Stats from the WCS 2019

If by rushing medium you mean going light vehicle into medium tank, then yes.

That part about heavy tanks being unviable is complete bullcrap. The meta last patch was stalling for heavy tanks. If you didnt notice you are posting in thread about 1v1 tournament.

Nobody ever is going straight into TD in 1v1 unless they are losing game hard already and need to counter enemy armor.

GSC2 stats, 1 year ago

Almost no call-in heavies (more Goliaths than KTs). The M36 is literally USF's 3rd most common vehicle after the ambulance and M4A3.

And yes, LV -> Medium; as we've discussed in this thread, LVs massively impactful for some factions (T70 was built ~75% of the time, luchs only around 50%).

Before the heavy change in the recent patch, no one went heavies

Make up your mind, are you talking about patch from before heavy tanks changes or patch from year ago?

If going light vehicle into medium is "rushing medium", then everything is, even going tiger into panzer4.

All there is needed is to revert heavy tanks damage profile and CP changes.

Make up your mind, are you talking about patch from before heavy tanks changes or patch from year ago?

There's only been one patch that touched heavies or TDs since GCS2, which was in Sept 2019; before that, they've only made minor changes to mediums. So 'before heavy tank changes' and 'from a year ago' are the same thing.

If going light vehicle into medium is "rushing medium", then everything is, even going tiger into panzer4.

All there is needed is to revert heavy tanks damage profile and CP changes.

Not really. Player 1 rushes an LV because it's basically required, then transition to a medium if they're still dominant, since it'll be uncontested. Player 2 then skips their own medium and goes TD to counter that, so then player 1 also need to go TD.

Vehicles at 45-50 wouldn't be changed, so that match-up would stay exactly the same. Vehicles that were at 60 would now be at 55, which is still 5 more range, as you said.

As for 5-range increments being 'bad on vehicles', I disagree with that. Firstly, if 5 range increments feels like basically no difference at all, then -5 range on 60TDs should feel 'like no difference at all'. Secondly, the Rak43 ATG was recently buffed by exactly 5 range, to (coincidentally) 55 range - exactly where the new TDs would be, and by the same difference some are asking for. Thirdly, there's currently several vehicles balanced around the '5-range increment' at 45-range: Tiger, Tiger Ace, KT, Comet and Pershing. It's also important to note that the last 3 (KT, Comet, Pershing) do not gain any range with vet, meaning they are permanently at 45 range.

Lastly, this really wouldn't change that much in the vehicle ecosystem. With the current "10 range increments", we have a bunch of vehicles with 60 range that out-range a bunch of vehicles at 50 range. Lowering those 60TDs to 55, still means they'll out-range those 50-range vehicles - there's just a smaller margin for error.

1- I consider bad that heavy tanks gain range.
2- 5 range difference between TD and the targets they are meant to counter, is not enough as had already been tested when Jackson got their range cut down. Sander has already said that this change won't be implemented overall at all.
3- 55 rak is basically 60 range for all that matters. It's not getting kitted by 60 range tanks with AI.
4- All the +5 range ended up IMO been mistakes in retroespective. They had been given as hotfixes to vehicles which had been nerfed too hard and made irrelevant units which are hard AT at 50 range.

This is what i would aim to change.


Heavies:

-Delay heavy vehicles by 2 CPs

-Tiger and IS2 vet 2 extended range removed. Swap 10% reload from vet 3. Vet 3 goes to -23% from -30% (basically similar numbers total).

The extended range basically doesn't do much for the Tiger dynamic against 60 range TDs and by sheer raw stats it is enough to bully medium and infantry at 45 range. The IS2 on the other part, makes trivial the usage of 50 range TD/TH such as Stug/PV.
You could voucher for a trivial buff to munition cost on the vet 1 ability once it hit vet2 as the lost of the range is higher.

-IS2 armor from 375 to 350

-I'll abstain giving specific numbers but probably small cost increases to all heavies (Tiger, IS2, Pershing, TA) and/or pushing them back a bit further on tech whether one option is better.

SU:
-Remove the upgrade on 7 man conscript from T3 (did anyone actually tried to get it early at all?)
-Option1: nerf the offensive bonus on cover, to 15%
-Option2: when at T4, Conscript can upgrade to 7 man. For the mp, vet and cover bonuses, they have to unlock it.

-Su85: Reduce the penetration bonus at vet 2 from 30% to 10%.
This makes the unit effectively be able to fight equally at vet 0 vs vet 0 PV and at vet 2 vs vet 2 PV if i did the math right. The 10% increment is also enough to push the pen over 100% against PIV (right now there is a really small chance at max range at vet 0).
TDs are at a good enough level at vet 0 ATM that i don't think they need to tip the scale so heavily once they vet.

USF:
Outside of the Jackson, not sure what else can be really touched down. Slight rollback on Rifle buffs in a middle ground?

-Jackson: start by applying same change on vet penetration as the Su85 or completely remove it, as the Jackson already has access to AP shells. Alternative a small rework to give it a real weakness compared to simil allied TDs. 2 Type of shells?

OH:
-Stug: swap vet 3 with vet 2.
-Give TWP 160dmg as it's no longer 15s of disable and it already forces a reload.
-Give it some accuracy on vet as other TDs.

-PV: give it 30%, either at vet 2 or spread out, as all other TDs.

-Light AT: either try to see if you can implement a 221 upgrading through mp + fuel into 222, or see if there is any chance in making current 222 at current cost, have a higher HP value so it acts more effectively as a soft counter to light tanks. (If the issue is AEC, i would make AEC clone to Puma).


Will continue later...out of time.

Cav rifles should arrive later and buffs to wc51 should be reverted (MG cost, capping). This doctrine allows to snowball too much. Rifles are fine.

2- 5 range difference between TD and the targets they are meant to counter, is not enough as had already been tested when Jackson got their range cut down. Sander has already said that this change won't be implemented overall at all.

3- 55 rak is basically 60 range for all that matters. It's not getting kitted by 60 range tanks with AI.

These two just don't line up for me. Yes, I can see that there's a difference between Tank AI vs. an ATG and an ATG vs. a Tank, but how can 55 vs. 60 range be simultaneously negligible and unit-breaking? If it's negligible, then the Rak should be able to be 60 range with no other changes, and if it's "unit-breaking", then that +5 range buff should've been a massive change for the Rak43. As is, it seems to be a slightly change; neither negligible nor unit-breaking, which is exactly what I would expect from a +5 range change.

I just don't see how a -5 range reduction to 60-TDs would completely ruin the unit, when they'd still be maintaining their Hp/Armor/Mobility. All the change does is slightly increase the risk when playing at max range, which most people seem to not do, anyway. It also gives a 5-range window where an ATG could actually fire on those TDs, rather than the current "margin of error" window.

As for Sanders dismissing the idea; that doesn't mean the idea is without merit. The balance team has done an excellent job so far (mostly), but they're not infallible.

This is what i would aim to change.

[Big list of changes]
Show Spoiler

Will continue later...out of time.

While I like most of these changes, I don't think the suggestions for the TDs (Su85, M36, P5) would really change all that much. Raw pen doesn't appear to be the main issue; it's the ability to kite everything, combined with high mobility and reasonable survivability. A pair of Vet 0 M36s still completely invalidate any/all medium tank play, which is supposed to be the natural counter to strong infantry... which Rifles are. The same can be said of the SU85 and P5, although to a lesser extent due to mobility and range, respectively.

snip

It's not the range difference with normal medium tanks or 45 range vehicles but the current 960HP basically same rof as M36, Panther.

The problem is not TDs countering every medium tank, which is meant to be, is that they are just as effective in dealing with mediums and heavies while keeping on mobility.

SU85 and FF are fine, both have clear weaknesses. It's the Jackson which ended up been just a 640HP TD with mobility and turret. Which is a consequence of the unit roster of USF.

how about having to build heavies in HQ once the tech is unlocked?

...It's the Jackson which ended up been just a 640HP TD with mobility and turret. Which is a consequence of the unit roster of USF.

I do not buy that. The M36 received a too many buffs vs to many targets.

They unit should either be very good vs mediums but average vs Super heavies or good vs Super heavies and below average vs mediums.

100% chances (or close to it) to damage (hit and penetrate) PzIV from range 60 and being able to counter all super heavies is simply too much.

(edited to clarify)

I do not buy that. The M36 received a too many buffs vs to many targets.

They unit should either be very good vs mediums but average vs Super heavies or good vs Super heavies and below average vs mediums.

100% chances (or close to it) to penetrate PzIV from range 60 and being able to counter all super heavies is simply too much.

You mean hit not penetrate right?

That's because size had been handled poorly, in the sense that they tried to correlate real life with numerical values instead of been another parameter to balance vehicles around.

I don't remember Jackson got range cut down. From patch notes, it was raised to 60.

Good to see progress in 55td views.
I further add, tigers and is2 range at 45, same as Pershing. The 5 loss goes into penetrations. Yes increase their cp by 2.

So we have
Su85,jackson,ff,jp4 - 55td
Rak since it has retreat - 55td
Isu152,ele,jt - 60td, get heavier range nerf
Tigers is2 - 45td, since they do ai and at well. True brawlers and fair since limited to 1. +5 pen at all range. Mostly to help is2 against axis stronger nondoc armour. Well, tiger will trade better too, as long allies do kv,churhill.

About panthers much hyped ai, well the pros rather support their heavy call in with p4 and Atg, goes to show how 'good' reliable panther mgs are..

It's not the range difference with normal medium tanks or 45 range vehicles but the current 960HP basically same rof as M36, Panther.

The problem is not TDs countering every medium tank, which is meant to be, is that they are just as effective in dealing with mediums and heavies while keeping on mobility.

SU85 and FF are fine, both have clear weaknesses. It's the Jackson which ended up been just a 640HP TD with mobility and turret. Which is a consequence of the unit roster of USF.

Panthers always have 960hp iirc. It even used to have 320 front armour and 0.065 move accuracy!

Reading through old patch notes.

60td were originally set as cheaper mass-able with explosive damages at rng range

Today 60td are now less explosive but constant damages at virtually no rng. While costs gone up, but still higher efficiency as compared to their opponents, with crazy vet bonus.

Imo the equation of safety range goes well with rng and explosives.

A -5 range change makes most sense now they are dealing constant hp bleed, the need for distance margin should be lowered.

55td is still higher range! 55td still have clear sight/accuracy advantages! 60td should be reserved for slow ass ATg and callin Td. There are not much changes required down line for armor imo

And yes jackson went from mass AT tanks to highly efficient AT brawler.

Putting further thoughts. Instead of callin range nerf! We can beautify it as a AT refresh.

From high level looks like this

40 range
Med tanks no changes

45 range
Call ins changes, standardised them since they do AT and AI brawling well. IS2, Pershing, Tigers, Crocodile (ok poor croc but...)

50 range
Panther no changes. As it sits between AT prowess of TD and AI of callins(loosely put AI..)

55 range
Jp4, Jackson, su85, firefly. Superb AT prowess that gains sweet vet but with zero AI. (hmm jp4..)

60 range
JT, Ele, ISU152
Heavy TD call in, self explanatory.
Puma, M10 - squishy guys like older days of 60Td, seems fine unchanged

70 range
Big Pak and Big Mac Pounder, no change. To counter heavy Td

I can say with confidence that is almost entirely due to light vehicles.

Faction winrates even follow the tier of light vehicle strats, lol

1. t-70
2. m20 -> stuart
3. Luchs/Puma
4. 222
5. AEC

Oh look it's the same order as the faction winrates.

You see it play out this way because light vehicles are the first unit that can single handily win a match. When you have the best players in the world playing against each other they are all incredibly skilled light vehicle drivers, whomever wins the light vehicle duel that happens in 80% of the matches will win the game. The T-70 especially tips the scales into the Soviets favor significantly.

You don't see these win rates in normal matches with average players because they can't handle the light vehicles as well. A skilled player with an unmatched light vehicle can absolutely trash their opponent. The solution is to revisit light vehicles again to try and make them strong without being able to single handily win a match. I recommend reducing raw power and adding more utility to keep them as high skill units, without being able to wipe the opponents entire army after one mistake.


I wouldn't even say Soviets are that much better than the other factions, it's pretty much entirely the T-70.

this

But dont worry now they will buff evrything that axis have thanks to people like incendiary rounds because guys like him thinks Wermacht is weak because brumbar or elefant lol but that statement is false.
For example Mechanized was popular because WC truck no because mighty sherman76

Dodge needs nerf, 50 cals need nerf, rifles need to be either reducded to 1 bar OR have part of their buff rolledback (probably the close range damage) increase timing of heavies, currently the normal timing you can get 22 to 18 min heavy and for some factions this basically makes mediums irrelevant (why want a medium when you can wait 3 more min and get a heavy?)

Putting further thoughts. Instead of callin range nerf! We can beautify it as a AT refresh.

From high level looks like this

40 range
Med tanks no changes

45 range
Call ins changes, standardised them since they do AT and AI brawling well. IS2, Pershing, Tigers, Crocodile (ok poor croc but...)

50 range
Panther no changes. As it sits between AT prowess of TD and AI of callins(loosely put AI..)

55 range
Jp4, Jackson, su85, firefly. Superb AT prowess that gains sweet vet but with zero AI. (hmm jp4..)

60 range
JT, Ele, ISU152
Heavy TD call in, self explanatory.
Puma, M10 - squishy guys like older days of 60Td, seems fine unchanged

70 range
Big Pak and Big Mac Pounder, no change. To counter heavy Td

I like the idea, but there's a few critical things I'd change.

1. Croc at 45 range would actually be a massive buff, if we're talking about the flame attack. If we're talking about the cannon (and so, the normal Churchill, too), this would still be a +5 range buff; I'm not entirely convinced the churchill needs that range increase.

2-A. I think moving the heavy TDs to 60 range would be a bit too much of a nerf. Their main weakness is horrible mobility and a lack of a turret, but their advantage is +10 range over any other TD. Reducing their range to only +5 over other TDs would mean they would be incredibly easy to "poke" at, considering their awful rate of fire. Additionally, it means less "reaction time" for the Heavy TD to move when being attacked/flanked. I would change this category to 65 range.

2-B. The M10 and Puma both have 50 range right now (not 60). I agree with leaving them as is, but bumping the Puma to 60 range would be extremely oppressive against any form of LV-play.

3. Both Heavy AT emplacements have 80 range right now (not 70). I agree with leave them as-is, giving them +15 range over heavy TDs (no one uses them, so a slight buff could be warranted), or I would reduce them to 75 range, to keep the range-gap the same as it is now.

4. What of the Su76? Right now it's a 60-range turret-less light-TD. I suppose it would also be lowered to 55, however that leaves the STuG in a similar role, but at 50 range.

5. Comet is missing, but it's currently at 45 range.


Updating your list, I would have it something like this:

40 range
Current medium tanks and any other vehicles with 40 range (churchill, etc.). No changes.

45 range
Heavy Call-ins; Standardize Tiger, KT, Pershing, IS2, etc. to 45 range. The IS2 gains +5 range at vet 0 (to bring it to 45), but they all lose any +range veterancy bonuses. Any other vehicles currently with 45 range (comet, etc.) are unchanged.

50 range
Panther, STuG, Puma, M10 etc. No changes. AT vehicles either too cheap or too resilient to warrant 55 range.

55 range
Jp4, Jackson, su76, su85, firefly. All lose 5 range. Dedicated tank destroyers.

65 range
JT, Ele, ISU152. All lose 5 range. Heavy TDs; expensive, slow, doc-locked, and without a turret.

75 range
PaK43, 17LB. All lose 5 range. Static ATG emplacements.

Well put and more thorough mrdoom.
Comet at 45 seems good since it does AT and AI well, fits in the band.

I will start is2 at 45 vet0.

Churchhill at 40 is also sensible because of the armor hp. Maybe croc AT gun can be 45 but maybe no need as its cleaner all 40.

Lol i thought puma is 60. Well at 50 seems good.

Personally having heavy TD at 60 allows ATg to poke at them since 60td allies is no more. Which seems fair.

Su76 at 55 seems a good standardise. Then again it is not too oppressive at 60. Im split on this. 55 should fine. Give the 5 range loss to its pen then

Imo we haven't really tested the range changes. All along we just gone with history. So to say making this changes will break the game for allies dont seems clear cut

Putting further thoughts. Instead of callin range nerf! We can beautify it as a AT refresh.

you may call it whatever as you want, but the underlying truth remains that this will solve none of the current issues while potentally creating new ones - and no amount of campaigning from your side will ever get your idea implemented simply because of that. now you can of course go on and spam every other thread in the balance section with the n-th iteration of your perceived 'axis up - allies op' tirades, but if you spent half the time actually trying to learn how to play the game (especially by switching to the red faction every now and then) you'd see most of your complaints and suggested solutions have no foundation at all.

And which areas have no foundation?

As i said, we haven't really tested a range change. Without practical results, the theory seems to work.

60td have evolved from rng range high damage en masse, to more consistent hp drain, still at range.

We know 60td of today is too oppressive later a game goes. Let see a slight range standardised to each band of tanks will work.

As above, range change seems to go well to classify the tanks in their respective bands