Here is an idea for how to make different playstyles and tiers more viable for usf and soviets.
move ATG to t0 and lock it behind tech up, move m5 to t2 in place of zis, readjust its dps so its not op, lock quad cannon upgrade behind t3 tech up but leave its transport and reinforce capabilties. This way soviets are not forced to go a specific tier or doctrine to counter vehicles so axis cant just freely rape you with luchs. At the same time it implements the same mechanics that ost has with reinforcing units on the field which might actually work well with cons fast reinforcement speed. Also m5 would work great with t2 allowing support weapons to reinforce on the field making overall good use of soviet reinforcemnt speed and cost.
move ATG to t0 lock it behind tech up, move scot in place of atg to captain tier, nerf scot so its not op. This way usf could choose freely between lt and cpt and the choice would be based solely on how much fuel does a player have access to or how fast does he want to field medium tanks. Other than that sherman can be readjusted to be a more tanky meatshield and more infantry oriented while jackson is already AT only. Nevertheless it would allow usf players to rely less on cpt tier only and allow them to play more towards their style and more tactically, be less predictable. Also scot is a highly underused unit because its a light vehicle locked behind medium vehicle tier. The only logic explanation is its incredibly good stats. Nerfing stats to make it less capable and putting in cpt tier would present more playstyle oportunities.
Potential questions and critiscism:
- moving atg to t0 seems unfair to axis factions - actually okw has atg in t0 and its not even locked behind tech up, also atg would be locked behind tech up so early vehicles like kubels would still be able to cheese
- but zis gun has an AI barrage, thats op - barrage costs 60 munition (if Im not mistaken) which means its not spammable by any means so it wouldnt give unfair advantage
- access to atg would lower luchs or 222 shock value - probably yes, but it just wouldnt be that different from allied vehicles being countered early by axis atgs
- moving m5 to t2 would be redundant to sc in t1 - no it would not because there's a cost difference and purpose difference, one would be more towards scouting second towards reinforcing on field, one tier allows for better AI units the other for support weapons
- m5 dps would be too high - its dps should be balanced in comparison to ost ht
- m5 would come too soon - it would come probably around ost ht and it would serve the same purpose so no
- m5 would be too expensive - not if its cost was adjusted to ost ht
- m5 quad early upgrade would be too soon and m5 would have veterancy already - true, the unit would gain high shock value compared to how things are now, this should be readjusted so it doesnt make a monster due to shared veterancy (if such mechanics applies to m5)
- why would anynoe build t1/t2 if the other tier is so strong - I think that this change would actually make both tiers viable to play
- sov t3 would lack a unit - currently m5 in my experience is not only underused but practically never used so basically soviet t3 has only 2 units nowadays too but for a different reason, also quad upgrade would actually implement better shock value and tempo for quad ht making it actually useful if the upgrade was locked behind t3 tech up
- atg in t0 is unfair for axis - same as in case of soviets
- scot is op, moving it to cpt tier would break the game - i agree, thats why scot would have to be nerfed to be readjusted to lower tier level since it would come out earlier
- but cpt tier already has pak howie with similar mechanics, why would I ever want to go scot - ofcourse the unit stats would differ but other than that its mobile so it cant be just wiped by infantry, that would allow for better aggresive pushes and defend better from flanks also since it costs fuel you might want to use fuel for stuart and a preserve the rest for t4 so you would go pak instead on smaller maps
- why would I ever go lt when cpt tier has so strong unit - lt is less fuel heavy, it allows to survive early and rush t4
- why would I ever go cpt tier since lt is so strong - cpt would have better AT and AI pressure early but is more fuel heavy, it would be better for snowballing games
- but moving scot to cpt tier would leave only 2 units in t4 - currently in my experience from playing or spectating high rank games scot is a very rare sight - its almost always better to build a sherman if you have fuel advantage or jackson if you are a bit behind or even, so this makes scot almost never used and not fitting t4
Reasoning behind this change is:
- all factions should have equal basic defensive capabilities
- soviets are forced to either go t2 or pick a specific commander only to have access to an atg, so having an atg is one of the most important factors when it comes to picking tiers and commanders
- both m5 and scot are underused vehicles because they come too late for a unit of their kind, m5 is more a t2 unit on par with ost ht and scot is an AI light vehicle not a medium one so it belongs more in t3
give them vehicle snare. Every other faction has a vehicle snare. There is no reason to deny brits vehicle snare when all other factions have it with or without an upg. Not having vehicle snare is one of the main reasons why brits are forced to choose eithe aec or bofors upgrade early. Giving brits snare would allow them to play with atg only and bofors or aec would be a matter of choice of playstyle not a matter of do or die.
move pak to t0 and lock behind tech up, same reasoning as above, it would allow ost to skip t2 if needed (although imo its still very useful), the cost of making t2 is 200 mp and 20 fuel, that 20 fuel might not be that much but it might allow a player to rush t3 if needed. In that case I think that the cost of t1 (80/10) and t2 (200/20) might be redistributed more equally like in case of soviets (t1 160/10 and t2 160/20) to allow for more decision making. Redistributing the cost of t1 and t2 more equally would even allow ost to skip t1 if needed. This would also implement more strategic decision making for ost players. They could actually skip something. Also ost t2 is overpacked and atm and pak is the main reason why players choose that tier. It doesnt mean that t2 is bad without it because some maps require you to have pgrens, some playstyles or maps are better with reinforcment ht or flamer ht or some players like 222 (me in particular).
Please remember to vote! Thank you.
Also share your opinion on why you agree or disagree.