Suppression for Ostwind

Yeah, why anyone never thought to give 4-hit durable tank with 6.4 speed a suppression? That must be very fun to play with. Right?

They already buffed the ostwind quite well a while back. It murders infantry quite well.
Why should it excel in chasing lights?
Ost has more then plenty of ways to deal with lights wich need no explenation or introduction.

Not really and that is part of the reason Puma was so popular.

There seems to be a drive to make every units in the stock ost line up viable (even when they already are) the ost stock line up imo has the most viable units out of all the factions. Buffing the single ost unit wich is used a bit less because of a overlap with the p4 while leaving other factions with dead units is not the way to do things.

Point I made here is that Ostwind in not that good vs light vehicles/light tanks because it misses allot and since I do not see you questioning it so I guess you agree.

But this thread is about a suggestion of adding suppression so I do not intent start debating "stock ost line up".

Not really and that is part of the reason Puma was so popular.


Point I made here is that Ostwind in not that good vs light vehicles/light tanks because it misses allot and since I do not see you questioning it so I guess you agree.

But this thread is about a suggestion of adding suppression so I do not intent start debating "stock ost line up".

Imo the puma was popular because of how good it was and not that ost is/was lacking in AT in any way shape or form.
Having the best and snaring at gun, very good/best ap ammo mg, great hh at and strongest at mine stock required a bit of planning while the puma did not.

I did question it needing to be buffed in the regard you mentioned. That it misses a lot on the move is imo a non issue cuz of the reasons i mentioned before. It also doesnt need suppression because of how good the mg42 is, its also to durable and leathal for that and both require a substantial nerf to balance out. Dont fix what aint broken aplies here.

I didnt mean to discuss every detail/ost unit. I tried to prevent you from going into details by sticking to a broad as possible discription, wich worked. I usualy go into to much detail my self
I mearly wanted to state that ost has a very viable stock line up wich you cannot ignore when balancing a unit within that line up.
These proposed buffs are made in a vacum and soley on its costs. If we balance units on costs alone lots of units will need prices readjusted.

Imo the puma was popular because of how good it was and not that ost is/was lacking in AT in any way shape or form.
...

Puma is good vs light tank and it was used exactly because it was good vs T-70.

I did question it needing to be buffed in the regard you mentioned.

And I did not suggest it should be buffed I simply pointed out that it is not good vs light vehicles/tank.

I am under the impression thou that it does see much action thou. That can be explained by the fact that the price difference with PzIV is too small and PzIV cover the AI adequately.

In that sense one could try to balance the unit at lower cost (maybe 80) and make the unit better vs light vehicles. Then one might even see more use of other vehicles like the SU-76.

Puma is good vs light tank and it was used exactly because it was good vs T-70.


And I did not suggest it should be buffed I simply pointed out that it is not good vs light vehicles/tank.

I am under the impression thou that it does see much action thou. That can be explained by the fact that the price difference with PzIV is too small and PzIV cover the AI adequately.

In that sense one could try to balance the unit at lower cost (maybe 80) and make the unit better vs light vehicles. Then one might even see more use of other vehicles like the SU-76.

You did say even the "devs" think the AT for the ostwind is subpar for its cost. To me that reads its to expensive or to weak in that area for its cost and needs to be changed.

Live its 100 fuel imo 80 fuel is too cheap. Puts it to close to the su76 while being able to tank 4 at round compared to the 3 on the su76. If its 90 fuel that would be best.
Also imo its the p4's ai wich is a tad to good, killing 2 models with just its main gun is very common. This probably is because of its 3 mg's wearing models down. Together with its decent at power makes the p4 basicly a no brainer if one needs to chose between them.

Buffing the ostwind vs lights makes it to good of an allround unit. Lv will be played less, but as you say the su76 will be a excelent choice to counter it. But will still be a liability later on as it doesnt scale well enough.

There seems to be a drive to make every units in the stock ost line up viable (even when they already are) the ost stock line up imo has the most viable units out of all the factions.
.

playback time to when wehrmacht players complained that the ptrs killed LV play, and how people lost P4s and even brummbars to PTRS penals

Don't be too surprised

Puma is good vs light tank and it was used exactly because it was good vs T-70.

Puma was exceptionally good for it's price especially because it can take full advantage of 50 with it's own sight. If played correctly, it can even take medium effectively.

Well, that is now just a good-old days for puma.

You did say even the "devs" think the AT for the ostwind is subpar for its cost. To me that reads its to expensive or to weak in that area for its cost and needs to be changed.

I would suggest you focus more about what has been actually posted than trying to "guess" things that I have not actually posted. Comments more about redesigning the unit instead of buffing it.

Live its 100 fuel imo 80 fuel is too cheap. Puts it to close to the su76 while being able to tank 4 at round compared to the 3 on the su76. If its 90 fuel that would be best.
Also imo its the p4's ai wich is a tad to good, killing 2 models with just its main gun is very common. This probably is because of its 3 mg's wearing models down. Together with its decent at power makes the p4 basicly a no brainer if one needs to chose between them.

Buffing the ostwind vs lights makes it to good of an allround unit. Lv will be played less, but as you say the su76 will be a excelent choice to counter it. But will still be a liability later on as it doesnt scale well enough.

I am not sure if was clear enough. What I actually suggest is not that the unit should has its cost reduced but be "balanced" around 80 fuel. That means that is current performance vs infatry should be lowered to much the new price. (similar changes could be done with Centaur although the centaur/AEC combo might prove too good)

The reason I suggested 80 fuel is that the bigger the fuel difference with PzIV the bigger the window of opportunity for the unit to pay for investing in it.

But this thread is about adding suppression and we are drifting of topic

I would suggest you focus more about what has been actually posted than trying to "guess" things that I have not actually posted. Comments more about redesigning the unit instead of buffing it.



I am not sure if was clear enough. What I actually suggest is not that the unit should has its cost reduced but be "balanced" around 80 fuel. That means that is current performance vs infatry should be lowered to much the new price. (similar changes could be done with Centaur although the centaur/AEC combo might prove too good)

The reason I suggested 80 fuel is that the bigger the fuel difference with PzIV the bigger the window of opportunity for the unit to pay for investing in it.

But this thread is about adding suppression and we are drifting of topic

You should read your own post. Their was next to no guessing on my part. You stated the dev teams point of view and agreed with the ostwind being subpar for cost and stating several issues regarding its at power and accuracy. There is almost no room for geussing. I dont want to focus on this guess or not any further

Now that you suggested nerfing it to put it 80 fuel makes sense. The window of oppertunity being increased as well. But then allowing it to supress by default is still not a good idea, the flack is already excelent cuz it can supress next to the mg34 they control inf to effective this way.

Also

You should read your own post. Their was next to no guessing on my part. You stated the dev teams point of view and agreed with the ostwind being subpar for cost and stating several issues regarding its at power and accuracy. There is almost no room for geussing. I dont want to focus on this guess or not any further

If you agree that Ostwind currently is not that good vs vehicles especially on the move, which is what I have posted, we can simply move on.

Now that you suggested nerfing it to put it 80 fuel makes sense. The window of oppertunity being increased as well. But then allowing it to supress by default is still not a good idea, the flack is already excelent cuz it can supress next to the mg34 they control inf to effective this way.

Also

I personally do not like vehicles that can suppress on the move.

Imo if a vehicle has suppression that should probably come from a timed ability and it should do reduced damage at the time.

In the case of the OKW AAHT one could have 2 different firing modes one doing damage the other trading suppression for damage.

at the sametime, why not give it jet engines and make it fly

on serious note:
ostwind 20mm has decent splash radius. that could damage multiple models even if it miss.

if theres a buff, give it extra front armor or raise the ROF

at the sametime, why not give it jet engines and make it fly

on serious note:
ostwind 20mm has decent splash radius. that could damage multiple models even if it miss.

if theres a buff, give it extra front armor or raise the ROF

You it's a good idea to read and comprehend first before making sarcastic comment.

If you agree that Ostwind currently is not that good vs vehicles especially on the move, which is what I have posted, we can simply move on.


I personally do not like vehicles that can suppress on the move.

Imo if a vehicle has suppression that should probably come from a timed ability and it should do reduced damage at the time.

In the case of the OKW AAHT one could have 2 different firing modes one doing damage the other trading suppression for damage.

I already agreed that its at isent very good. Its just not its role its a bonus that it can fight lv's, it shoudnt be an issue for its preformance.
Imo to many ost vehicles overlap in aa ai and at in varying degrees. This is what makes the ostwind feel underwelming.

Agreed suppression on the move is bad as it makes vehicles way to potent. If it should be changed (wich i still think it shoudnt as ost has the highest suppression mg stock) the timed ability as vet ability, replacing blitz, increased price,do reduced damage and have a long cooldown.

The okw flaktrack supresses to quickly, toning that down a bit should do the trick imo.

I already agreed that its at isent very good. Its just not its role its a bonus that it can fight lv's, it shoudnt be an issue for its preformance.

Ostwind has a 37mm gun and cost as mush a T-34/76, being able to damage vehicles is part of its job and not bonus.

Imo to many ost vehicles overlap in aa ai and at in varying degrees. This is what makes the ostwind feel underwelming.

I can't say I agree, ostheer main weakness is the luck of a light tank or light tank counter and the popularity of the doctrinal Puma is very strong indication of this.

Imo the issue with Ostwind has more to with fact that is not that cheaper from PzIV which has good enough AT and far superior vs all type of vehicles.

Agreed suppression on the move is bad as it makes vehicles way to potent. If it should be changed (wich i still think it shoudnt as ost has the highest suppression mg stock) the timed ability as vet ability, replacing blitz, increased price,do reduced damage and have a long cooldown.

The okw flaktrack suppresses to quickly, toning that down a bit should do the trick imo.

Imo the issue with OKW AAHT has more to do with damage it does and less with its suppression speed. I personally would test two firing modes one that did damage and one that suppressed but did less damage.

As much as I believe that OH is already too good in it's vehicles department in comparison with other factions, I think adding suppression is actually a good idea. Game mechanics should be universal and such universal mechanic is "AA provides suppression". However, it is more complex than that, since mobile suppression mostly falls into category of glass-cannons, so tweaking ostwind would require changing centaur as well, and, probably other vehicles in all factions. As for me - Soviets and OH required major rework the moment western front armies were released and now it is a little to late for something major. Ostwind right now is in a place, that is not great, not terrible

why not give it a stationary mode with suppression ? Then it would involve more of a risk

why not give it a stationary mode with suppression ? Then it would involve more of a risk

Get introduced to the fortified armor doctrine, while it doesn't give suppression to the ostwind, it does give more range (to all tanks that use it) and has absolutely no risk to it whatsoever

Ostwind has a 37mm gun and cost as mush a T-34/76, being able to damage vehicles is part of its job and not bonus.

I can't say I agree, ostheer main weakness is the luck of a light tank or light tank counter and the popularity of the doctrinal Puma is very strong indication of this.

Imo the issue with Ostwind has more to with fact that is not that cheaper from PzIV which has good enough AT and far superior vs all type of vehicles.


Imo the issue with OKW AAHT has more to do with damage it does and less with its suppression speed. I personally would test two firing modes one that did damage and one that suppressed but did less damage.

"being able to damage tanks is part of it's job" says who???
No light tank counter? best AT gun in the game? longest mainline snare range? elite infantry AT basically 2shots T-70s ON THEIR OWN?

both the flak halftrack and the ostwind do extremely good AI damage at basically all ranges. Does wehrmacht really need to be spoon fed further by giving ostwind random, unneeded buffs?

...
"being able to damage tanks is part of it's job" says who???

Allow me to explain the use of quotation marks, they can mean that you copying something someone else posted word for word. Notice that I wrote :
"Ostwind has a 37mm gun and cost as mush a T-34/76, being able to damage vehicles is part of its job and not bonus."

And you replaced the word vehicles with Tanks. Now the majority of vehicles (apart from flame vehicles) can damage other vehicles and thus claiming that Ostwind can damage vehicles is a "bonus" is simply misleading.

No light tank counter? best AT gun in the game? longest mainline snare range? elite infantry AT basically 2shots T-70s ON THEIR OWN?

If what you wrote was accurate pls explain why puma (even nicknamed "panic puma") was so popular because I am pretty sure it was not for it great AI performance.

both the flak halftrack and the ostwind do extremely good AI damage at basically all ranges. Does wehrmacht really need to be spoon fed further by giving ostwind random, unneeded buffs?

I am not sure why are asking me this question because I have not suggested to buff the Ostwind. What I have suggested is to balance around a price of 80 fuel and redesign it.

Ostwind has a 37mm gun and cost as mush a T-34/76, being able to damage vehicles is part of its job and not bonus.


I can't say I agree, ostheer main weakness is the luck of a light tank or light tank counter and the popularity of the doctrinal Puma is very strong indication of this.

Imo the issue with Ostwind has more to with fact that is not that cheaper from PzIV which has good enough AT and far superior vs all type of vehicles.


Imo the issue with OKW AAHT has more to do with damage it does and less with its suppression speed. I personally would test two firing modes one that did damage and one that suppressed but did less damage.

Historical facts dont make good balance.

Every faction needs weaknesses next to strengths. I dont see it as a weakness when ost excels elsewhere. Their lv (not lt) fase comes very early is quite potent it allows ost to deal the damage before it takes it from the say t70. Wich a teller one shots.
The puma was just bonkers, ptact highly mobile decent ai and at that could deal with mediums to an extent and great vision. It was just much easier to use and didnt reley on planning and posistioning.

The ostwind is the ai and aa vehicle of t3, the p4 the generalist of t3 doing all jobs a decently, the stug is the dedicated at of t3.
I dont see how you can say that the ostwind is up because it cant fight all vehicles that the p4 can. The ostwind excels over the p4 in ai aa and costs less as it should. Its also 25 fuel cheaper a 5th of the price of the p4.

That the flacktrack supresses so quickly that guards and penal or ptrs cons get next to no shots of because they can even aproach it makes it a bit to strong. Esp considering it has stock smoke. Although supressing slower does mean it ll do more damage. I am not sure wich is worse/better.

Historical facts dont make good balance.

I have not used a historical argument.

Every faction needs weaknesses next to strengths. I dont see it as a weakness when ost excels elsewhere. Their lv (not lt) fase comes very early is quite potent it allows ost to deal the damage before it takes it from the say t70. Wich a teller one shots.

Glad that you agree that Ostheer weakness is the lack of light tank.

The puma was just bonkers, ptact highly mobile decent ai and at that could deal with mediums to an extent and great vision. It was just much easier to use and didnt reley on planning and posistioning.

Puma's performance has not see significant and similar to OKW. Not sure why you want to debate Puma's balance thou

The ostwind is the ai and aa vehicle of t3, the p4 the generalist of t3 doing all jobs a decently, the stug is the dedicated at of t3.
I dont see how you can say that the ostwind is up because it cant fight all vehicles that the p4 can. The ostwind excels over the p4 in ai aa and costs less as it should. Its also 25 fuel cheaper a 5th of the price of the p4.

For around the 10 time now I have not said that Ostwind is up, pls stop putting words in my mouth. You have agreed to my point that Ostwind is not good at fighting light vehicles so pls stop beating a dead horse.

That the flacktrack supresses so quickly that guards and penal or ptrs cons get next to no shots of because they can even aproach it makes it a bit to strong. Esp considering it has stock smoke. Although supressing slower does mean it ll do more damage. I am not sure wich is worse/better.

What would be the point of AI vehicle that can not fire on the move if it was countered by infantry?

Do think AT infatry can attack other AAHTs?