Re-balance Allied TDs penetration values

Or as an alternative SU 85, Jackson and SU-85 could start at 240/220/200 and get a vet 2 buff by 20% to 288/264/240. That way the insane penetration values of SU85 and Jackson would be solved while the FF got some help and stops being so lackluster in comparison.

Jackson
HP : 640 ->560
cost : 400/145 -> 380/140


M10
HP : 560 ->640
cost : 300/80 -> 320/85


Su-85, Firefly - fine

With AT infantry and AT guns being killed frontally by the Tigers and dedicated tank destroyers bouncing on the Tigers this game is going to be more interesting and balanced. Everyone will have to play sov airborne with IL2 rocket strafe and Snare-34/76. +1 from me.

This is non-sense. If Allied TDs had 210 far pen they would still penetrate Tigers with 70% at max range. A range at which Tigers can't shoot back. 70% penetration against a Tiger at max range is still very respectable.

cough... is-2.. cough Churchill cough

Panther pretty much fights IS2 on equal terms and Panther is stock and so is KT. Churchill is less of a problem now as comet is finally an attractive choice so many Brit players pick Hammer tech.

It is not the Fireflies that need buffs. It is all others that need nerfs.

IMO all powercreeped BS needs nerfs. Such as:

> Panther : Increase cost to 200
> SU-85 : either reduce the self spot range or add 1 second to reload
> Jackson : Nerf its base pen. It penetrating Tiger %95 without HVAP at max range is just insane combined with its mobility.

Panther pretty much fights IS2 on equal terms and Panther is stock and so is KT. Churchill is less of a problem now as comet is finally an attractive choice so many Brit players pick Hammer tech.

it's u who said tiger, now u change subject ?

it's u who said tiger, now u change subject ?

It's u who said IS2 and churchill, now you accuse me of changing subjects?

It is not the Fireflies that need buffs. It is all others that need nerfs.

IMO all powercreeped BS needs nerfs. Such as:

> Panther : Increase cost to 200
> SU-85 : either reduce the self spot range or add 1 second to reload
> Jackson : Nerf its base pen. It penetrating Tiger %95 without HVAP at max range is just insane combined with its mobility.

Panther needs a durability nerf if anything comes to its counterpart TDs.

My proposal would be:


Allies:
Decrease ROF for SU-85 and M36, perhaps decrease M36 HP to prevent diving with it.

Axis:
Decrease Panther HP to reduce its own durability in dives and the mitigate the near absolute requirement that allies build TDs specifically to counter this unit.

All sides:
("Super") Heavy tank call-ins require AT LEAST CP 12. Tigers, IS-2, Pershing, etc.
KV-1 and Churchill I'm less sure of.

Panther needs a durability nerf if anything comes to its counterpart TDs.

My proposal would be:


Allies:
Decrease ROF for SU-85 and M36, perhaps decrease M36 HP to prevent diving with it.

Axis:
Decrease Panther HP to reduce its own durability in dives and the mitigate the near absolute requirement that allies build TDs specifically to counter this unit.

All sides:
("Super") Heavy tank call-ins require AT LEAST CP 12. Tigers, IS-2, Pershing, etc.
KV-1 and Churchill I'm less sure of.

IMO it is the Allied TDs making pather that big of a problem since OST doesn't have acces to a mobile 60 range AT platform. If we look at OKW it is fine with the JP4 anyways but for OST the current panther is a MUST with current allied TDs.

But you ideas are solid too anyways.

Panther needs a durability nerf if anything comes to its counterpart TDs.

If grens needed to be nerfed because they were too strong against cons, you wouldnt nerf cons simultaneously, you would just nerf the grens.

If TDs are making it too difficult to utilize heavier tanks like the panther and thus need nerfs, you dont nerf the panther and thus defeat the purpose of nerfing the TDs.

Only it is not and people do not built SU-76.

It's meant to be.

Relic also designed UKF with one AT vehicle

AEC.

The idea that M36 need to be able to deal with everything from kubel to KT is simply flawed. It also the reason why other vehicles see little action although they are extremely cost effective.

The other vehicles are cost effective against infantry. Shermans aren't cost effective at all against tanks.

That's what Katitof explained to you in the post you misquote in your signature.

IMO it is the Allied TDs making pather that big of a problem since OST doesn't have acces to a mobile 60 range AT platform. If we look at OKW it is fine with the JP4 anyways but for OST the current panther is a MUST with current allied TDs.

But you ideas are solid too anyways.

The main problem with the TD-Panther dichotomy is that Panthers can dive and destroy medium tanks without the medium tank really having a chance, while this is not true for Allied TDs versus Axis mediums.

That is the source of my concerns when it comes to TD nerfs, perhaps moreso than the increasing presence of call-in heavies after the CP decrease, which effects all factions and is not something I am happy with, as medium tanks have a small enough window of effectiveness as it is.

It's u who said IS2 and churchill, now you accuse me of changing subjects?

cause they are the same heavy tank and doc ? U said tiger kills at gun and at inf, so does croc and us 2 what's it point ? What does it and panther have to do with it as they are Mon doc and have different prices and roles ?

If grens needed to be nerfed because they were too strong against cons, you wouldnt nerf cons simultaneously, you would just nerf the grens.

If TDs are making it too difficult to utilize heavier tanks like the panther and thus need nerfs, you dont nerf the panther and thus defeat the purpose of nerfing the TDs.

The purpose of nerfing the TD, I have always been assured by those who suggest nerfing them, is to reduce their effectiveness versus Axis medium tanks like the Panzer IV.

On the other hand, the reason allied TDs are so good in the first place, and so ubiquitous, is the fact that Allied MTs are incapable of fighting anything heavier than a Panzer IV period anyway, and every Axis faction happens to have such a vehicle stock in their roster; the Panther, which is perfectly capable of fighting one on one every stock allied tank short of maybe the Comet (on a good day RNG-wise, favoring the comet.)

So if we are to improve the medium tank game for one side of the aisle we might as well do it for the other, because I can tell you right now that if allied TDs get nerfed, its not going to stop you from seeing them nearly every single game, because there is more often than not no other way to deal with the heavily armored Axis tanks that are almost assured to appear.

If you think the TDs need nerfs because they are too good versus the Panther, you're bloody insane, since I don't know what else you expect to see countering it.

It's meant to be.

Yet, it is not SU-85 is better choice than 2 SU-76.

AEC.

Stuart with 2 AT abilities

The other vehicles are cost effective against infantry. Shermans aren't cost effective at all against tanks.

Says who?
Sherman 76mm
Easy8
Sherman dozer upgrade
can beat PzIV

ShermanA4 hold it's ground just fine given the cost difference.

Show Spoiler

Rebalancing TDs is tricky because of all the knock-on effects when you consider that Allies have to deal with KT, JT, and Ele plus stock armor that gets pretty decent armor buffs with Vet (so you would expect allied TD vet to have corresponding Pen bonuses to match). If you remove Pen Vet then Axis skirt bonus are that much more of a power spike. You also forgot to mention that Firefly has Tulips, which should be factored in. Don't fix what isn't broken I would say...

Relic also designed UKF with one AT vehicle the FF and it worked up with having the FF being a monstrosity so the argument does not hold much water.

Respectfully disagree here. AEC can punch much higher than the Stuart so I think it counts more here. And the Comet may not be specialized to AT but it certainly excels at it

Not to mention the churchill+FF combo is something the Jackson has nothing like. Having the best sponge in the game to cover your TD is a huge plus

Edit: note, you don't need to do all this at the same time. Just check in order if things are fine or not and then proceed with the next one.

Do this in order:

1- Let's wait to see where we actually are after the tournament ends.

2- Delay a bit more the heavy call in tanks.

3- Recheck all TD xp values and adjust accordingly.

4- If vet pen based is to be changed, it could be tweak to be equal to armor buffs received by Axis.

5- You can also swap most of the offensive vet buffs to vet 3 and replace double offensive buffs on the same vet level for more defensive/mobility ones.

6- If after all this, the Jackson still requires a change:

HVAP becomes a vet0 ability with no munition cost and is a long time to switch toggleable munition.
RoF on HVAP nerf to be equal to that of FF, lower accuracy values (which should in theory be enough for heavies)
Default gun range reduced to 50 while moving. 60 range when still.

Yet, it is not SU-85 is better choice than 2 SU-76.

It depends on the target.

Stuart with 2 AT abilities

Try using Stuarts as your AT vehicle against anything bigger than a Luchs.

Says who?
Sherman 76mm
Easy8
Sherman dozer upgrade
can beat PzIV

ShermanA4 hold it's ground just fine given the cost difference.

I'm talking about the stock Sherman. All the variants are doctrinal.

The stock Sherman is not a cost-effective AT solution. It can fight on roughly even terms against an Ostheer P4 that hasn't got its Vet 2 skirts, but a fair fight is not counterplay.

Katitof does explain anything he simply trolls and I have not misquote anything.

When I posted that Sherman is the most cost efficient medium tank he claimed it was PzIV and 4 hours later he corrected another user by posting that Sherman was the most cost efficient tank.

How can you lie like that when the proof is literally below every post you make?

"Shermans and even USF ATG especially against vet2 P4(or OKW P4 in general) are cost inefficient and utility doesn't balance this out." - Katitof

Against Vet 2 P4s or OKW P4s.

That's exactly what I said above. The Sherman is not a cost efficient AT vehicle.

USF only has the Jackson for that, so any vehicle that counters the Jackson counters the whole USF nondoctrinal motor pool.

Hence the Jackson's current state.