Medium TDs will need more accuracy

-

The change is wierd.

Imo the "super heavy" (unit limited to 1) should have their size increased and "heavy TDs" have their accuracy reduced (and their accuracy bonuses removed).

The problem lies with Super heavies/"heavy TDs" and not with units bellow them.

The change is wierd.

Imo the "super heavy" (unit limited to 1) should have their size increased and "heavy TDs" have their accuracy reduced (and their accuracy bonuses removed).

Exactly, the Heavy TDs should have their accuracy nerfed, target sizes should be left alone.

nerfing the heavy TD acc woudnt be enough. Becouse they also wanted to nerf the double pak heavy stall in some way (which is far more dominant then TD spam in 1vs1), without making paks completly useless vs light vehicles

nerfing the heavy TD acc woudnt be enough. Becouse they also wanted to nerf the double pak heavy stall in some way (which is far more dominant then TD spam in 1vs1), without making paks completly useless vs light vehicles

ATG vs mediums have where fine for years why open a new wound?

Nerfing "heavy TDs" accuracy might not "be enough" but it is step in the right direction.

ATG vs mediums have where fine for years why open a new wound?

Nerfing "heavy TDs" accuracy might not "be enough" but it is step in the right direction.

It's always been quite easy to double tap mediums with 2 AT guns, it's part of the reason why heavies are so popular. I think the balance team made a good choice in reducing the target size of mediums.

ATG vs mediums have where fine for years why open a new wound?

Nerfing "heavy TDs" accuracy might not "be enough" but it is step in the right direction.

Wild guess: because 2x AT gun allow stalling for those call in vehicles.

I don't care what the excuses are. The balance team lacks the IQ to see the knock on effects of what target size reduction of all mediums does, ie. unintentionally nerfing medium TDs. Just like the rifle buff fucked over grens and agrens and that volks were the offending unit and should have received a REAL nerf instead. Which is probably why they overbuffed cons, just so they could compete with volks, while again, fucking over ostheer.

ATG vs mediums have where fine for years why open a new wound?

They aren't, and have never been. Double ATG is so good at fighting off medium tanks that I consider it one of the main reasons players go straight for a heavy instead, now that heavies are viable. It's so easy to make a small mistake and lose a medium to double ATGs, so players choose the reliability of heavy durability instead. The target size buff is meant to make mediums better against ATGs as well as TDs, so messing with the TD accuracy (which would also make them worse against all other vehicles and buildings) is not a solution for the intended goal here.

They aren't, and have never been. Double ATG is so good at fighting off medium tanks that I consider it one of the main reasons players go straight for a heavy instead, now that heavies are viable. It's so easy to make a small mistake and lose a medium to double ATGs, so players choose the reliability of heavy durability instead. The target size buff is meant to make mediums better against ATGs as well as TDs, so messing with the TD accuracy (which would also make them worse against all other vehicles and buildings) is not a solution for the intended goal here.

Yet the changes does not affect all ATG the same:

Zis no accuracy bonuses
Pak 40 no accuracy bonuses
M1 accuracy bonus vet 2
RW no accuracy bonuses
6p accuracy bonus vet 3

In addition it affect the main guns of tank and hand held rockets while the effect on TDs are again unequal:
Su-76 accuracy vet 2
Stug no accuracy
JP accuracy vet 2 vet 4 (vet 5 first strike)

"heavy TDs"
SU-85 vet 2
Panther no accuracy bonuses
FF accuracy vet 3
M36 vet 2

And that means that SU-85/FF/M36/JP gap if effectiveness vs ATG will be greater and their will simply be more reason to build these unit instead of other form of AT.

The goal should be to have less reliance on "heavy TDs" not more.

And my point is that you are actually opening a new wound without fixing the previous one.

Finally if ATGs are the issue lower their accuracy since this change affect many more things other than ATGs.

ATGs are being decrewed so oft, I don't think their vet is much of a concern on the long run.

They aren't, and have never been. Double ATG is so good at fighting off medium tanks that I consider it one of the main reasons players go straight for a heavy instead, now that heavies are viable. It's so easy to make a small mistake and lose a medium to double ATGs, so players choose the reliability of heavy durability instead. The target size buff is meant to make mediums better against ATGs as well as TDs, so messing with the TD accuracy (which would also make them worse against all other vehicles and buildings) is not a solution for the intended goal here.

My 5 cents. It is because some at guns are too cheap and number of at solutions too easily accesible. Originally, after you invested too much in the at departament, you would get run over by infantry. Building 2 at guns would make you super vulnerable to infantry rushes. It can still be done to ostheer once they buy 2 320mp 4crew members paks (that is 640 manpower and fragile crews). Unfortunately, Soviet ZiS can effectively fend off infantry on its own and has 6 men crew making it harder to decrew it. Thus, players don't risk much if they build it as it can help them deal with its counters. US at gun is just 270 plus they can equip bazookas on everything, even without tech they have some bazookas option. Double raks also don't make you that manpower poor and now they got extra crewmember. There are penals with satchels and guards with free at rifles. Hoorah at grenade cons, and snares everywhere. On top of that there are tank destroyers. Such density of at solutions that don't cripple your anti infantry capabilities much, means that mediums will always be easily killed. The solution would be to make sure at guns are at least 320 manpower and ZiS with all its abilities should be even more expensive or just have crew reduced to 5 plus anty infantry barrage moved to vet 1. Players building at guns should always feel it in the infantry combat department. On top of that those cheap squads should have some reduced bazooka capabilities to make players actually use those elite squads for AT duties again making sure they can't have the best of both worlds at the same time.

They aren't, and have never been. Double ATG is so good at fighting off medium tanks that I consider it one of the main reasons players go straight for a heavy instead, now that heavies are viable. It's so easy to make a small mistake and lose a medium to double ATGs, so players choose the reliability of heavy durability instead. The target size buff is meant to make mediums better against ATGs as well as TDs, so messing with the TD accuracy (which would also make them worse against all other vehicles and buildings) is not a solution for the intended goal here.

Well since you're on the bal team, Sander, please consider my proposal to buff accuracy of medium TDs. Remember the last time u guys touched the Stug, you reduced the target size of the Stug - that was MY idea. Others wanted a major buff, like more armor. That would've sent the allied crybabies in a fit of rage. But my idea, of course, was the RIGHT idea.

Finally if ATGs are the issue lower their accuracy since this change affect many more things other than ATGs.

Lowering their accuracy would make them worse against everything, which is not the goal. The goal is solely to make mediums more viable. Ergo, medium target size is being buffed as that is the only thing solely affecting medium durability.

Well since you're on the bal team, Sander, please consider my proposal to buff accuracy of medium TDs.

It's a fair point. With all the other changes this is something we didn't really get a proper look at. I will bring it up with the team for consideration.

Lowering their accuracy would make them worse against everything, which is not the goal. The goal is solely to make mediums more viable. Ergo, medium target size is being buffed as that is the only thing solely affecting medium durability.

Only it does not because as I have posted heavy TDs like the SU-85/FF/M36 are less effected especially if vetted and that would make them an even better choice.

They aren't, and have never been. Double ATG is so good at fighting off medium tanks that I consider it one of the main reasons players go straight for a heavy instead, now that heavies are viable. It's so easy to make a small mistake and lose a medium to double ATGs, so players choose the reliability of heavy durability instead. The target size buff is meant to make mediums better against ATGs as well as TDs, so messing with the TD accuracy (which would also make them worse against all other vehicles and buildings) is not a solution for the intended goal here.

Back when I was bad I used to just spam jacksons because I didn't want to get yeeted by double paks or double creeping raks wtih little to no counterplay.

They aren't, and have never been. Double ATG is so good at fighting off medium tanks that I consider it one of the main reasons players go straight for a heavy instead, now that heavies are viable. It's so easy to make a small mistake and lose a medium to double ATGs, so players choose the reliability of heavy durability instead. The target size buff is meant to make mediums better against ATGs as well as TDs, so messing with the TD accuracy (which would also make them worse against all other vehicles and buildings) is not a solution for the intended goal here.

You can always make AT guns cost more pop and more mp to buy, but better in doing their job. So if the zis3 was for instance 400mp-450mp and more population and had better pen, damage and accuracy then it would be much harder to go double ATs but the one AT can still do its job nicely and a niche would open up for the Su76 for example or handheld AT in axis side.

You can always make AT guns cost more pop and more mp to buy, but better in doing their job. So if the zis3 was for instance 400mp-450mp and more population and had better pen, damage and accuracy then it would be much harder to go double ATs but the one AT can still do its job nicely and a niche would open up for the Su76 for example or handheld AT in axis side.

Lol yes, let's make raketen cost 400 manpower.

going double ATG is also very risky, you have micro and turtle around the map alot, very venerable to flanks, arty and infantry and cant cover large sections of the map. Using med tanks is alot easier and less micro intensive in the mid game then going double paks.

Mediums shouldn't be made better VS ATG's that would be stupid. Mediums should be made more effective vs heavy TD's