Are they not fixing heavies?

Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.

Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.

Do people like this proposal?

Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?

i think this is the best solution brought up so far, because you can adjust the timing for each heavy individually by both the price of the upgrade and duration it takes to complete the final tech.

i'd also advocate against nerfs in the performance department except fixing the (maybe?) bugged scatter of the tiger. heavies should pack a punch against all targets and i'm glad they finally do across the board.
this, however, doesn't mean they aren't currently overperforming, but there are a couple of other areas that could be used to tone down their impact to reasonable levels.

1) the price could be adjusted to better match the performance, say, by increasing fuel costs by 15-20%.

2) repair times could go up by tweaking hp values and received damage modifiers accordingly. this would keep the overall durability unchanged, but reduce the field presence of heavies noticably unless you invest in an army of pios/engineers to compensate.

Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.

Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.

Do people like this proposal?

Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?

As of right now they're units that perform good against all targets with no opportunity cost for axis and a bigger one for allies, since tiger for ost is in most doctrines and GA has no real downside to it as the entire commander is good in itself.

USF has 1 doctrine with pershing, and IS-2 is in fewer ones aswell, while brits have churchills.

I think if you want to make heavies just a generalist unit that you want to bank on lategame, making them not wipe entire squads in 1-2 shots would be good.

Maybe make going for heavies harder but more rewarding, which would mean, maybe nerf the doctrines with heavies/make them more specialized in supporting the heavy tank. Then also making the heavies slower and tankier so they fulfill mroe of the role of a breakthrough vehicle instead of a supporting wipe machine might work.

If the current performance is suitable, make the cost steeper to reflect the performance of the unit more accurately and make it more of an investment for the player.

People should be at a disadvantage for banking up resources(fuel) in the midgame. I think this could be adressing by buffing mediums so that there is an opportunity cost for giving up fuel expenditure in order to save for a heavier tank.

Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.

Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.

Do people like this proposal?

Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?

Final tier side tech/costs sounds fine.

You dont want to nerf or delay heavies to the point of useless-ness.

We go from building heavy to no building heavy. lol whats the point.

Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.

Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.

Do people like this proposal?

Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?

I like the idea of heavies coming at the same time for all factions.

However, I don’t think increasing their cost is a good solution as it further encourages them to stomp on everything.

What if we gave all heavies a spearhead mode where they keep their current performance in their frontal arc, but if they are out of spearhead they have greatly lowered ROF.

This would make them good at frontal breakthroughs but emphasize their weakness to flanking.

Boy, this is a tough one to crack, mainly due to the way these units perform across modes.

Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.

Do people like this proposal?

Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?

In addition one has to look at the Commander them selves.

Many Super heavy units come with abilities that ares imply too powerful.

I don't consider a 5 range difference to be enough to kite down with TDs.

The token 5 range the Tiger got was fine when the IS2 was dominating compared to normal Tiger and it needed something to buff it.
KT is extremely slow.

With IS-2 armor nerf, Tiger likely doesn't need that 5 extra range either.
After all, extraordinary range on heavies is one of the problems.

It'd definitely help, but then you're creating a almost wholly doctrinal tech tier.

The main problem is the heavies do everything right now. They've got the anti-tank firepower of a tank destroyer, the anti-infantry firepower of a late-game anti-infantry vehicle, and a ton of health and armour on top of that. All for the cost of two medium tanks.

They're simply just more cost effective than their price in other T4 vehicles.

Personally, I think the solution is to put that proposed sidetech cost on the heavy itself. It'd have the same effect on the first heavy, and serve as a penalty for losing them.

It's also much more straightforward to implement.

Don't forget their biggest Plus :

you don't have to micro multiple units

I dunno why people forget that so often

With IS-2 armor nerf, Tiger likely doesn't need that 5 extra range either.
After all, extraordinary range on heavies is one of the problems.

Even with IS2 nerf, it still has more armor than Tiger..

AND

Tiger has to face cheaper 60TD with crazy amount of pen and/or damages.. hello? talk about extra ordinary ranges.

I don't think it's possible, because I haven't seen or heard of this being done in the game before. But I really feel like repairing a heavy tank should consume part of your resource income, so that even though it would be very durable and relatively easy to micro to keep alive, keeping it in the field should cost you. That way there would be something to gain from enaging and damaging a heavy tank even if you do not outright destroy it.

Other nerfs (that are more likely possible) would also be good, especially ROF, turret rotation and AOE killing power versus infantry. If you have access to them, there are just no real downsides to heavy tanks, and they also create this dynamic where there is almost never a situation for the ALlies where going for the powerful Jacksons and SU-85s is not the safer choice over mediums.

It also kind of feels like the Tiger I is perhaps a bit too available across a bunch of different doctrines and will nearly always make an appearance because it is just too viable (I've got some thoughts on GA, and overall I don't like it, because it's kind of overwritten most of the rest of the OKW and made other commanders rare or irrelevant). That is not to say that the Allied heavies aren't viable, the IS-2 is decently available for the Soviets, the Brits don't really have a heavy tank like the others do and the Americans have the one commander with the Pershing. Rather than making Allied heavies more available, I'd want heavies to be less of the no-brainer choice they currently are, a choice that offers great killing power versus all targets coupled with excellent survivability and a relatively low micro demand meaning you don't risk as many resources using them as you do with a comparable force of medium tanks. If something could be done about that, then we could get into a situation where TDs as well can possibly begin to be rebalanced as they also wouldn't be as much of a no-brainer choice as the heavies currently are.

edit: One thing that could possibly be done with heavy tanks is to give them an HE/AT ammunition toggle, whcih switches between an anti-tank and an anti-infantry (which should also work well against light vehicles) profile, for the purpose of increasing the micro demand on using these units and not allowing them to switch seemlessly between chasing off and destroying tanks and wiping infantry squads. That way they could keep a good deal of that killing power they have versus all targets, but effectively using it requires a bit more micro, awareness and waiting out a cooldown (I think the Sherman HE/AT toggle is about 6 seconds, that'd work for heavies as well, allowing them to be caught off guard).

At the end of the day, though, heavy tanks need to still be effective versus infantry and do it better than their medium tank counter parts. We're still searching for how to properly delay them in smaller game modes.

Why?

Compared to a pair of a mediums, they've already got better survivability and better anti-armour capability. Why do they need to hit like Brummbars too?

Sure, maybe they ought to be better than a single Panzer 4 or Sherman, but like 25 to 40% better.
Right now you've got no reason to go for Brums or Panthers when you can get both in a tougher shell for 45 FU more.

To me a sidetech is an alternative to the obvious solution:

If a unit is too good for its cost, raise the cost. If the Tiger is too good for 230 fuel, make it 300 fuel. Then not only is it harder to field, it’s also harder to replace, so by reducing the availability of heavies you reduce their impact.

Another change I’d like to see is a revamp of the vet 2 scatter bonus of heavy tanks, which was ok back before the AoE changes but OP now.

+1

Another change I’d like to see is a revamp of the vet 2 scatter bonus of heavy tanks, which was ok back before the AoE changes but OP now.

at least the scatter (not accuracy) bonuses from veterancy have to be removed completely

For the record, only the Tiger gets a scatter buff with veterancy.
The Pershing and the IS-2 only get accuracy.

For the record, only the Tiger gets a scatter buff with veterancy.
The Pershing and the IS-2 only get accuracy.

oh yeah, did that get changed or something?

anyway then remove the scatter bonuses from Tiger and it should be fine

Even with IS2 nerf, it still has more armor than Tiger..

AND

Tiger has to face cheaper 60TD with crazy amount of pen and/or damages.. hello? talk about extra ordinary ranges.

And Tiger still has more range and shoots much faster.

IS-2 also needs to be careful to not get TWP from multiple PaKs or hit teller.. hello? Grass is not always greener and if you want to come up with perfect scenarios to support your point, so can I.

oh yeah, did that get changed or something?

anyway then remove the scatter bonuses from Tiger and it should be fine

Probably fixing the bugs would make a world of difference.

Probably fixing the bugs would make a world of difference.

Do note we did test the adjusted AOE which have similar numbers, a Tiger is still generally going to snipe a model on direct hits and the shots to kill generally just goes up by 1. The main changes to the AOE just generally reduce the chance a squad losing all its health to one shot and we'll probably tighten up their distance for faster drop off up to 1m.

Any other AOE adjustments would have to come from mid to far or the heavy tanks have their drop offs go faster from 1m to 2m. They're still going to be dealing at least 20-24 damage minimum if you get glanced.

Do note we did test the adjusted AOE which have similar numbers, a Tiger is still generally going to snipe a model on direct hits and the shots to kill generally just goes up by 1. The main changes to the AOE just generally reduce the chance a squad losing all its health to one shot and we'll probably tighten up their distance for faster drop off up to 1m.

Any other AOE adjustments would have to come from mid to far or the heavy tanks have their drop offs go faster from 1m to 2m. They're still going to be dealing at least 20-24 damage minimum if you get glanced.

How does this compare to a medium tank and to a heavy anti-infantry specialist like the KV-2 or Brummbar?

How does this compare to a medium tank and to a heavy anti-infantry specialist like the KV-2 or Brummbar?

This does not include scatter.

Tiger (Live)
AOE: 3.5
AOE Distance: 1/1.5/3
AOE Damage: 0.75/0.25/0.15
AOE Damage Values: 160/40/24


Tiger (Bug Fix)
AOE: 3.5
AOE Distance: 0.25/1.5/3
AOE Damage: 1/0.25/0.15
AOE Damage Values: 160/40/24

Tiger (Adjusted for Possible Future Preview)
AOE: 3.5
AOE Distance: 0/1/3
AOE Damage: 0.75/0.25/0.15
AOE Damage Values: 120/40/24

Brummbar

AOE: 6
AOE Distance: 0.625/1.25/6
AOE Damage: 1/0.35/0.2
AOE Damage Values: 160/56/32

Panzer IV

AOE: 2.5
AOE Distance: 0.625/1.25/2.5
AOE Damage: 1/0.35/0.05
AOE Damage Values: 160/56/8

This does not include scatter.

Tiger (Live)
AOE: 3.5
AOE Distance: 1/1.5/3
AOE Damage: 0.75/0.25/0.15
AOE Damage Values: 160/40/24

Don't you mean:

Tiger (Live)
AOE: 3.5
AOE Distance: 1/1.5/3
AOE Damage: 0.75/0.25/0.15
AOE Damage Values: 120/40/24

?

Don't you mean:

Tiger (Live)
AOE: 3.5
AOE Distance: 1/1.5/3
AOE Damage: 0.75/0.25/0.15
AOE Damage Values: 120/40/24

?

No. Damage is set at 1 for near so it starts at 160 then degrades.