Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
I literally said that and you just repeat xD
"makes it a tank that if you have to retreat with it and you're not flanked/ambushed, you're playing it wrong."
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
No matter how much veterancy you slap onto SU85, it will grow no turret.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 5279
Jackson is a king of speed and maneuverability. It's a tank with a position and role brilliantly defined. Glass cannon by definition. It needs no nerfs/buffs. And Jackson can't really escape any ambush. 1v1 or 2v1 engagement it can escape if it leaves immediately and has luck on it's side (It's better to be born without a male reproductive organ, than without luck, cause with luck, your MRO will grow out of nowhere), but it's low armour really makes it a tank that if you have to retreat with it and you're not flanked/ambushed, you're playing it wrong. I never used Jackson on the same control unit bind (ctrl-X) with any other unit. Jacksons are their own bind always behind other units. Also, sight is important here too as a factor. You need vision to utilize range.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
TBH the only situation where turret would be useful is if you're flanked or chasing around corners, first case, TD would die anyway without support, 2nd case no 60 range TD should ever be in that spot anyway
Posts: 1003
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Very bad idea. Panther (heavy armor, speed, penetration and top MG) with 60 range.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 31
Very bad idea. Panther (heavy armor, speed, penetration and top MG) with 60 range.What I proposed was not only about the Panther – Also I proposed a Panther with 60 range but lower armor, lower health and no top MG. (other tank destroyers would be able to kill a panther in 4 shots if we lower health to 800)
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
FF is by far the worst TD. Not sure how people think it's somehow good. Super vulnerable to blitzing P4s or Panthers, super vulnerable against ATGs and handheld AT. Cant reliably penetrate heavy tanks and has a reload that makes you wonder if the thing is bugged. Just spamming 6 pounders and using the fuel for AVRE, Comet or Croc is WAY better than going FF
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Posts: 833
Agree with katitof that Tulips are extra, but my question is: Is HHF seriously saying FF is bad rn? Or that standardization will make it bad? I’m confused.
Posts: 1003
What I proposed was not only about the Panther – Also I proposed a Panther with 60 range but lower armor, lower health and no top MG. (other tank destroyers would be able to kill a panther in 4 shots if we lower health to 800)
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I simply replied to vipper challenging his calls for a redesign to TDs. Because he's trying to fight problems that don't exist.
I don't think anyone seriously believes FF is OP vs mediums, but he somehow lumps everything in with Jackson performance as if FF and SU85 can perform the same.
Jackson and panther can back away shooting and scooting vs such med rushes. FF and SU85 can not.
But I do think FF popcap is a point or two high, trying to field a FF and Churchill literally eats up all of your late game pop.
Posts: 833
And here lies your problem, you feel the need to "challenge" me.
At this point I have to point out that I did not start this thread I simply point out to OP that changing the damage is not enough to for make the a distinction "between heavy TDs" and "medium Tds". If the "heavy TDs" are more accurate, have more damage and penetration they will simply be "better" TDs.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
There's simply nothing wrong with discussing and challenging other people's viewpoints. This is a forum, this is what forums are for.
If you want to decrease TD effectivemess vs mediums actually the best answer would be to mirror them with the firefly. It's by far weakest TD vs mediums in the game but still counters a heavy tank with the correct micro and support in its sniper role.
Of course this would mean hefty DPS nerfs to the other TDs as I pointed out in the panther thread...
Posts: 124
Tank Destroyer Standardization
The game is designed around asymmetrical fractions. We all like this difference in gameplay but admittedly it creates problems in terms of balance and creates “crutch units” that fill the holes in the army composition (Elephant, Panic Puma). I think that we can keep the asymmetrical strengths and weaknesses of the fractions and still have equality in terms of army capabilities. In terms of balance, I think that the biggest problem right now is the tank destroyers. With that in mind I propose the following standardization.
(I acknowledge that there are other glaring balance problems, but please keep to the topic)
All armies should have medium tank destroyer and a heavy tank destroyer. In terms of availability and cost efficiency each unit should be designed to counter a specific set of targets. This is how I envision the unit tiers:
Heavy Tank Destroyers (Range 60 - 200 damage)
Jackson, Sherman Firefly, SU-85, Panther
Medium Tank Destroyers (Range 50 - 160 damage)
M10, SU-76, StuG G, Jagdpanzer IV
Heavy Tanks
Health divisible by 200
Medium Tanks
Health divisible by 160
Heavy tank destroyers should do 200 damage and have a range of 60. In terms of targets, all heavy tanks health should be divisible by 200. This will make the heavy tank destroyers more cost-efficient vs the heavy tanks without improving the efficiency vs medium tanks. Changes in rate of fire should be made to keep current time to kill vs heavy tanks the same while nerfing the time to kill medium tanks. In terms of units this mostly effects the panthers’ offensive capabilities. The health of the panther should in term be brought down to 800 and the armour should also be significantly lowered. The machine gunner could be removed to emphasize the tank destroying nature of the unit.
Medium tank destroyers should do 160 damage and have a range of 50. This means nerfing the range of the Jagdpanzer IV and the SU-76. The SU-76 should, however, have its damage increased to 160. Currently the Brits and the USF does not have a stock medium tanks destroyer. The M10 should be given to both of those amies as a stock unit (this alleviates the problem of the Jackson/Firefly having to counter to all armour)
Addendum: The Panic Puma is designated as a range 50 tank destroyer. Its range should be brought down to 40 to prevent it from countering all light tanks. At the same time, it should be mad available to Wehr as a stock unit.
- SaintPauli
Posts: 1392
You shall not kill asymmetrical design of this game.
Posts: 1003
Now have so many spotting options for soviets fraction, non-doc cancer = nobrainer. Fan-boy move.
Can community stop fighing from fraction positions? Simply make them balanced, without any fan-boy shit?
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Now have so many spotting options for soviets fraction, non-doc cancer = nobrainer. Fan-boy move.
Posts: 1392
uhhhhhh OKW has Puma with map hack at vet 5, Kubel with map hack at vet 1, IR HT with map hack at 5 fuel that's turning into double sight pios, Luchs/Jagdpanzer IV that can move with camo and spot/scout, and doctrinal scout planes.
Ostheer has 42 sight Pios, sniper, Scout Car with vet sight increase, and lots of doctrinal scouting options.
Complaining about Soviet non-doctrinal scouting is absurd and hilarious.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Now we are at a point we can speak. Most things I would change without any contradiction.
But it seems you are a really salty man, doesn't interrested in balancing at all, hm? Yes I am salty and I'm not interested in balancing because I disagree with your incredible balance opinions. I should be put in jail.
OKW
a. You mean "SdKfz 234/2 will reveal enemy troops in a radius of 35." I never thought it is such a good ability, but as passive one is was ok. Not like 222. But that is something we can speak about. It's a free passive maphack. Not sure what the 222 does better. Still it's at vet 5 so nobody complains.
b. You mean "Detection-ability", yea. Same as a., it is a nice gimmick, but nothing game-destroying like UHU-bug or Soviets sight-buff abilities. No proof of soviet abilities being game destroying.
c. UHU will be changed. Now it generates normal sight. Don't forget T70 can nearlly generate same sight, SU85 can spot for itself with same sight. 80 sight is not normal sight and T70 does not get anywhere near 80 sight and neither does the su85 which also gets a small cone and a big cooldown debuff when it activates it.
d. the move + cammo was something I criticize since release of OKW. It should be a stationary ability for Jagdpanzer4. Luchs is a troll-vehicle, never heard that someone was angry because of its cammo, it has bad sight. Still there, still something very useful and unique.
Ostheer:
a. They have the sight because they suck at fighing (maybe worst fighting unit for its price) and Ostheer lacks in sight units. Instead of giving them something else they made Pios be recoons-troups. I am no fan of that too. Better remove Scope, give 222 same sight-ability as T70. Pios are perfectly fine and the 222 is perfectly fine as is. Stock T70 sight would be a huge buff that would be unfair.
c. German recoon is worst ingame. Let me explain: Alliis AA is way more potential as Ostheer's and OKW's.
You don't believe? Testing it needs you 10 min. Yeah the Quad AA is OP at shooting down planes, that's got nothing to do with UKF/USF AA and the Soviet player doesn't always get the quad AA in 1v1.
 |
|
|
697 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
