Primary balance concerns:

i agree. idk if the stug should go up that much- its in the same batch as all the other armor call ins where it needs too get reworked eventually anyways, with whatever the devs have planned for call ins. but, even now, 1250 for 2 stugs that can eventually be upgraded with a 6x scope and a luchs is p good, so ican see it going too 1350, maybe 1400

AT rifle nade for US should be as a seperate upgrade imo- first you get the rifle nade unlock, then you get the AT rifle nade as a seperate upgrade after the first rifle nade unlock. or just have it be its own thing alltogether.

the splinter nade should only be for the “too the front” infantry in SID, or whatever its called- the armenians, georgians, turkmenistan, etc. i never use that infantry call in since for me, relying on 2x gebirgs, tthe deckungs, and eventually the kriegsmarine, and whatever else i have lying about, works well enough. if those guys were the only ones with the nade id use em more often.

Little has been shown as to why its “Powerful”

I can make the exact same set up, for less MP. It takes 1100 MP to call in the 2 StuG’s, and the Luchs
It takes less than to make all of them with the cost reduction.
Sure you don’t start with an Ace, a Vet, and a commander Luchs, but for the muni, you can give them the basics, and get them started

AT rifle nade could use some touch ups, perhaps making it like the Narwa AT nade, and giving it the chance to miss, or even a decreased range, thats up for future discussion on what the devs are willing to change.

Splittering grenades need to be moved to the call in infantry, as they tend to be under used because they come with nothing special. The only infantry I would tend to keep from the infantry call in, would probably be the Italians, as they are far better armed, and have a Panzerfaust. Festung Grenadiers should probably get dropped down to a regular M24, or a egg grenade, and given something else to bolster them, as they are a main line producible infantry unit. It doesn’t need to be something extreme like an MG-42, or MG-34, but it can just be something to augment their ability to fight. It should be something that makes them better, but should make them easily dismissed for something better (Gebirgs, Deckungsgruppe, Kriegsmarines, Italians, etc).

PanzerJäger does have quite a few AT options, and I think I have a pretty controversial idea for making it less Jäger spam heavy; Increase the MP-income cost on the Jäger squad. I have found out how nice it is to actually dismiss my Jägers, and pull Volkssturm into my army. They are relatively cheap to both produce, and reinforce, as compared to Jägers.  It is extremely cost effective, and Siemenstadt are quite powerful when you have them, and Otto. Will Jägers outperform them at max vet? Yes, they will demolish infantry at any range at max vet, and can be unstoppable. So lets make it a little less advantageous to keep Jägers on the field for the whole game; Choose between semi-elite infantry, or cost efficient infantry en-masse.

As for the abundant AT options, I like Mysta’s idea of giving Volkssturm Panzerfaust 30’s; Decreased range and penetration (180mm vs 200mm for a panzerfaust 60), for the cheap and affordable infantry. Will they demolish tanks up close? Yes, God yes, but will they be able to steamroll higher quality infantry while steam rolling these tanks? No, because no matter what, you can pretty much crush Volks with US riflemen, or British Infantry sections. Your weapon upgrades guarantee you a leg up above Volks, who only get a single, or few SMGs, STGs, an LMG, or shotguns. Siemenstadt tend to get better weapons, I usually see more rare weapons on them; Panzerschrecks, LMG’s, etc.

its also far more cost effective in the long run as now the MP income isn’t being crippled by semi-elite infantry, and you can push more potential MP into casemates, or into a Jagdtiger.

I hear you on most of the points, especially the US AT rifle grenade. When fighting the US I’m loathe to make light vehicles for exactly that reason – high likelihood of an easy kill with little payoff.

I’m ambivalent on your point about the Stug call in. It IS an ability I rush for T3 as TH, so that’s probably a sign it’s strong. At the same time, until we change the SOV Arm’s KV-1’s ability to call in straight at T3, I am loathe to hurt the Brander call in. I’ve posted about the KV-1 before, but a player who deploys it right as T3 hits gets golden hour where no AT is on the field. TH is one of the few docs that has a timely counter with Brander, so I always use it when fighting SOV Arm.

I know call ins as a whole are being looked at (and adding a fuel cost to the KV-1 would fix my issue with it as it’s just time based) but otherwise I’m weary to nerf this critical stug call in.

I have a long post on the KV-1 elsewhere in the forum, happy to link.

The problem is the KV-1 is a manpower only call in. Assuming both players are equal (and I’ve spent no fuel on a light vehicle), they will be able to call in the KV-1 at the trigger for T3. I will still have to save up ~75 fuel for a Panzer 4 or Stug, and that’s still a risky battle (though I do slightly favor the P4)

Pak40 is manpower only, but given you need to build then move it to the front, you probably get it later than the Kv-1. It’s also 1 shottable with the shrapnel shot. Panzerjager fare better, but again, any half smart player will A) have infantry on it’s flanks to protect that and B) will shrapnel you on contact. You lose the squad, or bare min have 1-2 guys left and half to retreat.

It depends per doctrine of course, some fare better than others. Mines and panzerfaust infantry CAN work, but you’re probably losing 1-2 squads in and encirclement and you may not kill the KV. Even then, that assumes the enemy is overly aggressive. Smart, not overly aggressive early KV-1, properly supported by inf, will break any line without mad rushing and probably cap 1-2 points before you’ve saved the fuel for a counter. In VP/conquest, that’s all you generally need to get an advantage.

Mid-late game onwards the KV-1 balance is fine. My issue is purely a SOV arm player who rushes it on T3, which I’ve seen used very effectively by Blitzkrieg, amongst others in PVP. This is why I don’t complain about the OMBSOM KV-1 or Guards KV-8.

The Panzerjager Stug call in is an amazing counter to this, and prevents heavy burn, even if I do have to struggle in T2 a bit to make sure I have the MP to call this quickly in T3.

• This reply was modified 4 years ago by aydinocelebi@gmail.com.

If that’s the logic I can support it, though I’m a bit confused: are we replicating 1941 for a few mins then reverting to 1944?

All things considered I think you guys do a great job and I’ll support where you want to go. That said, that situation can be a game killer. If I’m winning it’s a great balancer. If I was already losing 60:40 beforehand (especially if SS) this can be the kiss of death. Pushed off another points worth of resources, trying to stitch together some fuel and by the time you get 1 P4 they already have a T-34 and more to support. Which is totally historical, just balance wise tough. To put it another way: surrender at min 10, especially if 1v1 or my allies are also losing at this point.

Maybe the answer is “don’t lose before then!” but wanted to flag. As a player fighting SOV arm, I stress more prepping for those 3 mins more than any point in the game.