KV1's and KV8's main gun penetration

Point here is neither the current KV-8 solution […] proved to be very successful.

Says who? The KV-8 is fairly popular (in teamgames) and can be quite devastating in certain scenarios. I've barely seen anyone complain about either its current power or its availability.

Point is anyway that downgrading or upgrading a unit's performance and cost only works if that then puts it in a more unique position within the faction's roster. The KV-8 currently already holds a unique position as an expensive but very effective AI specialist. Moving its cost/performance down would make it have to compete with either the T-70, the T-34/76 or the T-34/85 which all already have excellent AI power for their respective costs, and I don't see how that would improve anything.

Says who? The KV-8 is fairly popular (in teamgames) and can be quite devastating in certain scenarios. I've barely seen anyone complain about either its current power or its availability.

Point is anyway that downgrading or upgrading a unit's performance and cost only works if that then puts it in a more unique position within the faction's roster. The KV-8 currently already holds a unique position as an expensive but very effective AI specialist. Moving its cost/performance down would make it have to compete with either the T-70, the T-34/76 or the T-34/85 which all already have excellent AI power for their respective costs, and I don't see how that would improve anything.

Agreed. KV8 is fine as it is. It's cancerous, the weapon switching but also seldom. In realistic scenarios you won't fight a solo ostwind where KV8 can fire the 45mm uninterrupted and maybe destroy it (which would take a while).

KV8 has great AI performance, is expensive and can be used as a tanky frontliner against encampments and infantry blobs.

Leave it.

Says who? The KV-8 is fairly popular (in teamgames) and can be quite devastating in certain scenarios. I've barely seen anyone complain about either its current power or its availability.

I am under the impression that it see less action than it used to before it was patches

Point is anyway that downgrading or upgrading a unit's performance and cost only works if that then puts it in a more unique position within the faction's roster. The KV-8 currently already holds a unique position as an expensive but very effective AI specialist. Moving its cost/performance down would make it have to compete with either the T-70, the T-34/76 or the T-34/85 which all already have excellent AI power for their respective costs, and I don't see how that would improve anything.

Flame vehicles and units with ballistic guns work differently and each has its advantages and disadvantage. They are different and they are map depended than anything else.

Oddly that was the path that was chosen by the same MOD team for hezter although the PzIV already has excellent AI.

Seeing less action is fine. Metas change, and more importantly the balance team has been doing a great job of reviving dead units and commanders. What's important is that it IS seen, does its job well and people are not complaining one way or the other about it. This is the first thread about it in a good while and it's a result of Stat comparing not even gameplay.

I am under the impression that it see less action than it used to before it was patches


Flame vehicles and units with ballistic guns work differently and each has its advantages and disadvantage. They are different and they are map depended than anything else.

Oddly that was the path that was chosen by the same MOD team for hezter although the PzIV already has excellent AI.

I don't think Sander needs explaining how different weapon types work, mate... And by saying that Hetzer and KV8 got different treatments, you imply that the factions they are in have similar units. That's just wrong.

Your proposal would not change anything on map dependency. Downscaling cost and performance just clutters Soviets comparatively light tanks. At the moment it is a beefy AI specialist, something that Soviets lack in their stock rooster. Just like Soviets lack anything beefy in their stock rooster, that's why literally all their doctrinal tanks (maybe with the exception of the lend lease Sherman) are heavier than anything they could usually field.

The Hetzer just collides somewhat with the Luchs, a unit that OKW does not even have if they go for T1. OKW already has a beefy tank unit with okay AI (the P4 as you said), so why move the Hetzer into the same spot?

Of course the unit can still work like that, but giving them a distinct role is just the straight up better option.

I don't think Sander needs explaining how different weapon types work, mate... And by saying that Hetzer and KV8 got different treatments, you imply that the factions they are in have similar units. That's just wrong.

Well if one argues about overlap between a flame tank and main battle, I have to poin out the diffidences.

Actually I was the one that pointed that OKW and Soviet do not have similar units...

Your proposal would not change anything on map dependency.

Not it would not but it would make KV-8 less of investment, so less of risk and thus a better choice on certain map.

Downscaling cost and performance just clutters Soviets comparatively light tanks.

I do not see how KV-8 overlap with soviet light tanks but even if it would I do not think it would a bad thing especially after reading again and again, how much soviet are depended on the T-70.

On the other hand KV-8 was fine for a long time before it was patched and there is little indication that the proposed changed would cause problems. On the contrary one might actually have more reason to built SU-76 and support his KV-8s

At the moment it is a beefy AI specialist, something that Soviets lack in their stock rooster. Just like Soviets lack anything beefy in their stock rooster, that's why literally all their doctrinal tanks (maybe with the exception of the lend lease Sherman) are heavier than anything they could usually field.

And if we accept that if it become cheaper it will overlap with t-34/76 we have to accept that now it overlaps with KV-1.

The Hetzer just collides somewhat with the Luchs, a unit that OKW does not even have if they go for T1. OKW already has a beefy tank unit with okay AI (the P4 as you said), so why move the Hetzer into the same spot?

Of course the unit can still work like that, but giving them a distinct role is just the straight up better option.

My suggestion for hezter (and other specialized units) is to become call-in and thus increase built diversity.

Well if one argues about overlap between a flame tank and main battle, I have to poin out the diffidences.

Actually I was the one that pointed that OKW and Soviet do not have similar units...


Not it would not but it would make KV-8 less of investment, so less of risk and thus a better choice on certain map.



I do not see how KV-8 overlap with soviet light tanks but even if it would I do not think it would a bad thing especially after reading again and again, how much soviet are depended on the T-70.

On the other hand KV-8 was fine for a long time before it was patched and there is little indication that the proposed changed would cause problems. On the contrary one might actually have more reason to built SU-76 and support his KV-8s


And if we accept that if it become cheaper it will overlap with t-34/76 we have to accept that now it overlaps with KV-1.


My suggestion for hezter (and other specialized units) is to become call-in and thus increase built diversity.

You are self contradicting yourself:
You complained that the KV8 and Hetzer got different treatments, which made sense if OKW and SOV had similar roosters. Now you stress that it was you pointing out that they don't. So why complain that the two flame tanks got positioned differently in different factions?

Flame tanks are mostly chosen on more narrow and urban maps, regardless of their position. It would also make the KV8 a worse choice on slightly more open maps where it still functions at the moment, because some of that armor/health would need to go as well, and TDs are better in open spaces. The unit will still stay map dependent.
If you make it cheaper to more LV level SOV has the choice of two AI specialists. Usually only one of those will be build, therefore they are in competition with each other and this also decreases unit diversity. SU76 is not seen because of lacking synergy, but because SOV has better options at every stage of the game. Otherwise we would see more T70 SU76 combos, but we don't. Even at my rank people understand that you throw a game like that. If you put it closer to T4 vehicles, overlap with the T34 is not as hard as with the T70, but still you get a T34 mostly because you want some form of AI capability, because the tank is quite efficient in that regard.

Regarding you KV1 argument: That is nonsense. You compare a stock vehicle with a doctrinal one that can never be built together with a KV8. You will never have the choice of "do I build a KV8 or a KV1", so unit diversity will not decrease. Yes, both units are beefy, but that's about it.

And what does call in have to do with build diversity? Because you want to make them independent of OKW T1/2?

You are self contradicting yourself:
You complained that the KV8 and Hetzer got different treatments, which made sense if OKW and SOV had similar roosters. Now you stress that it was you pointing out that they don't. So why complain that the two flame tanks got positioned differently in different factions?

I am not complaining that the two tank got different treatment, I am not even the one the brought up hezter. Sander did bring up the hezter. I simply point out that the theory that making the KV-8 cheaper would not work since making it cheaper has already been chosen by the same team for the hezter.


Actually I have posted several times that imo there is little reason for specialized vehicles like KV-8/hezter/ostwind/C.Panzer to require buildings.

Flame tanks are mostly chosen on more narrow and urban maps, regardless of their position. It would also make the KV8 a worse choice on slightly more open maps where it still functions at the moment, because some of that armor/health would need to go as well, and TDs are better in open spaces. The unit will still stay map dependent.

I am not sure why we even we keep debating the issue. I have clearly said that flame tank are map depended.

If you make it cheaper to more LV level SOV has the choice of two AI specialists.

This argument make absolutely no sense. KV-8 was cheaper because it had not tech cost and it did not overlap with light vehicles. If it need T4 it will overlap with T-70 as much as T-34/76 does.

Usually only one of those will be build, therefore they are in competition with each other and this also decreases unit diversity. SU76 is not seen because of lacking synergy, but because SOV has better options at every stage of the game. Otherwise we would see more T70 SU76 combos, but we don't. Even at my rank people understand that you throw a game like that. If you put it closer to T4 vehicles, overlap with the T34 is not as hard as with the T70, but still you get a T34 mostly because you want some form of AI capability, because the tank is quite efficient in that regard.

Again a SU-76/KV-8 would be an alternative to two T-34/76

Regarding you KV1 argument: That is nonsense. You compare a stock vehicle with a doctrinal one that can never be built together with a KV8. You will never have the choice of "do I build a KV8 or a KV1", so unit diversity will not decrease. Yes, both units are beefy, but that's about it.

No but one does ask, should I get a commander with KV-1 or KV-8?

And what does call in have to do with build diversity? Because you want to make them independent of OKW T1/2?

Because KV-8/Hezter/Ostwind they would become independent of T4.