exchange for lower stats. I'd prefer they mirror it to the conscript AT grenade. I mean, infantry snares aren't meant for solo critting mediums and heavies anymore, makes no sense that faust should retain its high pen.