[Winter Balance Update] OKW Feedback

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:03 PMLady Xenarra

Luchs does indeed seem rather too good at shooting through garrisons now even with the lower baseline aoe compared to the T-70. Tightrope's v4 video had some concerns and a table of the comparisons. Not sure what is the overall thoughts towards it.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:10 PMVipper

Luch and T-70 use different mechanisms. T-70 use AOE while luch accuracy.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:11 PMgbem

it should not be outperforming the T-70 period... the T-70 costs more and already got a hefty nerf

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:13 PMSander93

The Luchs is still considerably worse while chasing or when firing from the other side of heavy cover. Or against vehicles. It's faster. And all this for a mere 10 more fuel.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:10 PMVipper

Luch and T-70 use different mechanisms. T-70 use AOE while luch accuracy.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:46 PMLady Xenarra

While this is true, even with the narrow end of the house Tightrope used, they were still demolished faster.

That said, I haven't seen tests done vs heavy cover (which typically clumps units together or in a nice line) so maybe T-70 still comes out on top which would be fine. Houses generally don't last long anyway.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:54 PMVipper

If you are talking about garrison that is probably the combination of high fire rate and damage all in hold.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:30 PMgbem

yes the luchs is 10 fuel (14.3%) cheaper than the T-70 while being quite superior against infantry in open (nonclustered) or against heavy cover (post T-70 nerf) in exchange for being worse vs vehicles...


but then the T-34 is 30 fuel (25%) cheaper than the P4 but is inferior to the P4 against armor and infantry... but yeah the T-34 is soo OP we need to nerf it!...


and then you also have to consider that light armor is mostly intended to fight infantry... having a light armor generalist isnt gonna do you good since armor saturation begins in the medium tank phase/lategame.... having the T-70 perform worse than the luchs vs infantry is nonsense

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:30 PMgbem

but then the T-34 is 30 fuel (25%) cheaper than the P4 but is inferior to the P4 against armor and infantry... but yeah the T-34 is soo OP we need to nerf it!...

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:30 PMgbem

and then you also have to consider that light armor is mostly intended to fight infantry... having a light armor generalist isnt gonna do you good since armor saturation begins in the medium tank phase/lategame.... having the T-70 perform worse than the luchs vs infantry is nonsense

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:13 PMSander93

The Luchs is still considerably worse while chasing, or when firing from the other side of heavy cover. Or against vehicles. It's faster too. And all this for a mere 10 more fuel.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:13 PMSander93

The Luchs is still considerably worse while chasing, or when firing from the other side of heavy cover. Or against vehicles. It's faster too. And all this for a mere 10 more fuel.

OKW:

Starting: SP (300mp) + 320mp = 620mp

Truck: 70/15

BHQ: 150/10
Unit upgrade: 100/20
Medic: 50/10
Retreat: 250

MechHQ: 200/45
Repair: 100/15

FlakHQ: 100/90
Upgrade: 100/30

Mech only: 270/60
ISG only/Medics/Mechanized: 540/95

-10f

SU:

Starting: CE (170mp) + 390mp = 560mp

T1: 160/10
T2: 160/15

Medics: 200
Grenade: 150/15

T3: 240/85
Upgrade: 100/20

T4: 240/90

T2, medic, grenade, T3: 750/115
Going Mobilize: 850/135

T1, medic, T3: 600/95
Going + T2: 760/110

-20f

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 19:16 PMOlfin

Then , if we follow your logic , lets make T34-85 cost more than P4 ausf because it out perform it and cheaper,

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 19:16 PMOlfin

and lets remove the ability to cap from T70 and reduce its ability to fight vehicles and make it better against infantry in cover and reduce its cost or maybe just make it another copy of Panzer2 but with other skin.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 19:39 PMOlfin

30 fuel is alot actually.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 19:42 PMOlfin

Not true - they are intended to fight infantry and other light armors such as luchs and 222.

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 20:57 PMelchino7

What's the timing and resources invested to get one compared to the other?

I'm all in to make T70 equal to the P2, if that means that T3 arrives at the same time as other factions light vehicles. Which would make the Su76 actually good at countering other light vehicles in the same fashion as the AEC/Stuart/Puma before you get too much bleed.


Edit: added cost for comparison.
You need to discount the -10f and -20f respectively. To make it complete i also added the initial mp + starting unit mp value.

Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 13:32 PMgbem

the T-34-85 does not outperform the P4J... its more reliable since it reliably tanks an additional shot through hp as opposed to armor... but the P4J shoots faster and is better vs infantry


also im all in for the T-34-85 to cost 140 fuel... just make it available nondoctrinally at T4...



sure... then reduce the T-70s cost to 60 and reduce T3 cost to 40 fuel... then lock 7 man behind T3 instead of mobilize reserves...



yes and the soviets have to pay alot more than 30 fuel due to retarded sidetechs... which have been only band aided as opposed to addressed entirely




do you know what saturation means or does that king tiger profile picture of yours cloud your thinking?

Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 13:42 PMgbem

its 50 for sov afaik

OKW to mech HQ = 15 + 45 (truck and hq)

SOV to T3 = 10 + 15 + 85 (t1/2 nade and T3)

50 fuel difference as of V4...

60 fuel as of live...

Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 14:27 PMOlfin

From what u said , your problem is with the Soviet tech and the T70 , not with P2 being better in killing garrisoned infantry , so I advice u to post your thoughts in Soviet thread not here.