Why would nerfing the M3 against small arms fire be a good idea? I am confused.
Think it sis more about lowering the armor and making damage less RNG and less about the overal resistance.
M3 has superior armor compared to vehicles of its class.
When are Panzerfusiliers getting nerfed?
2 Dec 2020, 18:02 PM
#61
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Think it sis more about lowering the armor and making damage less RNG and less about the overal resistance.
M3 has superior armor compared to vehicles of its class.
2 Dec 2020, 18:24 PM
#62
Posts: 14
Something I've been trying recently with pfusiliers is to get a Storm officer that force retreats allied mgs when I run into them. The force retreat range is surprisingly large and it makes the pfusilier blob even stronger.
I don't necessarily think this is a problem though, I feel like G43 pfusiliers are just about as strong as allied elite infantry. It's nice to have a squad with a bit more defense (i.e. models) against indirect fire. Overall very solid squad but doesn't make them overpowered.
I don't necessarily think this is a problem though, I feel like G43 pfusiliers are just about as strong as allied elite infantry. It's nice to have a squad with a bit more defense (i.e. models) against indirect fire. Overall very solid squad but doesn't make them overpowered.
2 Dec 2020, 18:43 PM
#63
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
Why would nerfing the M3 against small arms fire be a good idea? I am confused.
It actually makes a lot of sense because the main problem with balancing the M3 is that one opposing faction has access to early fausts and the other doesn't. So making fausts no longer a "necessity" to counter it while improving other aspects is a smart move.
2 Dec 2020, 18:43 PM
#64
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
So it can be changed to survive a mine, get shared veterancy and get capping at vet 2.
I am confused as to why it has to survive a mine? No ultra light vehicle should survive a s-mine IMO.
You could have just added capping as a vet 2 bonus and keep it as it is otherwise. Lowering its eHP against small arms fire seems weird.
2 Dec 2020, 18:47 PM
#65
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I am confused as to why it has to survive a mine? No ultra light vehicle should survive a s-mine IMO.
You could have just added capping as a vet 2 bonus and keep it as it is otherwise. Lowering its eHP against small arms fire seems weird.
Kubel and WC51 have no troubles survivng mines.
This is why.
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.
2 Dec 2020, 18:48 PM
#66
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
Kubel and WC51 have no troubles survivng mines.
This is why.
Yes and both should die when hitting a mine even at full HP. Which is what I just pointed out if you took the time to read everything I wrote.
2 Dec 2020, 19:08 PM
#67
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
It actually makes a lot of sense because the main problem with balancing the M3 is that one opposing faction has access to early fausts and the other doesn't. So making fausts no longer a "necessity" to counter it while improving other aspects is a smart move.
It makes sense as long as the buffs are enough to make the unit viable which i don't think are enough, specially when PF exist and the time frame at which the unit remains viable is so short.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
2 Dec 2020, 19:13 PM
#68
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
It makes sense as long as the buffs are enough to make the unit viable which i don't think are enough, specially when PF exist and the time frame at which the unit remains viable is so short.
T1 as a whole needs buffs. (see my post in Soviet thread) I don't think the M3 itself really requires more buffs. It's just that by going T1 -> Penal -> M3 you enter a total dead end once axis LVs hit. The fact that the opponent can just spot your T1 in the FOW and react accordingly immediately (-> Füsil second unit, blob his grens) doesn't help either. Not sure if fixable.
2 Dec 2020, 19:18 PM
#69
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Imo m3 could lose the fuel and the ability for passenger to shoot.
Allowing passenger to shoot could be an upgrade for 15-30 mu.
The change would make the unit cheaper while also delaying shock value.
M3 and similar unit could also have pop reduced with vet level so they are less of pop drain in late game.
Allowing passenger to shoot could be an upgrade for 15-30 mu.
The change would make the unit cheaper while also delaying shock value.
M3 and similar unit could also have pop reduced with vet level so they are less of pop drain in late game.
2 Dec 2020, 19:25 PM
#70
Posts: 1594
T1 as a whole needs buffs. (see my post in Soviet thread) I don't think the M3 itself really requires more buffs. It's just that by going T1 -> Penal -> M3 you enter a total dead end once axis LVs hit. The fact that the opponent can just spot your T1 in the FOW and react accordingly immediately (-> Füsil second unit, blob his grens) doesn't help either. Not sure if fixable.
Honestly I think Penals need entirely rebalancing and reworking to be a workable line infantry alternative to Conscripts, and then removing from Tier 1 and placing in tier 0. They would be replaced by some alternative unit that might make Tier 1 attractive over Tier 2, and provide an alternative pathway to an AT solution. (MicroAT gun? 120mm mortar(Doesn't fix the AT issues)? Non-doctrinal Guard variant with more a focus on AT?).
I have some vague ideas as to what Penals might look like as an unit in this scenario, but it's a large change that would probably require more work than can be expected from the balance team, or allowed by Lelic.
2 Dec 2020, 19:26 PM
#71
Posts: 1594
Honestly I think Penals need entirely rebalancing and reworking to be a workable line infantry alternative to Conscripts, and then removing from Tier 1 and placing in tier 0. They would be replaced by some other unit that might make Tier 1 attractive over Tier 2, and provide an alternative pathway to an AT solution. (MicroAT gun? 120mm mortar(Doesn't fix the AT issues)? Non-doctrinal Guard variant with more a focus on AT?).
I have some vague ideas as to what Penals might look like as an unit in this scenario, but it's a large change that would probably require more work than can be expected from the balance team, or allowed by Lelic.
2 Dec 2020, 19:38 PM
#72
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Interesting, that's more of a difference than I had thought. The patch notes were worded as though the difference for small arms was minimal.
Its not a massive difference but definitely not minimal either. Noticeable enough that I don't think also giving earlier snares makes sense. At least until the current changes are tested
2 Dec 2020, 20:18 PM
#73
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
T1 as a whole needs buffs. (see my post in Soviet thread) I don't think the M3 itself really requires more buffs. It's just that by going T1 -> Penal -> M3 you enter a total dead end once axis LVs hit. The fact that the opponent can just spot your T1 in the FOW and react accordingly immediately (-> Füsil second unit, blob his grens) doesn't help either. Not sure if fixable.
The unit is dead against a whole faction regardless of their opening (OH going Grens or doctrinal infantry, even without snares, doesn't matter cause the 222 arrives fast) and the other one has pretty good doctrines to counter it, while still been able to hard punish the opening strat when going for a FHT.
The tier requires buffs but it's hard to justify spending fuel on the unit atm.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
2 Dec 2020, 20:31 PM
#74
Posts: 469
Elite infantry, even normal guards smokes fussiliers.
2 Dec 2020, 22:14 PM
#75
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Elite infantry, even normal guards smokes fussiliers.
It would be a problem if elite infantry couldn't "smoke" generalist, versatile mainline inf.
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.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
27 | ||
|
|
|
|
17 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
140 | ||
|
|
|
|
15 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1101614.642+2
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.271108.715+22
- 8.721440.621+3
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
798 users are online:
798 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49082
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, 23winlocker
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM