KV1

The KV-1's performance has been on most peoples' radar for much longer, ever since players started using it more and more during the past year. It has been pretty dominant in 2v2 games and automatch 1v1. But borderline overperforming doctrinal units were not part of the scope of the recent balance patch, which only focussed on the core armies and highly problematic meta doctrinal units/abilities. Next patch will be commander focussed, and the KV-1 will definitely need to be looked at because it's clear it needs a small adjustment to be a bit less cost effective.

Spec flares have been OP since forever and your last comment about it was "yeah but that what keep the commander useful so we don't nerf it". What would you do to keep KV1 commander relevant if you nerf those?

Spec flares have been OP since forever and your last comment about it was "yeah but that what keep the commander useful so we don't nerf it". What would you do to keep KV1 commander relevant if you nerf those?

I'm absolutely expecting SpecOps flares to be retouched in the commander patch, to be fair.

Spec flares have been OP since forever and your last comment about it was "yeah but that what keep the commander useful so we don't nerf it". What would you do to keep KV1 commander relevant if you nerf those?

We didn't want to nerf/remove the flares because at the time the commander already took some hits, mostly with the Command Panther nerfs. I learned from the past and I'm always against more than 2 changes (nerfs) to any unit or commander at once, and then I'd rather wait for the results before changing more.

By now we know that SpecOps is still pretty good, especially with the recent rise in popularity of Radio Silence, so it's safe to have a look at the flares. They will very likely get changed next patch.


As for the KV-1, the damage reduction removal (and increasing stock health accordingly) should be enough of a small adjustment to make it a bit less oppressive. I think that's all it needs and it should still be competitive afterwards. In any case, all commanders are going to be looked at in the upcoming patch so if they need something in return, the door is open.

We didn't want to nerf/remove the flares because at the time the commander already took some hits, mostly with the Command Panther nerfs. I learned from the past and I'm always against more than 2 changes (nerfs) to any unit or commander at once, and wait for the results before changing more.

By now we know that SpecOps is still pretty good, especially with the recent rise in popularity of Radio Silence, so it's safe to have a look at the flares. They will very likely get changed next patch.


As for the KV-1, the damage reduction removal (and increasing stock health accordingly) should be enough of a small adjustment to make it a bit less oppressive. I think that's all it needs and it should still be competitive afterwards. In any case, all commanders are going to be looked at in the upcoming patch so if they need something in return, the door is open.

If the timing remain the same its base armor should be reduced and be moved to vet bonus instead.

It already start with more armor than the higher tech/more expensive Churchill and a heavy tank should be getting durability vet bonuses instead of mobility ones.

...so it's safe to have a look at the flares. They will very likely get changed next patch.

This ability has to go really, same as UKF Early Warnings. Both abilities have the problem that they are borderline op in teamgames. You can give uncounterable constant vision which isn't even obstructed by sight blockers. Plane loiters like Stuka CAS and P-47 get extremely strong with it as well as some offmap artilleries which get way better with sight. This two abilities are the only ones of that type that are somehow effective and spammable. That has to go please. I would rather think of buffing other abilities.

As for the KV-1...

Its the basic damage sponge design that is problematic. Trade health/armor versus penetration and it can be balanced easily.

800 HP is maybe indeed a bit too little, but as others already said, it has very good armor. A P4 cannot break through against it, 880 HP would ensure that you can't double snare it. At the time it comes out the only real counter is an ATG, so it will still be a decent addition for your mid game and the late game is all about synergy with the SU85 anyway.

That's fair, but German end-game is the Panther and you should be preparing for that. SU-85 works, T-34-85 is not ideal but can survive (not thrive) with good micro. A KV-1 with high armor and 800HP can't do any good against a Panther, the T-34-85 would be better every time.

You should not try to fight the most stock AT vehicle with a cheaper tank to begin with.

Soviets do not have an equivalent to the Panther, the only thing that comes close in any faction is the Comet.

That's fair, but German end-game is the Panther and you should be preparing for that. SU-85 works, T-34-85 is not ideal but can survive (not thrive) with good micro. A KV-1 with high armor and 800HP can't do any good against a Panther, the T-34-85 would be better every time.

Buffing a unit because there is better alternative is a bad choice. KV-2 was buff because IS-2 was better and not people are asking to buff the IS-2 because KV-2 is better. This simply lead to power creep.

T-34/85 is should not be used as benchmark because it one of the most cost efficient main battle tanks (if not the most cost efficient) and it should probably see a price increase or AI nerf.

To make things even worse in 2 out of 3 commander it available other powerful abilities are included.

...
Soviets do not have an equivalent to the Panther, the only thing that comes close in any faction is the Comet.

And Ostheer do not the equivalent of SU-85, M36 or FF. Different faction get different tools. As for Comet that is main battle tank while Panther is AT vehicle so they are not that close.

KV-1 is tank and judging its performance on how good it does vs a higher tier more expensive AT vehicle does not say much about the unit.

In its current implementation, for 5 fuel more, one gets a Tank that beat PzIV J hands down while having the same POP.

I have not suggested that it should get 800 HP but the unit should have higher Pop and if its timing remains the same it should have its base durability stat (HP/Armor) reduce and gain durability via veterancy.

the DR-to-HP conversion is absolutely reasonable considering combat engineers don't repair at a snail's pace anymore. other than that i'd say the KV-1 is fine and should only receive minor adjustments, if any. maybe a tiny fuel increase, but that's about as far as i'd go.

iirc p4 had higher rear armor that allowed it to trade better against kv tanks

sov was to complement their t34 su76 with kv tanks.

Compare the 85 and kv-1 to the t34/76 because it's the tank they are competing against for cost efficiency. Not panzer 4s. There is other factors at work for p4s (faction design and balance offsets) but the truest comparison is the t34/76 and if we can agree that the 76 is roughly balanced against the p4s (which I'd say it is) then it's replacements, when balanced against the 76 are performing as they should for their price point in that faction. The kv is like 50% more fuel than a t34/76. One would expect it to perform accordingly.

Compare the 85 and kv-1 to the t34/76 because it's the tank they are competing against for cost efficiency. Not panzer 4s. There is other factors at work for p4s (faction design and balance offsets) but the truest comparison is the t34/76 and if we can agree that the 76 is roughly balanced against the p4s (which I'd say it is) then it's replacements, when balanced against the 76 are performing as they should for their price point in that faction. The kv is like 50% more fuel than a t34/76. One would expect it to perform accordingly.

Units should not be balanced against other unit of the same faction but what they are facing (else could end up with endless circle of power creep).

Diversity is should be addressed via role/utility/play style/map usefulness/... in sort with what its unit bring to the table.

T-34/76 is very cost efficient due to its timing.
T-34/85 is the one of the most cost efficient main battle tanks.
KV-1 has been buffed too much exactly because it was being balanced around the T-34/85 and that is a mistake.

Diversity is should be addressed via role/utility/play style/map usefulness/... in sort with what its unit bring to the table.

The KV-1 currently clearly has a distinct role as a slower but significantly more durable T-34/76.
The T-34/85 has a clear role as a premium medium tank.

Yet you want to reduce the KV-1's (stock) durability, bringing it closer to the T-34/76.
That would be the opposite of addressing diversity in roles.

KV-1 has been buffed too much exactly because it was being balanced around the T-34/85 and that is a mistake.

It got buffed a bit (MGs and new vet 1) simply because it was bad before. Now since then it slowly grew a little too efficient over time because of other changes, mainly because of the faster repair speeds. The T-34/85 has nothing to do with it.

In its current implementation, for 5 fuel more, one gets a Tank that beat PzIV J hands down while having the same POP.

How does it make an argument? There are many units with the same approximative cost that are beat or beat their counterpart.

KV1 comes later than Pz4 and the Ostheer player is usually not far to get a second Pz4 soon after the KV1 hit the field.

A recent 3v3 comes to mind where the SU player was playing a high pressure strategy on Whiteball and ran me off that side of the field many times with PPSH cons, flame CEs and KV-1. And then I'd run him off the VP and harass the fuel. The armor wasn't particularly difficult to deal with for the rak, esp at vet II but they did seem to come back very quickly. Auf J had to respect the tank heavily. Or at least until an LEFH put his CEs out of commission permanently in the middle of repairs.

I think the suggested exchange of % DR into normal HP is the way to go without nerfing the tank's combat performance outright. It's dangerous but nowhere near as threatening as say a KV-8 overall.

How does it make an argument? There are many units with the same approximative cost that are biten or beat their counterpart.

KV1 comes later than Pz4 and the Ostheer player is usually not far to get a second Pz4 soon after the KV1 hit the field.

He's talking about the OKW pz IV not the OST pz IV. Every allied AT weapon and their dog penetrates the OST pz IV with ease.

He's talking about the OKW pz IV not the OST pz IV. Every allied AT weapon and their dog penetrates the OST pz IV with ease.

Ah yeah, but that's make the argument even worst since the panther is available in the same tier.

Units should not be balanced against other unit of the same faction but what they are facing (else could end up with endless circle of power creep).

Diversity is should be addressed via role/utility/play style/map usefulness/... in sort with what its unit bring to the table.

T-34/76 is very cost efficient due to its timing.
T-34/85 is the one of the most cost efficient main battle tanks.
KV-1 has been buffed too much exactly because it was being balanced around the T-34/85 and that is a mistake.

I disagree entirely. Baseline performance should be balanced by stock units, doctrinal units should balanced off of the stock units that have established the balance as long as the balance has been established between the factions core units, which I believe that tanks, frankly are, then as long as doctrinal tanks are balanced relative to their stock counterpart all is well.

Even at that, look at Ostheer. Doctrinal they can get the okw p4. It costs 145 fuel iirc, which is 25 fuel more than the standard p4. It gets ~55 more armour.
The KV1 costs about double that more than the t34 and *gasp* gets nearly double the armour. It gets other things too (more health and currently a damage modifier) but considering that the cost difference between the t34 and the KV1 is roughly the difference between a P4 and a Panther. And I don't think we need to delve into all the things the Panther gets over the p4 eh?

The KV1s performance is balanced in the faction for its price.
The t34 and the p4 are balanced against each other, then slap an extra 50% to the cost of the t34 and its going to be a hell of a lot better...

Ah yeah, but that's make the argument even worst since the panther is available in the same tier.

I'll let you two talk it out. But OKW Panther stall hasn't been a thing for years. You try it against a decent+ opponent and they'll break your neck with mediums. 45 FU gap might as well be 400 after they run you off the map. Most realistic comparison is KV-1 vs Auf J.

The KV-1 currently clearly has a distinct role as a slower but significantly more durable T-34/76.
The T-34/85 has a clear role as a premium medium tank.

Yet you want to reduce the KV-1's (stock) durability, bringing it closer to the T-34/76.
That would be the opposite of addressing diversity in roles.

Read more carefully. KV-1 is too durable for its timing. It base durability should be lowered but that does not mean it should go from 270->160 or that is EHP should go from 1000->640. The durability should be move to vet. One could test even increasing at vet 3.

It got buffed a bit (MGs and new vet 1) simply because it was bad before.

If by a "bit" you mean extra EFH (from 800-1000), more than triple its 3 MG, and an ability giving +15 ROF, 0.8 damage then we can agree, but that not a "bit" but some major buff.

Now since then it slowly grew a little too efficient over time because of other changes, mainly because of the faster repair speeds. The T-34/85 has nothing to do with it.

The argument that why should I build a KV-1 when I can get a T-34/85 was repeatedly post. It has even posted in this thread, so T-34/85 has a lot to do with it.

How does it make an argument? There are many units with the same approximative cost that are beat or beat their counterpart.

KV1 comes later than Pz4 and the Ostheer player is usually not far to get a second Pz4 soon after the KV1 hit the field.

If you do not like the Panzer J comparison feel free to find another, but the comparison is solid.

Read more carefully. KV-1 is too durable for its timing. It base durability should be lowered but that does not mean it should go from 270->160 or that is EHP should go from 1000->640. The durability should be move to vet.

Do that yourself, please. I didn't say you suggested it should get identical durability to the T-34/76, but that you wanted to lower its stock durability which would bring it closer to a T-34/76. Why would someone gamble 140 fuel for a vehicle that isn't as distinctly more durable and then be forced to risk it to get veterancy before it properly achieves its damage sponge role?

By decreasing its stock durability you would decrease the distinction between its role and that of the T-34/76, which is exactly the opposite of what you suggested should happen afterwards.

If by a "bit" you mean extra EFH (from 800-1000), more than triple its 3 MG, and an ability giving +15 ROF, 0.8 damage then we can agree, but that not a "bit" but some major buff.

It got the damage reduction ages ago, I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. The only buffs it received recently was the MG DPS change (and are you seriously including the meme rear facing turret MG?) and the new vet 1 ability that is situational.

The argument that why should I build a KV-1 when I can get a T-34/85 was repeatedly post. It has even posted in this thread, so T-34/85 has a lot to do with it.

It doesn't matter what the argument was, you specifically said yourself that it was buffed because it

has been buffed too much exactly because it was being balanced around the T-34/85 and that is a mistake.

which just isn't true. It got buffed because it was bad. The T-34/85 was never a part of that decision.