Addition of T34 to the Soviet HQ to resolve tech problems
Posts: 79
Without going into too much detail, the basis for this suggestion is 4-fold:
(1) - Soviet game meta: The current medium to late game Soviet teching is tactically very limiting. The large fuel cost of T3 and T4 often makes it infeasible to build both buildings. Furthermore the lack T3's anti-tank ability is a severe shortcoming, especially with the inclusion of the OKW's heavy tanks and the improvement of the Panthers front armour. Finally, T4 builds struggle with out a basic medium tank, especially considering the fragility of the Katyusha and Su-76 and the manoeuvrability of the SU-85. These short comings result in a large dependency on commander choice to fill in weaknesses.
(2) - Soviet faction design: Currently, at the start of the game, the Soviet player is supposed to have a core infantry unit (the conscript) and can choose from two different buildings with differing play styles, namely T1 and T2. In the same way, my proposal would see the Soviets with a core tank (the T34/76) and then two buildings that offer differing play styles. T3 would provide fast and manoeuvrable, support type units. I.e. T70 - Recon, Half-track - Forward reinforce/AA, etc. T4 would provide artillery/long range support.
(3) - Implementation: It is (seemingly) simple and maintains/expands upon the asymmetrical teching system of the soviets.
(4) - Balance: This change would obviously result in a buff for the Soviets due to the increased choice of units. I think this is an area the Soviets need buffed, as I believe that they are unduly disadvantaged with their current teching scheme. That being said, it is difficult to say just how much of an impact, balance wise, this will actually have. I do think it will result in a more all rounded faction. This would result in a more diverse meta and a team that is more fun to play with or against. I also think this faction could be balanced better in this manner, resulting in a faction which doesn't rely on "lame/cheesey" strategies to remain competitive.
The glaring issue that would need to be addressed would be what to do with the 3 commanders that can currently call in the T34/85(s). The ability could be changed to allow the commander to call in vetted T34/85's, for example.
Another potential issue might be the extent of the overlap of the T70, T34/76 and T34/85. This could be tweaked to emphasize a recon role for the T70 and the AI ability of the T34/76.
TL;DR:
Put the T34/76 in the Soviet HQ, to be unlocked with teching. Put the T34/85 in T3. In this way, the Soviets can become more adaptable, while maintaining their branching teching structure. This will ultimately make them far more fun to play as and encourage a diverse meta.
Posts: 231
(1) - Soviet game meta: The current medium to late game Soviet teching is tactically very limiting. The large fuel cost of T3 and T4 often makes it infeasible to build both buildings. Furthermore the lack T3's anti-tank ability is a severe shortcoming, especially with the inclusion of the OKW's heavy tanks and the improvement of the Panthers front armour. Finally, T4 builds struggle with out a basic medium tank, especially considering the fragility of the Katyusha and Su-76 and the manoeuvrability of the SU-85. These short comings result in a large dependency on commander choice to fill in weaknesses.
Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, but Relic has already stated a bunch of times that they do not want players to be able to build both T3 and T4 in a game. The idea is you're supposed to supplement each tiers weakness with commander abilities. Not saying this is a good idea, but that's what Relic seems to think is a good idea. It's why they dramatically raised the price of T3-T4 a while back.
Posts: 79
Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, but Relic has already stated a bunch of times that they do not want players to be able to build both T3 and T4 in a game. The idea is you're supposed to supplement each tiers weakness with commander abilities. Not saying this is a good idea, but that's what Relic seems to think is a good idea. It's why they dramatically raised the price of T3-T4 a while back.
Yeah, I am aware of them saying they don't want the Soviet player to go both buildings. I thought this was a good way to maintain that sort of teching structure, while at the same time introducing more stability and flexibility.
I'm not sure if they specifically said they wanted the Soviets to rely on their commanders though, did they? I always assumed that was a product of how they wanted the soviets to tech, not an explicit aim of the Soviet faction.
Posts: 1130
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
The current 85 is to powerful to be non doctrinal tank. that said i believe that the soviets should have access to tier 3 and 4
King
Tiger
Posts: 151
Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, but Relic has already stated a bunch of times that they do not want players to be able to build both T3 and T4 in a game. The idea is you're supposed to supplement each tiers weakness with commander abilities.
This is the problem, I think Relic thought that having two factions with the same teching structure would mean bad variety (Sov and Osth from release). However if we sacrificed a little variety for better balance I think that it would be terrific. Make the tier's affordable and balance units within the tiers accordingly, and this would make a more enjoyable game+meta.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The current 85 is to powerful to be non doctrinal tank. that said i believe that the soviets should have access to tier 3 and 4
And yet we have a stock King Tiger.
You and your logic...
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
And yet we have a stock King Tiger.
You and your logic...
The Pak is one of the cornerstone units of the Wehrmacht, and it's cheaper than an Ostwind or Stug, which aren't nearly as key to the faction. Power =/= raw unit statistics...
That being said it would be interesting to have the T34/85 as part of the stock tech structure, though we all know that will never happen.
Posts: 987
Posts: 79
The current 85 is to powerful to be non doctrinal tank.
A slight increase in cost, to account for the fact that it is no longer doctrinal could be added if necessary. However when considering the non-doctrinal Panther for both the Ostheer and OKW, I don't think it is inherently too powerful to be a non-doctrinal tank. You can think of it as the Soviet version of a Panther if you like.
that said i believe that the soviets should have access to tier 3 and 4
As has been mentioned, Relic doesn't like that idea. The suggestion I present above does not allow the Soviets to build both buildings any more than before. I view my idea as a compromise that increases utility, while maintaining the asymmetrical teching.
Posts: 1130
King
Tiger
And? its nearly completely unavailable for the most time. of the hundred or so okw games i have played i have seen far more 85's then KT's. yet you suggest you put an unit in tier that the ostheer tier 3 cannot handle in any way and even give severe issues with the okw's tier 2 and 3. Suffice to say putting the 85 in tier 3 is a vedry stupid idea and anybody applauding it has no frigging clue how to do proper balance.
Posts: 1130
A slight increase in cost, to account for the fact that it is no longer doctrinal could be added if necessary. However when considering the non-doctrinal Panther for both the Ostheer and OKW, I don't think it is inherently too powerful to be a non-doctrinal tank. You can think of it as the Soviet version of a Panther if you like.
I never seen a panther one shot an entire am/soviet squad. i have seen the 85 one shotting german squads quite a few times. its scatter is very low and its main gun damage potential is excellent against infantry.
Posts: 4
Consider an index which takes the ability of the unit and divides it by the cost of that unit. 'Ability' would be a measure of the units stats, eg armour, penetration, damage etc. Lets say that the index of a fair unit is always 1. By this argument we can always keep units balanced as if they have better stats (ability/strength) then they should cost more so as to maintain the index at 1.
By this notion we could take the two units being discussed; the T34/85 and the King Tiger and say that both have an index of 1; ie they are fair. A problem arises, however, when you keep improving a units stats (ability). While the units ability may be improving and the associated resource cost with it (to maintain an index of 1) there comes a point where the unit is unkillable. If the unit does too much damage such that no other unit can even approach it and/or it has too much armour such that no shot can damage it then the index becomes irrelevant. No amount of resources can justify the power of the unit.
As such a unit like the King Tiger may be very close to the above unkillable category. Very few units have the fire power to penetrate its armour. It also has great fire power. Its approaching that point where the fact that it costs 340 fuel is less relevant.
And while King Tigers are not so obtainable in 1v1 it is a serious option in 2v2 3v3 4v4.
Come to think of it, while writing this; the relation between ability and cost (the index) should not be a direct linear relationship.
Posts: 627
By this notion we could take the two units being discussed; the T34/85 and the King Tiger and say that both have an index of 1; ie they are fair. A problem arises, however, when you keep improving a units stats (ability). While the units ability may be improving and the associated resource cost with it (to maintain an index of 1) there comes a point where the unit is unkillable. If the unit does too much damage such that no other unit can even approach it and/or it has too much armour such that no shot can damage it then the index becomes irrelevant. No amount of resources can justify the power of the unit.
As such a unit like the King Tiger may be very close to the above unkillable category. Very few units have the fire power to penetrate its armour. It also has great fire power. Its approaching that point where the fact that it costs 340 fuel is less relevant.
And while King Tigers are not so obtainable in 1v1 it is a serious option in 2v2 3v3 4v4.
Come to think of it, while writing this; the relation between ability and cost (the index) should not be a direct linear relationship.
Pretty much this.
I'm a dedicated 2v2 player. If my opponent ever has the gall to try and go for a heavy tank or two, there's literally nothing stopping me from just pumping all my fuel into a KT and roflstomping it.
In one of the most fun 2v2's I had lately I had a Puma reach vet 5, lost an ostwind, and still produced a KT. If it is ANYTHING but 1v1 340 fuel is pretty easy to obtain; especially considering the easy availability of shrecks, pumas, racketens, etc. Stalling is easy as anything, fuel conversion is a no brainer once you have your shrecks all up and running, infiltration nades take barely a spit of munitions a throw (and can be funded further by scavenging).
It's certainly not rare for my OKW games to involve a panther + sturmtiger, that could have been a KT with minimal difficulty. Sometimes I go command panther + panther, also possible KT. I've even gone command panther + KT.
The last combo is arguably the most OP thing in the game. All the above problems + extra KT buffs.
Posts: 23
340
Fuel
No
Medium
OKW
Tank
Infantry more exageratted than The Expendables ?
Etc
Infantry more exageratted than The Expendables ?
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
Put the T-34-85 in T3.
I think you won't see T4 anymore. EVER. Because early T-34/76 + late SU-85 just don't cut it.
Also most players will just ignore T-34/76 option and go straight to T3 and T-34-85 spam ALWAYS.
I agree, that would buff soviets, but not in terms of diversity.
You won't be able to play with those Irregulars, because you need elite infantry to glue your early-mid game.
So... if you want to solve problem of underpowered stock medium tanks that is good solution, but not good enough if you want diverse and healthy meta in general and fun soviet gameplay in particular.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
And? its nearly completely unavailable for the most time. of the hundred or so okw games i have played i have seen far more 85's then KT's. yet you suggest you put an unit in tier that the ostheer tier 3 cannot handle in any way and even give severe issues with the okw's tier 2 and 3. Suffice to say putting the 85 in tier 3 is a vedry stupid idea and anybody applauding it has no frigging clue how to do proper balance.
Ostheer would have no problems with T34/85s in soviet T3. It's like saying that Soviet T3 can't handle Ostheer T3 in any way. It's bullshit. Get a PAK40 or a panzerschrek squad, plant some mines.
The only problem Ostheer has against T34/85s is that they outnumber P4s because they are call-in tanks and thus require no tech investment to call-in. Having a 120 fuel unlock barrier will fix this.
As for OKW, they have no right to complain. T34/76s are a joke against OKW because all they need to counter it are volksgrenadiers with panzerschreks. T34/85s are the only soviet medium tanks that actually force the OKW to get some armor.
It's very silly that soviets are stuck using early-war units while the multiplayer is set in the later stages of the war. Having T34/76s as stock units would be fine if axis had P3 and STUGIIIs as their best stock tanks, but they can field panthers and even bloody Tiger IIs. If we want the stupid call-in meta to change, the soviet stock army needs to be of the same caliber as the axis stock army. And that means an actual late-war medium tank.
Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1
The only problem Ostheer has against T34/85s is that they outnumber P4s because they are call-in tanks and thus require no tech investment to call-in. Having a 120 fuel unlock barrier will fix this.
Other call-in units still would be available without spending 120 fuel on teching.
If you want to bind call-in units to tech, I think you should do it for all call-ins.
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently BannedPosts: 627
So you think relic should rip all the t34/85s out of their respective commanders and replace them with what exactly?
Plenty of options. The duel call in can stay- that bypasses build time, tier cost and comes at a slight discount in exchange for forcing almost double the float.
Single call in can get replaced by a KV-85 (saw more production than the ostwind), IS-1 (ditto), T-44 (in service from 1944).
That's three of what I would consider the most viable proposals, but others exist.
Livestreams
1 | |||||
225 | |||||
43 | |||||
14 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM