Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
i dont think the tiger buffs are OP. but, i do think its worth understanding that, although lots of docs do get good tanks, not all of them do. and i think its slightly skewed so axis have a bit more available. luft has panthers, wunder has lots, freiwill has tiger gruppe (even though that one is arguably the “worst” due too its later time of arrival), pzgren has panther and tiger, scorched earth is p reasonable since it only has jagdpanzer L 70s (which can still bounce a bazooka), pzjager has jagdtiger, defensive has elefant. yes, some allied docs do have things that can counter these. but most of the time there is caveats. for example ,T-34-85 lacks the pen too properly counter panther and can struggle vs tiger, esp with vet. i dont think m4a3e2 jumbo 76 is a proper “equal” too the tiger- both cant pen eachother without APCR, but with APCR, e2 dies in 2 88mm APCR shots, tiger requires 5-6 APCR shots. still not in the jumbos favor. jackson can, without any strings attached, go straight up against panthers and tigers. its just a 1 shot too tigers but it can camo so, no big deal. firefly is also similar, tigers need vet too 1 shot it but its pen is reliable enough too combat panthers and tigers, even if its dmg means it might take an extra shot. wolverine can tackle tigers and panthers, yes, but imo its pen is incorrect historically (or a lot of other tanks penetration are incorrect historically). but yeah, it can also kill a tiger if you have two of em. so, that means that, all US docs, 3/4 brit docs, and soviet artillery, tank, and guards inf have something that can match the normal axis heavies (<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>not the super heavies!!!! i havent gotten into those yet).</span><span style=”text-decoration: underline;”> </span> but heres the thing- the axis dont need too match the allied heavies in terms of armor. just pzjager ambush. frontal pen anything with 2x pzshrek and 1x faust, times 2 if you have 2x pzjager, which accelerate instantly compared too tanks slow acceleration from camo. whih is extremely strong compared too the fact that allies typically need too rely upon armored vehicles which are much more fragile than inf too do their tank killing. the only allied docs that have sneaky inf that can take out a tank frontally, is omsbon. you get 2x partisan specialist, 2x partisan assault, do 2x pzfaust and 2x rpg-40 against any tiger or panther. but even then, the panzerfaust and, most likely the rpg-40, will bounce against the axis super heavies. so this too only works the normal axis heavies. the axis superheavies require the US airborne rocket strafe (all the other allied ones heavily underperform in comparison), or artillery. artillery hard counters everything thats on the ground, if you have the muni too use it. its a hammer, and every other unit ingame is a nail too be beaten with it. its much more efficient than almost any other method of killing inf or tanks. and, both axis and allies have docs that can get absurd ammounts of it. imo, i think scorched earth gets the most of it available with the least ammount of investment, so i think they are the best arty doc, but then again, that just my opinon- i know UK and US arty can get similar ammounts of offmap destruction without much resource investment, and SOV arty can get shit tons of onmap arty if you have infinite resources, but they have penals anyway.
oh, about the buffs on inf. im fine with em imo, i just wish there was more like it. stuff that buff inf, stuff like heroic charge and for the rodina, imo it should all be free. let people have some pushing capability even if they dont have the muni too pay a tax for arty. hell, everything besides super heavies and arty could use a buff so they are on par with those 2 things, in a metaphorical sense. (the only reason super heavies are good is because ONLY offmaps and indirect can kill em, and only axis realistically have em).
i agree with a lot of things said here.
About repple depple,i think making it replace a squad on 5 models lost instead of 6 ( a whole squad) would make it FAR easier too capitalize on, along with other slight changes (no limit too replacements, and longer duration cheaper cost as you said)
and imo, i think the 2nd liutenant promotion could maybe use a bit of a bigger stat buff. a riflemen squad with that upgrade and bar and m1919 should def be able too win a cover fight vs panzergrenadier squad- ie, the 2 squads in green cover at long range. preferably they should be able too do it without having too fire off a WP rifle nade all the time. as of right now, you pay the same ammount of CP for defensive gebirgs, so if they can beat gebirgs then they are worth their CP cost.
Idk about increasing WP cost from 1 too 4, thats a bit much. now its something you get after8 CP total investment. yes, the 107mm mortar is good, and if the incendiary mortar halftrack no longer hard counters it, it will be a very good emplacement indeed. but still, i think maybe 3cp would be better. this can still free up some CP too reduce lack luster unlocks- ie, id make all the unlocks on the riflemen tree 1 cp, which is only the last one that is 2 CP, and then reduce the CP cost of rangers from 4 too 3. ofc this may just be me using WP too much, so take what i say with a grain of salt. but preferably, US inf should now be expected to be capable of doing basic things like pushing and defending, without needing a 8/7cp total unlock, because those arent typically very asccesisble. if i still need WP too do stuff like push or apply pressure on the enemy frontlines, then something obv needs a buff.
maybe the rapid reinforcement replacement could be replaced with something that has all riflemen at vet 1? similar too how pzgren has something that makes all the pz 4s vet 1 (im p sure they do atleast).
these changes are all well and good, the only thing they miss is making rangers more worth while. for taking up a big chunk of the tree, they do feel sort of underperforming. its mostly because their lack of versatility- only close range troops, that will probably lose too panzerfusiliers or ss-grens at long range, even the ranger command squad feels a bit fragile but i havent used them recently and with the model HP rework they might be durable now. i mostly use the unlock for the xylophone barrage.
maybe just give the ranger command squad one marksman, armed with a sniper, like gebirgs or the russian guard? rangers were trained in long range marksmanship IIRC. this would help them atleast in terms of being capable at long range- you can make the unit limit for the actual ranger sniper 1 if you dont want US inf too sniper spam after this, but having a durable unit that can actually win a fight vs other squads at long range would be nice. and 1 marksman rifle wouldnt invade on the riflemen promotion’s territory so much since its still 1 marksman rifle vs 2 bars and 1 m1919, and the WP rifle men. it just makes US rangers not only a 1 trick pony.
hopefully this doesnt come off as too US-inf biased 😛
i like it. ofcourse, it depends a lot on what exactly the capabilities of the infantry that support the KV-1 is, and how the WP shells work on the sherman. will they stun like all the other WP direct fire abilties (WP nades, and WP rifle nades) ? if so, i think its a fair trade off.
personally, id make the greyhound come with the stug and panzer 4 call in and remove it from the panther call in, just too make it a bit more even in what your getting (that canister shot is a p useful tool).
im for the up armored churchil too. for historical reasons some people might want too see a historical evidence of such a modification (i personally dont care), since historical accuracy is what lots of people care about.
i sort of understand. is it not possible too make the call in gauranteed for one unit? thats how i sort of understood your reply. i think it would be worthwhile reworking some old doctrines, yes, once everything else is done
i can agree. the presence of the T-34-85 on the battlefield didnt cause the german army too abandon the stug or panzer 4 immediately. they still compared very well vs the t-34-85, even if its gun is bigger. in wikinger, however, the fact that your vehicle is at risk of being one shot in an engagement means its too much of a risk too rely on it anymore vs t-34-85s and be cost effective. im not saying the panzer 4 and stug-3 arent a risk at ALL too the t-34-85; the t-34-85 can still miss a shot, regardless how low that chance is, and then the stug just needs too hit another, or 2 stugs can go into camo too ensure they get their shots off first, but overrall its just not worth risking. its like how you dont see mass tank hordes attempting too dog pile king tigers, also known as a “flanking maneuver”- why do that, when a black dragon shot can destroy it in one hit? granted, thats also risking losing some munitions which can be a completely unsustainable loss if you dont have a firm control over the whole map or have lots of muni caches, but its less than losing many tanks. its why i think that long range engagements as a whole could be reworked, so an engagment isnt over in 1 shot (which rarely happened), or so the way the game is doesnt force the player too do unrealistic things.
yeah but like, thats just the historical reasoning behind it. personally, i think the most realistic interpretations would be that shells have a CHANCE too 1 shot, but also have a chance too NOT do that, sorta like an extremely simplified version of what SD-2 does. if it has too be either 1 shot or NOT 1 shot, though, and be completely binary, im definitely leaning towards NOT one shot so nothing becomes just “obsolete”.
we all know why the panzer 4 is 1 shot and the sherman isnt. we just think its a dumb reason why is all. too clarify aslong as vet 2 is necessary too 1 shot mediums, is all i want. it wouldnt be OP since it would need vet 2, and the ability too tank a hit means a LOT, and imo is basically priceless. also, we dont mean ALL tanks should 1 shot at vet 2, just the tanks that already show such behavior .its p dumb how the pz 4 doesnt take a 85mm hit, but the sherman takes an 88mm hit (imo), and a lot of people agree with this. if it was standardized soo all mediums could take a hit from 80+ mm guns ASLONG as the vehicle with the 80+ mm gun is not vet 2, it would be a lot more fair across the board. granted, i wouldnt mind some more larger sweeping changes in terms of dmg and pen and hit chaance, but this would be a good small step
I AGREE. both 88 and 85, and honestly prob the 90mm too, should need vet 2 too 1 shot the sherman. regardless of ace status or whatever, i think some consistency around the board would be good
i think AVRE shells are a lot different in terms of directly comparing them too sherman 105 heat or etc- the sherman 105s heat is a gauranteed (or near gaurnteed) hit, and ive never seen an avre do any damage besides a stun on a direct hit too king tiger or panther. needless too say, this is sorta unrealistic- the damage of a HE was a constant, basically ignoring armor and instead destroying tanks via sheer destructive force. besides the fact that studies and reports show even tanks could be destroyed with enough non-penetrating AP rounds, i definitely think the AVRE should do a set ammount of damage – maybe a percantage of hit points, or lots of deflection damage- regardless of front or rear hit, and instead damage should fall off the farther away it hits, like artillery. although ill have too check again, i definitely do think the extreme risk of maneuvering one of the slowest vehicles with the shortest ranges against not only enemy tanks that can front pen it, but enemy infantry as well that can hide camoed, should be rewarded with nothing less but a complete destruction of the enemy vehicle directly hit. its a near impossible thing too pull off and would never happen much anyways, and since combined arms is already sort of weak it wont make CA OP.
you need too make more use of the strikes. let me give a comparison – for UK lowland, its 1000 manpower total and unholy ammounts of spare muni and fuel too even produce the sherman observation and sexton combination too even start firing 25pdr barrrages. for panzer artillerie, just a 200 manpower beobachter car and you get acess too grilles, nebelwerfers, etc, everything youd need. for a little bit more you get the beobachter panzer 4, which not only functions as artillery and recon but also a proper main battle tank. i think giving the doc a panther would be WAY much- pak 40s work excelently against a large ammount of allied armor, the beutefirefly is also great, and jagdpanzer L 70s can pen most things the pak 40 cant, AND can camo. panzerjagers also always work excellently.
panzer artillerie feels extremely fun too play, i dont see anything inherently wrong with it, and instead id argue it could use some nerfs. the artillery is absurdly powerful AND cheap- i dont think any other faction compares too it in raw versatility and usability.
the main difference is that the bazooka only counters the german mediums- the panzershrek counters the entire allied armored forces. you do state a lot of good points that i agree with- for example, i think that since the russians get a tier 3 kv-1 freiwilligen can be reworked too have their kv-call in always grant a kv-1 at tier 3 and always a kv-2 at tier 4, for equality. im also for removing lee enfield suppresion- it doesnt really make sense for it too be permanent 24/7 and can lead too snowballing in the early game, especially when guns with faster rates of fire dont suppress as much (like the m1 carbine or garand), and personally i dont think any standard infantry rifle deserves suppresion. i also wouldnt mind if call ins were re-worked too cost fuel, and maybe have a delay before the unit spawns too alleviate the problem of instantly acquiring them upon tiering up. this should help alleviate the issues where the panzershrek is necessary, although really, if the enemy is tier 3 and your tier 0 or 1, you shouldnt be able too defend against them effectively. they need too get some pushing ability for tiering up- tiering typically has the purpose of weaking your ability too produce units in reaction too enemy forces in exchange for moving too being able too produce bettr units. its why i also suggest extending tiering times. but right now, the fact that the panzershrek counters not only tier 3, but tier 4 allied armor ,and no infantry ability really counters german tier 3 armored (assuming axis vs allies as always), its abit of a discrepancy in the late game, where panzerjagers can end up being literally free kills against allied armor (and no, infantry support doesnt really work when they can be tanky enough too get 2 shreks and a faust off, times 2 since the limit for them is two), only having too pay the small price of reinforcing, when allie players have too pay absurd ammounts for onmap artillery, or go for air strikes which may or may not target the right vehicle and also are prohibitingly expensive. i still think panzerjagers serve a purpose- but as defensive anti tank infantry too support AT guns in close quarters (also can we nerf AT gun deploy and undeploy time so they are more vulnerable too flanking? for the bigger ones).
too summarize, i DO agree with you on a lot of the problems you say, but i dont think the answer should just be “panzershrek”. once a lot of the things you speak about are adjusted, and the need for pzjagers or upgradeable pzshreks as “necessary early AT” is eliminated, i think they too should be tweaked so they dont end up as just some hard counter for allies tiering up when you yourself are undertiered.
one thing too take into the account is that, with how hitboxes work, im p sure if the AVRE hits near the rear of a vehicle- as is being indirect fire, it will count as a rear hit. so that may also work against the vehicle. but really, i think HE damage should be only partially nullified or not effected at all by armor. would it be possible too code HE deflection damage and crits? like broken gun barrels, tracks, etc? one HE , if big enough, would ruin all exposed parts of a vehicle (barrel, tracks, etc) and stun the crew or kill the crew outright, regardless of armor
vision from tanks could vary. early t-34s without cupolas or many vision ports, would have terrible vision. however, stuff like the later shermans, which had cupolas, and even the gunner had 3 periscoptic optics (forward, left, and right) and a unity sight along with the standard gun optic. plus, tanks arent the only thing looking for the panzerjager- the infantry with tanks would have unparalled vision ,and at the ranges ingame, should def be able too spot the panzerjagers. plus, although i do have a couple of dubiously correct historical citations, the core of my suggestion comes for the sake of game balance. sure, panzerjager troops could attempt too camofalgue their AT equipment, but its obviously harder than it would be for a bazooka due too having bigger, bulkier ammo, launcher, and carying equipment (the bazooka used a satchel instead of a backpack, iirc, but troops would probably store whatever wherever, so idk), so im saying only units which were usually experienced and well trained would have the experience and knowledge too effectively camoflauge their equipment.
dont get me wrong- i still think they can camo, but only in like green or yellow cover, and stationay. that way, they can still ambush tanks, but not from out the open, since they really dont need that extra ability- they front pen any allied tanks. the bazooka would always need too be able too move around while camoed too even have a chance of destroying axis armor- and imo some abilities like the heavy gammon and maybe compisition- C demolition charges (sticky satchels, if they were added too the game) should definitely be a 1 shot for most axis armor, with the same limitations and capabilities as the hafthohladung.
if anything, if people are against with camoflauged mobility of regular panzerjager troops (too restate, im fine if fallschirmjager and panzerstorer keep their camo movement ability, since they elites), atleast have more things that can spot hidden panzerjagers as they move. for example, recon vehicles like the m20, the 221, the kubel and wc-51 with 30 or 50 cal, universal carrier, etc, should be able too spot em, along with officers which typically carried binoculars, from a reasonable distance away. they are still all vulnerable units- if enemy armor is assaulting, you can focus them down and then be able too ambush the enemy armor.
id then argue that they should definitely be balanced differently. if they perform inherently better, they should cost more, no? if they can roflpen any allied armor , from the front, shouldnt this insanely good capability have a downside in cost? and what about the hidden panzerjagers, who have 2 shreks and a faust- enough too kill a vast majority of allied “heavy armor” in one volley, from the front, and needs a squad within point blank range too spot it. its obvious the bazooka does less overrall- why not give the bazooka some upsides, in terms of cost or ability?
for example, for most axis doc i think run of the line standard pzjager shouldnt have camoflauged movement. theyd still be capable of camo in cover, but the panzershrek and its ammo was infinitely more bulky than the compact bazooka, and this should be represented as being impossible too move or sneak around with.
just imagine realistically sneaking around with THIS on your back. yeah, only a highly skilled panzervernichtungs-guy could perform mannen gegen panzer. (ie, panzer zerstorers in panzerjager with the assault load out, and fallschirmjager panzerjager, AND these squads, if they have 2x panzershrek, shouldnt have a faust, since thats 1 squad defeating 1 heavy tank frontally)
second of all, the cost, and ability too equip on squads. lets compare pzgren too riflemen. riflemen have too make the important choice of m1919 OR bazooka , and when the m1919 plus BAR is necessary too combat enemy infantry with mg34 or 42, its a deadly important one. meanwhile, panzergrens just walk around with the most ammo consumming MG of the war (the MG42) and one of the heaviest most bulkiest AT devices of the war (The pzshrek). i know they are good troops, but even that is a bit much, no? i think the 2 being mutually exclusive would work, and for some elites, maybe get rid of the panzershrek or replace it with a captured bazooka, or just fausts work very well, no? the only allied troop i can think of that might have identical armament, might be easy company paratroopers? but they only get 3 captured fausts, and idk if they have a bazooka. the cost is also somewhat absurd- iirc, the panzershrek is only 10 munitions more than the bazooka. does being able too front pen anything not justify a much higher price? i can easily see it being something like 90 or 80 munitions. its alot, yes, but i dont think i can EVER possibly stress hard enough in my life how important being able too front pen something is, especially on a unit as mobile as infantry. it completely makes the difference between something being cabable of having frontline staying power and being able too continually wither down enemy squads, or just something easily forced back.
