60 range TD

Oh thank goodness, it's on the radar now. I can stop assuming it'll be walls of Jacksons every game with USF forever.

A list of units this change affects:
- P4 at range above 30.
- Puma at all ranges
- OstWin at all ranges
- Command P4 at all ranges
- 222 at all ranges
- Stugie at all ranges

Fixed

You said the units this change affects, these are all the affected units.

Try to get your stat right.
PzIV penetration is
Penetration near 125
Penetration mid 115
Penetration far 110

It affect PzIv at all ranges, it all affect other vehicles like Ostwind...

Fixed

You said the units this change affects, these are all the affected units.

Ah yes, ostwind, command P4, 222, StuG-e, Puma!
How could I have forget about AT meta BO that was intended on engaging jackson frontally with these units! Silly me.

Oh thank goodness, it's on the radar now. I can stop assuming it'll be walls of Jacksons every game with USF forever.

[...] Jackson is slightly overperforming on purpose because it's the only real reliable late game AT for USF.

Obviously the SU-85's and Jackson's situation isn't ideal but tinkering with them will be very complex and have significant ripple effects, and that's not really something we want to touch at this point.

And it'll stay on radar, untouched.
So you better learn how to deal with jacksons.

And it'll stay on radar, untouched.
So you better learn how to deal with jacksons.

its not that USF have to deal with Heavy Tanks... which is historicly correct and all about the game setting in WW2.

not its about a Unit that is OP and designed to do so because the "averege USF player can handle the late game"

behold if the USF have to learn to use all his tools and not go for double Jackson.

Maybe sameday we have a game that is somehow balanced in the Tank departmend... (oh wait in COH1 there are no super OP Jacksons)

I highly advise pulling head out of your exhaust pipe area and comprehend the simple fact that other USF tools do NOT work at high enough potency to deal with the threat on hand.

so the best Pak, handheld double At on all inf, strongest rocket plane in game, premium meds in docs, a heavy Tank, AT satchels on inf, mines, snares on mainline... this all doesent do it of corse it had to be an OP TD.

Yes i konw it takes some skill... and not only park 2 Tanks near the Front.

so the best Pak, handheld double At on all inf, strongest rocket plane in game, premium meds in docs, a heavy Tank, AT satchels on inf, mines, snares on mainline... this all doesent do it of corse it had to be an OP TD.

Yes i konw it takes some skill... and not only park 2 Tanks near the Front.

So the "second" best pak, double handheld At on specialist infantry with best pen and alpha dmg, stock elite, stock super heavy, best nondoc at mine, also snare on mainline, doc super TD with 70 range,...

It certainly take some skill, not just stall in to a single super heavy for an auto win.

The same way of argument can be use from both side.

Wait what???? ah ok so the best pak ... handheld double AT on every Unit.. is not enough?

ATGs are too vulnerable in 3v3s and 4v4s late game because of an abundance of rocket and howitzer artillery. Bazookas barely scratch the paint of Panthers and heavies (except doctrinal Rangers). These are not reliable options to fight the heavier Axis armor, some of which are stock.

ATGs are too vulnerable in 3v3s and 4v4s late game because of an abundance of rocket and howitzer artillery. Bazookas barely scratch the paint of Panthers and heavies (except doctrinal Rangers). These are not reliable options to fight the heavier Axis armor, some of which are stock.

but its ok that KV8 take on double Paks? allied have by far better off map to destroy or force retreat of support weapons. And they have also howitzer and rocket arty... and heavy tanks...

sounds fair to me.

Yes they can... not frontaly but from behind. But u i think its to much for the average USF player to "go around" and circle the Tank. I know its defficult when u just A- Move all your blobbs.


So all of this shenanigan of a super OP unit... because there is a single Stock super heavy???
That comes after the what ? 30 min mark ? when there are 2 or more vetted AT guns on the field ?

Its like not that UKf and Su can coutner it.. but USF have to be the special snowflake.

but its ok that KV8 take on double Paks? allied have by far better off map to destroy or force retreat of support weapons. And they have also howitzer and rocket arty... and heavy tanks...

sounds fair to me.

Yes they can... not frontaly but from behind. But u i think its to much for the average USF player to "go around" and circle the Tank. I know its defficult when u just A- Move all your blobbs.


So all of this shenanigan of a super OP unit... because there is a single Stock super heavy???
That comes after the what ? 30 min mark ? when there are 2 or more vetted AT guns on the field ?

Its like not that UKf and Su can coutner it.. but USF have to be the special snowflake.

What about KV-8?
Just go around and circle the tank with shrecks and PaKs, don't attack it frontally with them.
You don't need panther to be so strong to take it on frontally.

allied have by far better off map to destroy or force retreat of support weapons. And they have also howitzer and rocket arty... and heavy tanks...

Yeah man, I agree, I just wish that axis faction could have howitzers, or STOCK rocket artillery, with excellent accuracy, something to wipe allied team weapons with. And maybe some off-maps to go with it, like an officer unit that can drop artillery strikes, or one big bomg dropped from plane, I dunno.

Yes they can... not frontaly but from behind. But u i think its to much for the average USF player to "go around" and circle the Tank. I know its defficult when u just A- Move all your blobbs.

With all the bitching about IS2/ISU152 I guess that "just going around" is a pretty hard concept for axis players as well.

The SU-85 does have slightly better DPM (TTK vs Panther is ~28s from the first shot, disregarding accuracy and penetrations) but it has the obvious weakness of not having a turret against a diving Panther or other vehicles.

For what it's worth I think the Firefly is balanced (hits hard but slow reload and mediocre mobility), the SU-85 is mostly balanced (although I think the selfspotting is bad because it goes against the combined arms principle of the game, even if it has a significant drawback) except for its very high penetration, and the Jackson is slightly overperforming on purpose because it's the only real reliable late game AT for USF.

Obviously the SU-85's and Jackson's situation isn't ideal but tinkering with them will be very complex and have significant ripple effects, and that's not really something we want to touch at this point.

As long as Jackson can retain the damage and pen after being nerfed, they can be balanced. Why wasn't the Jackson at least tested with more changes during the preview. Changes like, Moving acc nerf, no vehicle crew, maybe slightly less acceleration etc.

Why is ther such fear of touching anything USF have like Jacksons, pack howi etc, its like someone has you guys by the balls

ATGs are too vulnerable in 3v3s and 4v4s late game because of an abundance of rocket and howitzer artillery. Bazookas barely scratch the paint of Panthers and heavies (except doctrinal Rangers). These are not reliable options to fight the heavier Axis armor, some of which are stock.

So we're buffing howitzers why exactly then????

So we're buffing howitzers why exactly then????

Howitzers might be cancerous, but an equal or higher pop requirement compared to the Calliope, Priest and Sexton (15, 15, 14 respectively) is hard to justify for a unit that's quite easily countered with the right doctrine.

Howitzers might be cancerous, but an equal or higher pop requirement compared to the Calliope, Priest and Sexton (15, 15, 14 respectively) is hard to justify for a unit that's quite easily countered with the right doctrine.

I think that's valid, but they're also like 1/3 the cost so... in fuel at least.

The SU-85 does have slightly better DPM (TTK vs Panther is ~28s from the first shot, disregarding accuracy and penetrations) but it has the obvious weakness of not having a turret against a diving Panther or other vehicles.

For what it's worth I think the Firefly is balanced (hits hard but slow reload and mediocre mobility), the SU-85 is mostly balanced (although I think the selfspotting is bad because it goes against the combined arms principle of the game, even if it has a significant drawback) except for its very high penetration, and the Jackson is slightly overperforming on purpose because it's the only real reliable late game AT for USF.

Obviously the SU-85's and Jackson's situation isn't ideal but tinkering with them will be very complex and have significant ripple effects, and that's not really something we want to touch at this point.

I'm going to be honest; this isn't the response I was expecting. I'm aware that the problem is complicated, but it's the balance teams responsibility to work through complexity, not step away. Furthermore, "Over-performing on purpose" has never been an acceptable answer - it's at best a temporary solution, but it should never be the solution.

For the sake of discussion, let's ignore the FF, since it's rarely brought up in these discussions: it's generally M36/Su85/Panther. Also, I agree that the FF is pretty much balanced, for the reasons you listed.

Regarding the SU85, you've said that its self-spotting is bad game design, and that its high pen (especially with vet) is also unbalanced; so why aren't these things being addressed? I concede that changing unit base stats can be complicated, but I don't see how nerfing the SU85's Vet 2 "+30% penetration" and/or its vet 3 "+20% reload speed" would cause issues.

At vet 0, the SU85's 220 far pen (60 range) gives it an 85% chance to pen panthers, and once it hits vet 2, it'll pen a Panther 100% of the time. Then, once it hits vet 3, its reload time drops to 4.53 sec.

If we use the Panther to compare, it only gains a +10% armor bonus at vet 2. This means that once the SU85 hits vet 2, the Panther's armor becomes irrelevant (260 -> 286). At both vet 0 and vet 3, the SU85 will pen it 100% of the time. Ideally, the increase in armor should match the increase in pen, so that losing a unit becomes impactful, rather than the current state, where it's a "race to vet". Finally, if we assume a pair of vet 3 SU85s (this seems common), that means a TTK vs. a vet 3 panther is 9.06 seconds - which is far, far too fast.

Dropping the SU85's vet 2 pen bonus to +10% would remedy this problem, as would reducing the Vet 3 reload bonus (the JP4's vet 4 bonus is +15%).

As for the M36, as you pointed out, its USF's only source of late-game AT. Why not change this? It's been suggested several times (there are other threads, but I'm linking my own) that giving USF a "medium TD" (for example, a massively adjusted non-doc M10) would fix several problems at once:

• it would allow the M36 to specialize into an "anti-heavy" role
  
• it would give USF access to an early TD (similar to the STUG)
  
• it would give mediums more room to breath.
  
• it would fix the M36's "scaling" issue, where it ends up countering everything exceptionally well

ATGs are too vulnerable in 3v3s and 4v4s late game because of an abundance of rocket and howitzer artillery. Bazookas barely scratch the paint of Panthers and heavies (except doctrinal Rangers). These are not reliable options to fight the heavier Axis armor, some of which are stock.

As ShadowLinkx37 asked; then why is arty being buffed this patch (pop from 15 to 13)? If ATGs are too vulnerable, resulting in the constant TD vs TD spam we've seen (especially in team-games), why aren't ATGs being made more viable in late-game (likely by nerfing arty)?

Howitzers might be cancerous, but an equal or higher pop requirement compared to the Calliope, Priest and Sexton (15, 15, 14 respectively) is hard to justify for a unit that's quite easily countered with the right doctrine.

Then those units should have their pop increased instead.

Aaaand
/thread

As I have said, there comes a time, where "balance" problem becomes "L2P" problem and 60range TDs are the latter now.

Sander's has literally just said that they're over performing.

SU-85 is mostly balanced (although I think the selfspotting is bad [...]) except for its very high penetration, and the Jackson is slightly overperforming

I'm not sure how you construe this as "it's balanced, L2P". It's more "it's a bit OP, but very, very complicated to change", which isn't even close to similar.

Why do people only discuss troll posts

When I make a non-troll post nobody replies or discusses but I make a troll post and 3 people reply

Why do people only discuss troll posts

When I make a non-troll post nobody replies or discusses but I make a troll post and 3 people reply

It's easier to dismiss a troll post. It's harder to debate a post with real arguments.