Faster vet?
Honestly I never really looked past the thompsons, thanks man.
Posts: 5
Faster vet?
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Can anyone justify the existence of elite vehicle crews to me? I really don't understand why it's included at all.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Anyway you probably forget the initial statement which was making the M10 a mini Jackson and Jackson dedicated heavy tank destroyer,
This is why I think m10 should be stock and the Jackson should be less amazing against all classes of armor. Bring it back to being truly specialized against heavy armor. M10 fights medium armor and flanks heavy TDs
Posts: 178
I think they previously had (or still have?) Thompsons to be semi capable fighters plus something else. But their whole design never worked out since it is stupid to leave the vehicle. Atm they basically just repair faster.
Not really worth a commander slot currently
Posts: 1660
The best part about the original iteration was that not only did you have to leave the Vehicle, but you didn't get upgraded repair speed, upgraded vet, and had to upgrade them and the upgrade both took 30 seconds and reset if they entered the Vehicle again. Was genuinely the most worthless upgrade in the game next to the Advanced Warfare IL2 Strafe.
I wouldn't be against buffing it in some form. The question being how since it's a very fragile subject and there's not much room to buff Vehicle Crews for it to matter or not be broken. Also they still have VC level RA and no combat veterancy so they drop models worse than Partisans.
Posts: 178
Replace them with UKF style smoke self repair
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Once again that is not correct. You are the only one who has mentioned "mini Jackson". I didn't say that at all, you are misreading. I said make m10 stock, nerf Jackson against mediums/buff it against heavies
My post:
Where the fuck are you getting "mini Jackson"? I'm literally just describing what the m10 is already good at...
Posts: 359
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Why do yo think it like it was you who said that first?
Posts: 472
Posts: 1563
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
M10 is one of the unit that shows "I still can win you even with this unit".
I honestly don't know why m10 is added to UKF commander...
At least buff hp to 640 just like other tanks?
Posts: 5279
The M10 was suggested at the time of the new commanders by me and several other people as a cheaper and faster alternative to the very slow and expensive Firefly.
Since then the Firefly has been improved so there's less initiative to go for the M10 especially in team games but it is what it is.
They could instead replace it with something like an M7 Priest since it fits the lend-lease theme of the commander but then again there's already a mortar team in it so yeah...
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
both commanders with the m10 feel lacking, due in part to the m10 so i think something to spruce up the m10 will make both commanders more interesting. i know its been said, but even a smoke shell, which would lend itself to both factions (since ass tommy smoke is phosphorus) would help.
it DOES offer an alternative, it just needs more.... something for when its combat window closes.
hell, its an open top TD, give it more vision even so it can see what kinda force is supporting where its meant to flank! something!
Posts: 61
Posts: 307
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 5279
I'm curious, is it possible to introduce a dmg modifier to proc when hitting rear armor? Not available for all vehicles but specific ones.
In that way i think you could create and really differentiate the "flanker" type of tanks by giving them a proper niche.
Posts: 359
I'm curious, is it possible to introduce a dmg modifier to proc when hitting rear armor? Not available for all vehicles but specific ones.
In that way i think you could create and really differentiate the "flanker" type of tanks by giving them a proper niche.
Posts: 658
M10 in its current state should be immune to snare or having the threesold for snare lowered to 20/40% at least when activating the speed. That's the only way to make a flanker working.
.
45 | |||||
9 | |||||
1 |