Fall Balance Preview Feedback

17810121316

Comments

  • #272
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Surely Relic could adjust the scope to include both the OKW and OST versions and try to standardise the unit across the two factions to perform its job as an anti premium medium/heavy unit?

    I fail to see how it makes sense to adjust the jp4 and stug into a more refined role as an anti vehicle/stock medium td, without making the compensating changes to the panther to fill the gap left in handling the heavier armoured allied vehicles.

    Is that not going to create bigger issues with premium medium spam? As the t-85, easy eight and comet are currently only held back by stug spam and the live jp4 performance. Panther's don't really cut in, as their cost effectiveness is rather crap, and its easy to overwhelm them with numbers.

  • #273
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited July 2017

    (@SAY_MY_NAME if you quote does not work correctly pls stop quoting.)

    Elefant
    The Elefant has received a damage reduction to reduce the unit’s effectiveness against medium tanks and tank destroyers. Previously, units like the Elefant were found to be too dominant in team games thanks to their ability to shutdown all forms of Allied armor while remaining relatively population efficient.
    • Call-in cost without Battlephase 3: 900/310.
    Cost from 720/245 to 680/230 with Battle Phase 3
    • Damage from 320 to 280.
    • Population from 20 to 23.

    Changes to pop are fine.

    The tech cost will simply remove the unit from 1v1 and 2vs2 and will have minimal impact in 3vs3 and 4vs4 game since teching will probably come earlier than CP.

    Damage change
    DPS vs mediums:

    elefant_88mm_gun_mp /32.00/32.00/30.17/27.66/25.14/22.63/20.11/17.60
    sherman_firefly_76mm_mp /24.24/24.24/24.24/24.24/24.24/24.24/23.47/0.00
    m36_m4_90mm_ap_gun_mp /32.92/32.92/32.92/32.92/31.39/26.56/21.73/0.00
    m36_m4_90mm_gun_mp /27.12/27.12/27.12/27.12/25.85/21.88/17.90/0.00
    isu152_ml-20s_152mm_armor_piercing_mp /0.00/23.41/23.41/23.38/21.40/19.42/17.43/15.45
    su85_d5t_85mm__mp /28.32/28.32/28.32/28.04/27.00/25.96/24.92/0.00

    Note that firefly M36 AP and SU-85 have actually better DPS vs mediums at range 60 than Elephant and one can have at least 2 of them for similar cost. (even a vet 2 Su-76 has better DPS). Think become even worse with veterancy which increases the effectiveness of these vehicles vs mediums.

    Imo the effectiveness of these vehicles vs mediums should go down similar to Elephant (by reducing accuracy or damage)

    M36 ‘Jackson’ Tank Destroyer
    To push the M36 into the role of heavy tank hunter, we have increased the unit’s health and accuracy to better allow the unit to be more aggressive when assaulting hostile tanks, but have slightly reduced the range and increased the cost to compensate.
    • Health from 480 to 600
    Accuracy from 0.05/0.045/0.035 to 0.06/0.05/0.03
    Accuracy AP from 0.06/0.05/0.04 to 0.06/0.05/0.03
    Pen from 240/220/200 to 280/230/180
    • Fixed an issue where HVAP Rounds were unresponsive when switching targets
    Cost partially reverted from 350/125 to 380/135

    The unit is simply way too effective vs mediums having high accuracy (improved mid close for normal shots) to begin with vet2 accuracy bonus and the highest moving modifier and sight bonuses. The unit has 100% chance to hit and penetrate at range 40 and by vet 2 that goes up to around 55.

    Imo accuracy should go down or vet bonus accuracy should be lowered or removed. Consider lowering damage vs mediums to 160

    Jagdpanzer IV
    The Jagdpanzer IV is receiving a reduction in terms of its veterancy power. Previously, a veteran Jagdpanzer proved to be too powerful due to its incredibly high damage when attacking from stealth, ability to self-spot without penalty to its max range, while also being very well-protected against tank shells. The Jagdpanzer stealth capabilities is also being moved in-line with other vehicles.
    • Detection radius from 10 to 20.
    Veterancy Changes
    • Veterancy 5 First-Strike damage from 400 to 200.
    • Veterancy 2 sight bonus replaced by 20% weapon accuracy.
    • Veterancy 2 armor bonus removed.
    The Jagdpanzer is receiving a slight cost increase to match its true performance due to its higher armor values, lower target size, and ability to self-spot up to ranges of 45.
    Fuel cost increased from 135 to 145

    The vet 2 bonus is over the top giving JP 100% accuracy vs medium up to range 20.

    The price increase is not actually needed because the unit has lowest penetration of the other TDs (200/185/170)
    including Su-76.

    The armor is over played because it can be penetrated by other TDs frontally and MBT from read/side.

    Ability to self-spot is also over played since:
    JP sight 45 in cone
    M36 sight 40 (360), 45 (360) vet 2 (even more with bulletin)
    Firefly 45 (360) with commander +sight from hammer
    SU-76/Su-85/ISU-152 sight 49 (360) with trucking

    Imo the unit should either take a role closer to Stug as a counter to medium tanks and thus cost less have lower pop (and stat adjusted) or should have a role as a counter to Heavies in which case accuracy need to go down and penetration up.

    Once more I would recommend swapping vet 1 abilities with stug. In addition swap vet 2 bonuses with vet 3 bonuses

    Jagdtiger
    The Jagdtiger is receiving significant changes to lower its dominance in team games. The changes will make the Jagdtiger less potent against the majority of Allied. At the same time, Support-Fire will now be available without the need for veterancy to allow the Jagdtiger to support attacks against non-vehicle targets. Support-Fire has been modified in terms of damage output as the ability no longer collides with terrain or landscape.
    • Call-In without Schwerer Panzer Headquarters: 900MP/350FU.
    • Accuracy from 0.06/0.05/0.04 to 0.05/0.0375/0.025. (Matches Elefant accuracy)
    • Damage from 320 to 280.
    • Range from 85 to 78.
    • Supporting Fire range from 125 to 85.
    • Veterancy 4 rotation bonus removed.
    • Engine upgrade no longer provides a 20% rotation bonus.
    • Population from 21 to 24.
    • Jagdtigers now suffer a short stun ( to rotation decrease/speed decrease (-70% each) for 3 seconds) upon receiving penetrating hits on rear armor. Ignored when the Jagdtiger reaches veterancy 5.

    Supporting Fire
    • Supporting Fire projectile now ignores terrain/landscape.
    • Supporting Fire now available without veterancy.
    • Veterancy 1 increases Supporting Fire rounds from 3 to 5.
    • Jagdtiger Supporting Fire scatter from 6 to 8. Distance Scatter Max from 8.4 to 10
    • Supporting FIre mid AOE from 2.25 to 1.5

    Mid range also needs to go down since it is too high. (42.5)

    Tech requirements will have the same affect a described for Elephant

    Stun mechanism is still too punishing,easily leading to stun lock and the units should become immune to it for certain time after it is activated once (10 secs?)

    Removing both vet rotation and the engine rotation seems too much.

    M4A2 Sherman Firefly
    We are lowering the accuracy of the Firefly to be on-par with other tank destroyers and reducing its moving accuracy to be in-line with its role as an anti-armour hunter.
    Tulips have also been modified, mainly for team games, to prevent devastating alpha strikes. The rockets will no longer completely stop a tank’s movement to prevent them from cancelling a player’s movement commands.
    • 17 pounder accuracy from 0.08/0.07/0.05 to 0.055/0.045/0.4
    • Moving accuracy from 0.75 to 0.5
    • Tulips no longer cancels move commands upon stun.
    Tulip damage against infantry is being adjusted. Previously a player could use the Firefly’s rockets to kill weapon teams and infantry from long-range due to their AOE and damage radius, despite this ability being meant for AT work.
    Tulips now deal 33% damage versus infantry.

    Reduction in accuracy is not enough since the commander provides extra x1.1 allowing the firefly 100% chance to hit and penetrate at range 60. In addition mid range is simply to far at 45 making the unit even more accurate.

    Consider lowering damage to 160vsMediums.

  • #274
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited July 2017

    @RiCE said:
    If you check the stats of the OST Panzer IV you can see how obsolete it is. It is 40FU more expensive than the T34/76 yet not even a bit more reliable.

    The T34's cheapness is tied to its timing, t3 vs t4. The P4 is at least a bit better than the t34, cmon, the vet 1 abilities are on opposite ends of the quality spectrum, and the p4 gets the armor buff at vet 2. The 34 has a unique role though, its designed to be sacrificed in most armor fights.

    That said I do think the P4 is overpriced, but moreso when you compare it to the Sherman. If you're johnny on the spot with the round switching, the Sherman is much better than the P4 for 15 less fuel. AND since WFA teching is practically from a different game, the tech for sherman can often arrive quicker. The moving accuracy difference is a big deal in that arena, and the sherman practically gets passive blitz at vet 1 if you take advantage of it properly (while having stock smoke to begin with).

  • #275
    2 years ago
    ColonelRadecColonelRa… Posts: 52
    edited July 2017

    The Stug G

    I agree with replacing the target weakpoint since the pak already has it.
    Maybe add this ability.

    Steady Aim

    Increases the accuracy, range and penetration(slightly) at the cost of mobility(either it becomes immobile or really slow) and decreased reload.

    The other idea would be to give it Smoke shot since it's a support vehicle.

    Another unit I hope it get's tweak are the panzerfusiliers.

    They are so unbalance right now. Providing multiple rolls with cost efficiency. A 6 man squad with a small pop, cost and reinforce. Are effective vs Inf, vehicles and provides recon. You can replace volks easily with them or combine then because of there low cost and pop.(Had a game were was fighting 3 fusilier and 3 volks, god it was awful) As they are now they perform better than many core units and other infantry call-ins. Not to mention their vet makes their abilities even better and their weapon cooldown vet makes their rifle behave like smgs! The g-43 takes no weapon slot and adds LoS. Killing the JT makes it almost impossible when the enemy has a lot Fusiliers around, meaning they can snare any flanking tank. Cons? Not many that I can think of, other than them clumping up in cover, but hell every unit does this. Need a lucky shot to kill the clump up.

    Solution

    Buff em! But at the cost of mp and pop. 320 mp and 8-9 pop. Removing the AT rifle to eliminate the multi role. The g-43 takes 2 weapon slot. Increase their base weapon damage to 12 and slightly the accuracy. Now they can behave like elite units and has a penalty if you spam em.

    The 2nd idea would be to reduce their effectiveness and eliminate the AT grenade, but they still can be blob which is something we want to avoid.

  • #276
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited July 2017

    @ColonelRadec ha detto:
    The Stug G

    I agree with replacing the target weakpoint since the pak already has it.
    Maybe add this ability.

    Steady Aim

    Increases the accuracy, range and penetration(slightly) at the cost of mobility(either it becomes immobile or really slow) and decreased reload.

    The other idea would be to give it Smoke shot since it's a support vehicle.

    Another unit I hope it get's tweak are the panzerfusiliers.

    They are so unbalance right now. Providing multiple rolls with cost efficiency. A 6 man squad with a small pop, cost and reinforce. Are effective vs Inf, vehicles and provides recon. You can replace volks easily with them or combine then because of there low cost and pop.(Had a game were was fighting 3 fusilier and 3 volks, god it was awful) As they are now they perform better than many core units and other infantry call-ins. Not to mention their vet makes their abilities even better and their weapon cooldown vet makes their rifle behave like smgs! The g-43 takes no weapon slot and adds LoS. Killing the JT makes it almost impossible when the enemy has a lot Fusiliers around, meaning they can snare any flanking tank. Cons? Not many that I can think of, other than them clumping up in cover, but hell every unit does this. Need a lucky shot to kill the clump up.

    Solution

    Buff em! But at the cost of mp and pop. 320 mp and 8-9 pop. Removing the AT rifle to eliminate the multi role. The g-43 takes 2 weapon slot. Increase their base weapon damage to 12 and slightly the accuracy. Now they can behave like elite units and has a penalty if you spam em.

    The 2nd idea would be to reduce their effectiveness and eliminate the AT grenade, but they still can be blob which is something we want to avoid.

    The FIRST solution applied ALSO to volks and you fixed okw cost efficient but inferior mainline spam issues.

    This is a smart change actually.

  • #277
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 694

    @ColonelRadec said:

    Another unit I hope it get's tweak are the panzerfusiliers.

    They are so unbalance right now. Providing multiple rolls with cost efficiency. A 6 man squad with a small pop, cost and reinforce. Are effective vs Inf, vehicles and provides recon. You can replace volks easily with them or combine then because of there low cost and pop.(Had a game were was fighting 3 fusilier and 3 volks, god it was awful) As they are now they perform better than many core units and other infantry call-ins. Not to mention their vet makes their abilities even better and their weapon cooldown vet makes their rifle behave like smgs! The g-43 takes no weapon slot and adds LoS. Killing the JT makes it almost impossible when the enemy has a lot Fusiliers around, meaning they can snare any flanking tank. Cons? Not many that I can think of, other than them clumping up in cover, but hell every unit does this. Need a lucky shot to kill the clump up.

    Solution

    Buff em! But at the cost of mp and pop. 320 mp and 8-9 pop. Removing the AT rifle to eliminate the multi role. The g-43 takes 2 weapon slot. Increase their base weapon damage to 12 and slightly the accuracy. Now they can behave like elite units and has a penalty if you spam em.

    The 2nd idea would be to reduce their effectiveness and eliminate the AT grenade, but they still can be blob which is something we want to avoid.

    With all due respect: with this piece of text you wrote how can you think about buffing them? what is there to buff? they get 40 and 20 % acc buffs a nice 23% rec acc 20% cooldown buff with vet and good upgrades wich increase dps and sight range as well on a 6 man squad at 2 cps. with as you said no cons for just 290 mp.

    just up the price and pop they already fall in elite catagory. if not enough make them require 3,cps.

    as for the second idea: i agree we dont need more blobs.

  • #278
    2 years ago
    ReichsgardeReichsgar… Bad Tolz, Bayern, GermanyPosts: 121

    So Relic did decide to push for the pop cost increase for the Stug III G... well here are a few suggestions that I would like Relic to implement in the next update of the Fall Balance Preview:

    • Lower the SU-76's performance to match the nerfs of the Stug III G or restore the Stug's penetration values and improve its overall combat effectiveness (e.g. range = 60, higher damage output per shot, etc.)
    • Improve the Panzerwerfer's damage output and lower its cool-down time to make it a more effective artillery platform.
    • Improve the accuracy of main gun for Panzer IV, Panther and Tiger tanks when stationary.

    I just want Relic to know that there is nothing to nerf for the German units given the current meta. Incompetent players may continue to whine about the this spam and that spam but Relic must not mistake player incompetence with a genuine imbalance in the game. If there is one thing that both Wehrmacht and OKW need, it is a buff to many of its units.

  • #279
    2 years ago
    RaithRaith Posts: 195
    edited July 2017

    Okey dokey then, it's been a couple of weeks so here's my feedback as a long-time Ost 1v1 player. A few months ago switched to OKW because I realised that I was only using 1/3 of the Ost units, while the rest sat in a state of worthless abandoned stagnancy - for YEARS.

    This patch changes nothing. But thanks for trying I guess!

    //I realise the scope was for large team games. But come on guys.//

  • #280
    2 years ago

    pls il2 need 2 plane and nerf dam for banbalance and increase Mun.

  • #281
    2 years ago
    iA3 - HHiA3 - HH IRANPosts: 284

    i seen replays and i think now soviets just need to maxims for win and again nerfs for okw ? you should reduce size of maxim squad.

  • #282
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Couldn't the maxim retain decent stats if the reinforcement costs were high? Enough so to encourage players to use cons merge as the main way of reinforcing them, that prevents spamming them early by forcing players to divert resources onto cons squads to maintain them.

    Since the build up to critical maxim mass is slower, OKW players will have time to not only focus on capping, but also choose whether to rush a luchs or put down the med-hq and gain access to smoke from the leigs, both being viable tactics to handling maxim spam.

  • #283
    2 years ago
    ReichsgardeReichsgar… Bad Tolz, Bayern, GermanyPosts: 121

    The Elefant has received a damage reduction and an increase in population cost. It does not make ANY sense for a top-tier premium tank destroyer to receive a major nerf (20 to 23 points?) just because it is supposedly "outperforming" in 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 games.

    The Elefant can be easily flanked and it takes great skill to guard it well and keep it alive till Veterancy 3. The reason why the Elefant got nerfed was because, in the hands of a skilled player, it would dominate the center and make Allied/Soviet players sweat. But isn't that EXACTLY what it's supposed to do? Rather than punishing highly skilled players by nerfing their favorite tank destroyer to utter mediocrity, why not actually give them a pat on the back and a thumbs-up? I cannot believe that this is how Relic would reward good players.

    As things currently stand, the Elefant must receive a general boost to its combat stats.

  • #284
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited July 2017
    Switch Tiger with Panther is also a good idea. Make Panther a real tank-hunter with 60 range and limit of one.

    Tiger is no big deal for Allii tank-hunter. Maybe low down their vet3 reload time to balance it in multiplayer. It is worse than Pershing, IS2. SU85, Firefly and Jackson can also pen it easy. Dont forget low pio repair time. In all, it is only a more expensive Comet. But most German commanders would get more interesting.

    Also, it would also make Ost and Okw more different.
  • #285
    2 years ago
    ReichsgardeReichsgar… Bad Tolz, Bayern, GermanyPosts: 121

    One more thing to mention: Why did Relic nerf the Stuka Dive Bomb (50 kg bomb)? It costed 160 munitions which is already very expensive and they made it EVEN more expensive by increasing the cost to 200 munitions. Increasing the cost and then removing the instant-kill critical for infantry units...

    If you are going to increase the cost, at least keep its effectiveness unaltered. The nerf to the Stuka Dive Bomb just provides yet another example that Relic is very keen on nerfing the Axis factions.

  • #286
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited July 2017

    @Raith ha detto:
    Okey dokey then, it's been a couple of weeks so here's my feedback as a long-time Ost 1v1 player. A few months ago switched to OKW because I realised that I was only using 1/3 of the Ost units, while the rest sat in a state of worthless abandoned stagnancy - for YEARS.

    This patch changes nothing. But thanks for trying I guess!

    //I realise the scope was for large team games. But come on guys.//

    This +1
    People will keep using stug/jadgpanzer, no matter the penetration, because will still be less of a piece of ***** than Panther is.

    To make it worse, instead of making the Panther actually viable, they are convinced in locking it into a specific totally made up role never seen before, heavy hunter (but won't hunt nothing because in revam it actually gets accuracy FURTHER decreased).

    IF tier 3 and tier 4 are going to be changed to work together the premium tank option is much more viable as a role for the panther, as a mobile offensive late game vehicle IS WHAT A STUG WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO BE, different vehicles used in a different way, not just limitations regarding pen, when apparently 135-165 fuel is the only thing usf and ukf needs to shut down any armor with good firerate AND good pen from 60 range which both stug and panther don't have, stuck at 50 range.

    Panther live:
    A lot of armor covering bad everything (including ai with those pathetic mg's that are 1/10 of the actual AI of every tank in the game) but pen, in a faction where normal handheld infantry at and tier 2 atg can reliably pen even the most armored stuff, in a game where the advantage of axis armor faded when td's were set to counter even heavier okw stuff like kt.

    Panther in mr. smith revamp patch:
    A lot of armor covering bad everything even more bad but pen and higher damage, that will still deal less dps than stug due to the infinite long reload but will be more suited in countering heavies (only due to the stug nerf, Panther is still a piece of trash).....in a faction where normal handheld infantry at and tier 2 atg can reliably pen even the most armored stuff, in a game where the advantage of axis armor faded when td's were set to counter even heavier okw stuff like kt and are getting more buffs.
    Add the totally out of place mortar auto fire AND BARRAGE range nerf, and tell me why 3 pak and 2 stugs won't me "new" meta again....

    Modify it to focus on heavy mobility vehicle with 0.75 accuracy penalty and 5 second reload rather than defensive tank destroyer with 0.5 accuracy modifier...and OST players will start building it to take advantage of it's mobility and use it in flanking.

    At this point range can go down and panther can get some serious ai wth main gun aoe like comet, becoming a premium for 200 fuel, or be priced to 175 like ost one and keep it's originally intended mobile tank hunter role.
    In both cases Panther gets an identity rather than stug overpriced and over armored brother with ******* main gun.

  • #287
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    The nerf of the Stug will probably affect it little one it comes to medium tanks.

    Dealing with heavy tanks like KV-1, KV-2, Churchill, Avre and Croc or premium mediums like easy8 and T-34/85might prove more problematic .

  • #288
    2 years ago
    thekingsownthekingso… Posts: 447

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:

    @Raith ha detto:
    Okey dokey then, it's been a couple of weeks so here's my feedback as a long-time Ost 1v1 player. A few months ago switched to OKW because I realised that I was only using 1/3 of the Ost units, while the rest sat in a state of worthless abandoned stagnancy - for YEARS.

    This patch changes nothing. But thanks for trying I guess!

    //I realise the scope was for large team games. But come on guys.//

    This +1
    People will keep using stug/jadgpanzer, no matter the penetration, because will still be less of a piece of ***** than Panther is.

    To make it worse, instead of making the Panther actually viable, they are convinced in locking it into a specific totally made up role never seen before, heavy hunter (but won't hunt nothing because in revam it actually gets accuracy FURTHER decreased).

    IF tier 3 and tier 4 are going to be changed to work together the premium tank option is much more viable as a role for the panther, as a mobile offensive late game vehicle IS WHAT A STUG WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO BE, different vehicles used in a different way, not just limitations regarding pen, when apparently 135-165 fuel is the only thing usf and ukf needs to shut down any armor with good firerate AND good pen from 60 range which both stug and panther don't have, stuck at 50 range.

    Panther live:
    A lot of armor covering bad everything (including ai with those pathetic mg's that are 1/10 of the actual AI of every tank in the game) but pen, in a faction where normal handheld infantry at and tier 2 atg can reliably pen even the most armored stuff, in a game where the advantage of axis armor faded when td's were set to counter even heavier okw stuff like kt.

    Panther in mr. smith revamp patch:
    A lot of armor covering bad everything even more bad but pen and higher damage, that will still deal less dps than stug due to the infinite long reload but will be more suited in countering heavies (only due to the stug nerf, Panther is still a piece of trash).....in a faction where normal handheld infantry at and tier 2 atg can reliably pen even the most armored stuff, in a game where the advantage of axis armor faded when td's were set to counter even heavier okw stuff like kt and are getting more buffs.
    Add the totally out of place mortar auto fire AND BARRAGE range nerf, and tell me why 3 pak and 2 stugs won't me "new" meta again....

    Modify it to focus on heavy mobility vehicle with 0.75 accuracy penalty and 5 second reload rather than defensive tank destroyer with 0.5 accuracy modifier...and OST players will start building it to take advantage of it's mobility and use it in flanking.

    At this point range can go down and panther can get some serious ai wth main gun aoe like comet, becoming a premium for 200 fuel, or be priced to 175 like ost one and keep it's originally intended mobile tank hunter role.
    In both cases Panther gets an identity rather than stug overpriced and over armored brother with ******* main gun.

    Common sense prevails!

    Unfortunately Relic and the balance mod team still can not see it.

    You can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to drink...

  • #289
    2 years ago
    The Big Red 1The Big R… Daly City, CA, USAPosts: 681

    is the jackson still viable to use? from the looks of the stats it looks like its getting nerfed? at least stuka fagafuss looks like is getting nerfed that PoS is just too dam good atm.

  • #290
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    Just curious, why change up the Jackson when the M10 fills more or less the same role? Wouldn't it have made more sense to swap them and tweak the M10 if needed rather than redesigning the Jackson?

  • #291
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    Io agree with @_Aqua_
    Was the way to get around m10 spam just to make it entirely redundant?
  • #292
    2 years ago
    thekingsownthekingso… Posts: 447
    edited July 2017

    @Reichsgarde said:
    The Elefant has received a damage reduction and an increase in population cost. It does not make ANY sense for a top-tier premium tank destroyer to receive a major nerf (20 to 23 points?) just because it is supposedly "outperforming" in 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4 games.

    The Elefant can be easily flanked and it takes great skill to guard it well and keep it alive till Veterancy 3. The reason why the Elefant got nerfed was because, in the hands of a skilled player, it would dominate the center and make Allied/Soviet players sweat. But isn't that EXACTLY what it's supposed to do? Rather than punishing highly skilled players by nerfing their favorite tank destroyer to utter mediocrity, why not actually give them a pat on the back and a thumbs-up? I cannot believe that this is how Relic would reward good players.

    As things currently stand, the Elefant must receive a general boost to its combat stats.

    The Elephant is simply not worth its cost with these changes. It's been unnecessarily overnerfed.

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:

    @Mr_Smith ha detto:

    @ImperialDane said:
    Nerfing the StuG is something i am a bit ambivalent on, i can understand why Ie making it less awesome vs heavy armour. The problem is then the wehrmacht has nothing that really is good that isn't non-doctrinal, pushing us back into having to rely on call ins because nothing else reliably works.

    The big bet here is that Ostwind buffs will help carry Ostheer when it deals with anti-infantry. Therefore, the Stug doesn't have to be completely insane.

    The stug will still be extremely cost-efficient vs medium tanks, and will still be efficient vs heavies; just don't expect 1 of them to do the job. Sure, every second shot will deflect vs heavies; however the Stug has a high enough rate of fire to compensate, and will still be highly-efficient. It just won't deal insane damage vs heavies anymore. You still get more than what you paid for it though.

    We understand the issues with OST T4, and that's why we went with a less-of-a-drastic change to the Stug than the one we had in mind for our revamp mod. This is a compromise solution between OP and balanced.

    Now, if Stug changes start making Ostheer particularly vulnerable to certain types of heavies, we can close the circle by simply addressing those heavies (which are all in scope, btw).

    For T4, I would start with the basics; such as making T3 & T4 more affordable, and improving Panther accuracy in mid-ranges.

    What's the problem with turning panther into a reliable tunk hunter by giving it 0.75 accuracy modifier on the move, fixing the rof ?

    And increasing the cost of stug, so both are viable counters to enemy armor, one more offensive oriented, the other defensive.

    Finally axis would have an offensive tank destroyer.

    I see no point why a 120 fuel stug with normal rof could not have a old penetration, without needing a huge heavy rework.

    Or maybe...what about panther becoming a premium tank like comet, with actual aoe, good rof, but reduced range and armor ?

    Have those options been explored yet ?

    But one being good against medium, one against heavy and both playing out the same way seems quite a bland design imho.

    I agree with this the panther should not be a "made up" flanker tank destroyer (why would you want to flank when a real tank destroyer can do damage from long range?)

    It would be better to make the panther a generalist tank with good AI , great armour and better AT than the comet.

    Can you also please increase the cost or reduce the damage of the Bofors it is a no brainer beause it is the most cost effective unit in the game that squad wipes and damages all units.

  • #293
    2 years ago
    Selvy289Selvy289 Posts: 172
    edited July 2017

    Im really on the fence with the KV2.

    Is it suppose to arch its round higher than the current one at longer range? I also still find it inconsistent as hell as it can squad wipe or most of the time just sprinkle the area with rounds (always has been terrible against armour) and still seems to be effected by elevation still.

    Kv2 unit vet makes no sense (capture point lol) as the unit has to be immobile to be effective at all (that turret rotation through could be turned down abit) with ridiculous reload time on the move (11 seconds, not improved with any vet level). Minimal range while in siege mode is way to wide, the enemy doesn't need to cuddle the kv2 and now with the new premium I dont think its worth it at all.

    Lets face it, the only time you really will see the KV2 in action is when there is a shot blocker that you can place the KV2 behind so it can shoot OVER it (not through, like a destroyed building is my favour t). Leaving it in the open is never a good option with its armour (while the same as tigers, yet again has to be immobile to be effective and has a very long set up/tear down).

    I dont know about its armour and increasing its reload speed (with vet) not in siege mode, but a few things that should be good are...

    Redo its vet bonuses: Like how you improve its set up/tear down with vet one like in the unofficial balance mod.

    Deflection damage: It has the lowest pen for a heavy (160/180/200)respectively but a little deflection damage might be nice so heavy armour wouldn't just keep eating rounds. say allow it to do 120 or 80 deflection damage.

    Reduce minimal range in siege mode: Self explanatory

    Also change the fuel requirement to 230, for some reason it 229:p

  • #294
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434

    I wish these patches would also focus on fixing vet requirements on units and making commander units/abilities worthwhile.

  • #295
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,271
    edited July 2017

    I just noticed that the JP4 is going from 135 to 145 fuel in the newest balance version. With that cost change it honestly feels like it belongs back in the BG HQ. The 145 pricepoint would keep it honest timing wise, but still allow OKW some decent AT before getting flak HQ.

    The fact that this cost increase is coming with the vet nerfs (not disputing those changes on their own at all) it makes me feel like the Jp4 is just going to drop out of existence. Maybe tying it to a tech-choice will only make matters worse, but as is I think it will definitely start being underused.

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Was the way to get around m10 spam just to make it entirely redundant?

    The Jackson will still cost a great deal more than the m10, just as long as major tier is unlocked. As of now it'll still be 45 more fuel which means 2 Jacksons cost exactly the same as 3 M10s.

    The economy of the m10 was bat**** OP before because of its call-in status. Now the economy difference is a more fair advantage for the m10, and compares better to the 34/76 vs 34/85. One is a more disposable flanker, the other is a more expensive slugger than can still be good at rushing.

    Hell it'll still be 20 fuel cheaper without major tech too, giving it some flexibility timing wise.

  • #296
    2 years ago
    DiabloDiablo Posts: 2
    edited July 2017

    Don't understand people who lose one game against OKW and Wermacht and then go on forums and start scream that axis are op. I had literaly lost 4 games in a row because my friend who is playing as Wermacht can't win any infantry fights as grenadiers are literally worst infantry unit in a game. And to say I am by my self sometimes having huge problems with rifleman/penal blobs. What i am trying to say is that Wermacht is absolutely incompetitive in 1 vs 1, and even things like mg42 upgrade wouldn't help. I wouldn't even go on about dagger&shield mechanic(british cover mechanic) that is absolutely unbalanced and nearly give wermacht no chance in long range battles. Overall I acctually feel that allies are just more superior than axis because:1)Wermacht incompetitive. 2)Axis have 2 factions(they can add like japanese or something) allies have 3 factions. 3)That's a nice simcity the guy has how are you gonna deal with that?

  • #297
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,653

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    I wish these patches would also focus on fixing vet requirements on units and making commander units/abilities worthwhile.

    They do, but only if that is in the scope.

  • #298
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
    edited July 2017

    @Katitof said:

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    I wish these patches would also focus on fixing vet requirements on units and making commander units/abilities worthwhile.

    They do, but only if that is in the scope.

    Yep. Just saying strategic and tactical variety/fun/balance would increase if there were more viable options too. Instead of what feels constant nerf hammer swings. The scope parameters are more of a hinderence imo.

  • #299
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    Not even a rotation/speed buff for jadgpanzer 4 ?
    It plays exactly the same as before but cost more and vet is less rewarding.
  • #300
    2 years ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63
    edited July 2017

    I believe the FRP changes for OKW break the Battlegroup Headquarters. This is only true because (1) it's the only FRP option OKW get, (2) it's ALSO the tier 1 tech building, meaning you lose your tech if it's destroyed, and (3) It's LITERALLY a sitting duck. If any of those things changed this would not be so much of a problem.

    Suggested fixes in order of preference:
    (1) Revert OKW FRP changes (at least the requirement for a second HQ building to access FRP ability)
    (2) Change Panzer IV to be like the MG-34 (built at main base), but requiring 2 HQ buildings instead of one. This would make it available with both the Battlegroup and Mechanized HQs up, instead of specifically requiring the Schwerer Panzer HQ. If this makes it TOO accessible, you could increase the cost a bit (say 180 fuel) if the Schwerer Panzer HQ is not built.
    (3) Allow the ability to pack the Battlegroup HQ (or maybe all the HQs) back up in the truck and move it once constructed.
    (4) Make the MG-34 available immediately from start of game instead of requiring a converted HQ.
    (5) Retain tech availability for recruiting tier 1 units from main base if Battlegroup HQ is destroyed.
    (6) Come up with some other FRP mechanic for OKW so the Battlegroup HQ doesn't have to be risked near the front. This is the least preferable option in my opinion because it really changes the whole flavor of OKW. The forward HQs are kind of central to the whole idea of the faction.

    Explanation:

    Let's look at what typically happens when setting up a Battlegroup HQ. It's the only FRP OKW ever gets, and it's immobile. It's also usually (at least often) built as your first tech structure. This means very early on you're trying to choose your FRP for the entire duration of the game (unless it gets destroyed, which is obviously not desirable), with very little info about how the enemy is teching/playing. This means you typically need to be moderately aggressive with placement for it to be effective, especially on the big maps in LARGE TEAM GAMES. Keep in mind OKW do not have a troop transport, so it takes a long time to get your units to the front if they have to retreat on big maps. OKW ALSO does not start with any HMG or suppression counter at tier 0. Allies can dig in with suppression much more quickly, which sometimes forces OKW into a lot more retreating just due to incidental encounters with HMGs.

    The Battlegroup HQ requires 100 mp and some fuel for the truck, then 200 mp and some more fuel to build. That's BEFORE you can access any HMG to help you defend it. Once it's up most players are going to immediately (1) recruit MG-34 (230 mp?), (2) upgrade FRP (300 mp), or (3) do both (lots of mp). The alternative is to do none of the above, meaning you can field a large number of troops but have absolutely ZERO suppression or suppresion counter. Now most opponents are going to find that Battlegroup HQ pretty quickly, and if they're smart, they'll throw EVERYTHING THEY HAVE AT IT IMMEDIATELY. Why? Because the OKW player just spent a ton of mp to set it up, and they either have no suppression, have no suppression counter, or have a very small army. If the allied player can bring even 1 HMG to the battle, and not just completely screw it up, they're at the very least going to inflict massive manpower drain on the OKW player due to sitting at the HQ and reinforcing squads constantly to keep from being wiped out. Either that, or the OKW player has to retreat completely and sacrifice the Battlegroup HQ, which is basically gg (because loss of tech). This is much worse in team games, where multiple opponents can send a coordinated attack and your allies don't know to help until it gets there.

    So as it stands in live, the Battlegroup HQ setup situation is already challenging against GOOD PLAYERS. It's obviously an advantage to have it up, which is why OKW players do it. But losing it early basically ends the game against opponents of roughly equal skill. This is where the FRP issue comes in. It's not just that you gain a shorter retreat path so units get back to the front more quickly (though obviously that is important), it's that without the FRP you can't adequately defend the Battlegroup HQ. The FRP ability is essential because (1) it gives you a way to get troops back quickly to defend it, and (2) triggering the retreat is basically your only way to escape suppression if the allies bring a machine gun with their attack. Otherwise when you get suppressed initially and have to retreat to base, the Battlegroup HQ is left defenseless. You lose not only your FRP but your tech also, and the game is basically over.

    So how does this work with the proposed balance patch? Well, in team games you really can't just build the Battlegroup HQ in your base to protect it. The maps are too big to willingly go the entire game with no FRP. So your only reasonably safe option is to go Mechanized first, then build the Battlegroup where you want it second. That way you already have a machine gun or 2 and maybe a luchs or puma to help defend it. You can also access the FRP once it comes up. If you do decide to go Battlegroup first, you're basically forced to go Mechanized second because you definitely CANNOT wait for the Schwerer Panzer HQ to access the FRP ability. It just leaves the Battlegroup HQ too vulnerable for too long.

    This then brings in the second problem: allied medium tank spam. In live, most players go EITHER Battlegroup HQ OR Mechanized HQ, then straight to the Schwerer Panzer HQ. You need the JP/P4/Panther to stand much of a chance against the impending swarm of allied medium tanks with strong anti-infantry capability. You can hold off a couple with a puma or 2, schrecks and RW, but ultimately none of those things can really take many hits. If they have 3+ medium tanks that can do serious damage to infantry, you're in big trouble. You need something that can not only demand attention, but ALSO absorb some damage. This is where I come to the suggestion of making the Panzer IV available from the main base once any 2 HQs are set up. If we're going to be forced to build both Battlegroup and Mechanized for the Battlegroup to be viable early on (which it SHOULD be since it's the TIER 1 BULDING!), we need access to some kind of medium tank without having to build the Schwerer Panzer HQ. It's just too slow. It's usually ok in live where the Schwerer Panzer HQ is typically the second HQ set up, but it's simply too little too late if you have to wait for it to be the 3rd HQ.

    Honestly, making the P4 available once any 2 HQs are set up is probably a good change regardless of what happens with FRP. It's just weird having them in the same tech tier as the Panther with only 50 fuel difference. The Panther is so much more punishing in the anti-tank roll, and has such good armor, there's really only a 1-2 minute window where you might build a P4 in an emergency rather than saving up the extra fuel for the more effective Panther. This also addresses the issue of losing the Schwerer Panzer HQ. Similar to losing the Battlegroup early game, losing the Schwerer Panzer HQ mid-late game is devastating because you can no longer build ANY tank to deal with enemy armor (unless you have a doctrinal call-in available, but they're VERY expensive without the Schwerer Panzer HQ up, and you can only get 1). This way at least you could still build Panzer 4s. Again you can choose to build the Schwerer Panzer HQ closer to your base to protect your tech, but this is obviously not the intent of the game design. It's SUPPOSED to be placed forward, and is part of what makes OKW unique.

    Allowing the Battlegroup HQ to be packed up and moved would let you build it in your base initially to get access to the tier 1 tech, then move it to the front later in the game when you're really ready to establish a FRP. This would be an entirely new mechanic, but it does address the core problem.

    The last 3 possible fixes are just band-aids. They really don't address the fundamental issues, but perhaps keep things from being utterly ruined. Allowing the MG-34 immediately (or maybe at 1 command point) at least gives OKW the option of somewhat fortifying an area before placing the Battlegroup HQ. If your own HMG(s) is/are already in place, at least you're less likely to be devastated by a rapid response from an enemy force bringing their HMG(s) to the party.

    Options 5 and 6 speak for themselves, but I don't like them.

    Again, my point of emphasis here is the Battlegroup HQ is the TIER 1 TECH BUILDING. It's INTENDED to be your FIRST tech choice the MAJORITY of the time. Having it also be the FRP point, without FRP capabilities early on, leaves it far too vulnerable, ESPECIALLY to allied HMGs that hit the field much earlier than OKW HMGs.

  • #301
    2 years ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63

    NOTE, while I do think the Panther is worth saving 50 fuel for over the Panzer IV, I am VERY much in agreement with the plethora of comments above that the Panther needs an accuracy buff. Its rate of fire is just TOO SLOW for its accuracy to be so low. I think the accuracy buff is a better option than raising rate of fire due to reliability. If rate of fire were increased, you would still have some situations where it couldn't hit anything, but sometimes it would randomly land lots of hits in a shorter period of time and be way too powerful.

This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.