Mark Target

I can't get behind a nerf to mark target without buffing the su85 and ptrs

german super heavies are retard-proof as it is, they dont need any more help

i always thought mark should be 25% penetration and 20% damage.

Iagree with our beloved master blobber, he's right there has to be done something about the ability, sure some people might say that axis superheavies are by far strong enough. But still, it shouldn't be possible to oneshot one of these superexpensive tanks with one ability and a b4 precision strike.

Iagree with our beloved master blobber, he's right there has to be done something about the ability, sure some people might say that axis superheavies are by far strong enough. But still, it shouldn't be possible to oneshot one of these superexpensive tanks with one ability and a b4 precision strike.

Actually, its not possible to one shot it.

I'll be left with a sliver of health, but it won't be one shotted at full hp.

This entire thread is a result of there not being side armor in this game.

This entire thread is a result of there not being side armor in this game.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Blitzkrieg 2 has front/rear/back armor.

Mark Target + B4 is kind of super synergize but...
Luftwaffe supply for OKW guy (which negates B-4)
Jadgtiger+Elephant negate any allies armor
Command Pz IV+ Command Panther+ JT/KT

There are many examples for Axis super synergize but it's not as noticeable as martk target + b4 because it does not one shot any tank (only 2-3 shots without any ammo cost )

I don't mind if MT will be changed or nerfed because I almost never use it. Any time you put MT against decent player you will see that the tank with it will reverse to the base with speed of light.

WHile we are at it, lets nerf button and bombing strike as well because they synergize to well with each other and other abilities

WHile we are at it, lets nerf button and bombing strike as well because they synergize to well with each other and other abilities

Your sarcasm is not constructive. If you disagree with my proposed changes, you should discuss what you disagree with and why, or come up with a better solution.

damn. here i was thinking i am biased.
but everybody crying "stahp nurf" in here is way worse.

in my humble opinion changing the ability from increasing damage to increasing penetration would actually help nondoc vehicles like the t34/76 ,which really struggles at penetrating anything (tankwise).
at the moment it only "buffs" vehicles that have the ability to penetrate fairly well already and for those vehicles i consider it a tad too strong. in 1v1 it totally fucks up any armored engagement because of the added dmg value.

and the dmg increase is just ridiculous. if u seriously think that +50% damage was okay before and that 30% is a overnerf, i have no interest in talking to you any further.
i am biased, but i still like to have a game where i feel challanged so im not all about nerfing allies/buffing axis.

i do agree there are problems with KTs/JTs in bigger games, but as romeo mentioned 10 000 times before: one particularly imbalanced unit/ability does NOT justify the implementaion/persistence of another...
i wish they had changed the JT the way they initially planned to... same with ISU... or just remove them completely (ele too).
i think the max range(s) of vehicles should not have a huge gap like that. 40-60 is fine, but 40-85... but i digress

TL: DR much bias. pen>dmg for better meta

Your sarcasm is not constructive. If you disagree with my proposed changes, you should discuss what you disagree with and why, or come up with a better solution.

I have already, and so have others. It isn't imbalanced and it is an essential ability that helps even the odds against heavier Axis tanks. I don't think the synergy with the B4 is OP, it just works well together and requires communication/good skill.

There are already ways that you can deal with Mark Target. You an reverse out, smoke out, or blitz out, or simply kill everything. Reversing is the most easy, because the opponent will have dumped a lot of munitions for nothing. If you stay and fight while being marked, it isn't a guarantee that you will not get stunned, engine damaged, etc., which can further lead to the tanks demise. Additionally, if you got surrounded by flanking tanks or backed into a corner and got mark targeted, it isn't mark targets fault, the opponent simply played better or someone made a mistake.

I don't think the synergy with the B4 is OP, it just works well together and requires communication/good skill.

It's definitely not balanced and I'm interested to see how you think it is. Why is it not OP? Do you think the communication and skill required to pull off a mark target / B4 combo is greater than the amount required to take it out in any other way? Because honestly I can't think of a single easier way to destroy one.

There are already ways that you can deal with Mark Target. You an reverse out, smoke out, or blitz out, or simply kill everything. Reversing is the most easy, because the opponent will have dumped a lot of munitions for nothing. If you stay and fight while being marked, it isn't a guarantee that you will not get stunned, engine damaged, etc., which can further lead to the tanks demise. Additionally, if you got surrounded by flanking tanks or backed into a corner and got mark targeted, it isn't mark targets fault, the opponent simply played better or someone made a mistake.

None of this has anything to do with what I've suggested. I don't want to remove it from the game or make it useless, I just want to change the way it works such that it's still useful in the situations you describe but not overpowered in others. So once again, you should discuss what about a penetration/accuracy increase you disagree with and why, or come up with a better solution.

I have a better way. Until the core Soviet faction is reviewed and adjusted, and the call in meta is modified, Mark Target stays the same.

I don't find mark target to be a huge problem. Sure if you look at the numbers it might be problematic, but it you can actually just reverse out of the dangerzone or pop smoke (granted you picked a cmndr with panzer tactitian).

I also wouldn't mind if mark target would make all hit's penetrate during it's duration in exchange for the dmg buff.

I don't find mark target to be a huge problem. Sure if you look at the numbers it might be problematic, but it you can actually just reverse out of the dangerzone or pop smoke (granted you picked a cmndr with panzer tactitian).

I also wouldn't mind if mark target would make all hit's penetrate during it's duration in exchange for the dmg buff.

that has been mentioned several times now. this only works under the assumption that you engage a tank with him being able to reverse/smoke/get away. in a close match between a couple of amored units this might not be possible. same applies to heavy pushes. you can bumrush any vehicle as long as your even in terms of armor, because the +30% dmg will just win you the engagement most of the time (unless you stupidly charge into 2-3 paks and tellers ofc).
again im strongly against anything (abilities, vet bonuses, etc.)that increases dmg of a weapon. it just doesnt feel right to me at all. how is the same payload in a tank shell suddenly going to have a bigger impact on the same target? id also remove it from the leig and pak43(okw) for the same reason

Well we could always buff those poor core Soviet tanks...but that would probably lead to unintended consequences

that has been mentioned several times now. this only works under the assumption that you engage a tank with him being able to reverse/smoke/get away. in a close match between a couple of amored units this might not be possible. same applies to heavy pushes. you can bumrush any vehicle as long as your even in terms of armor, because the +30% dmg will just win you the engagement most of the time (unless you stupidly charge into 2-3 paks and tellers ofc).
again im strongly against anything (abilities, vet bonuses, etc.)that increases dmg of a weapon. it just doesnt feel right to me at all. how is the same payload in a tank shell suddenly going to have a bigger impact on the same target? id also remove it from the leig and pak43(okw) for the same reason

If you get trapped and then marked it is a L2P issue. If you expend munitions on an ability to give you the advantage, then it should give you the advantage. I agree that some veterancy bonuses are loony and over the top

that has been mentioned several times now. this only works under the assumption that you engage a tank with him being able to reverse/smoke/get away. in a close match between a couple of amored units this might not be possible. same applies to heavy pushes. you can bumrush any vehicle as long as your even in terms of armor, because the +30% dmg will just win you the engagement most of the time (unless you stupidly charge into 2-3 paks and tellers ofc).
again im strongly against anything (abilities, vet bonuses, etc.)that increases dmg of a weapon. it just doesnt feel right to me at all. how is the same payload in a tank shell suddenly going to have a bigger impact on the same target? id also remove it from the leig and pak43(okw) for the same reason

I see what you mean and I have to agree to that.

This ability seems too strong to me. You get a massive damage boost against targets the axis relies very heavily on and it synergizes way too well with the P-47 and B4. Using this ability it seems way too easy to just coordinate a few button clicks amongst your team and take out a KT or Jagdtiger.

I suggest changing it from a received damage boost to armor reduction. I'd also shorten the duration or at least make it end when the plane gets shot down.

It's not a massive boost, it is 30% more damage. Only really useful on heavy tanks that now might take 1 less hit to kill.

Synergy with other abilities is seen quite often in this game and mark vehicle does not stand out above them in terms of power. OKW fuel feeding KT rush, flares+stuka strike, TWP+stuka close air support, button+bomb strike etc. The list goes on.

If a vet 3 B4 is giving you troubles, it just means you have failed to coördinate with your teammates. B4 is one of the very few tools allies have against a JT. Have a teammate with recon and an off-map and you can counter it with 2 clicks. It's called covering each others weaknesses.

It's definitely not balanced and I'm interested to see how you think it is. Why is it not OP? Do you think the communication and skill required to pull off a mark target / B4 combo is greater than the amount required to take it out in any other way? Because honestly I can't think of a single easier way to destroy one.

Really?

Sommenbjorn shouted at me for marking a target he was going to precision strike.

You know why?

Because the enemy saw the plane coming and moved his ubertank.



If the Axis player is awake he will know that the sound of any plane over his lines should be treated as a precursor to something bad happening.

It might be a B4 Precision Strike; it might be bombs, it might be incendiary on his med truck.

In which case he is going to move the targets that he can move; good luck hitting it with the B4 then.


If Mark Target + Precision Strike is easy its because:

1) Axis did not have a doctrine available to counter the B4

2) They were too stupid or arrogant to move their tanks when they know a B4 is out there and the target just got marked

In such circumstances, they frankly deserver everything that happens to them

++++++++++++++++

Mark Target at the moment is pretty bland, but it is not RNG. It's effects are known and quantifiable

It's not a massive boost, it is 30% more damage. Only really useful on heavy tanks that now might take 1 less hit to kill.

really? p4: 640hp * 0.7 = 448 theoretical hp with mark target. thats 3 hits instead of 4 with every 160 dmg weapon (shermans, t34s, su85 etc). its 2 shots instead of 3 with 240 dmg (isu, m36)

and thats the problem. while penetration would enable you to score more hits that actually penetrate. dmg increase simply negates a huge potion of the vehicles HP, which imo doesnt belong in a game, where unit preservation is such a big deal.

a simple example: if 3 x 160 dmg vehicles shoot at and penetrate a p4, that is marked, itll die instantly. usually youd have 1 more hit to escape, which gets denied by mark target. no other ability ingame reduces a vehicles theoretical hp like that. this gets worse since crits are tied to hp and hence occur more often on vehicles that have been marked (in this example the 3rd shoot could crit main gun/heavy/abandon instead of the 4th, too)

edit: to mention a few other (actually used) vehicles:

Panther (both factions) 800 -> 560 hp
Tiger 1040 -> 728 hp (3 jackson shots and a scratch on the paint and its gone... instead of 5)'
Luchs puma Stugs 400 -> 280
King/Jagd/Sturm(for the fun of it) 1280 - 896

if you dont see why thats wrong, i cant help it. everyone is aguing "lol if you lose a marked vehicle its cause you didnt react, etc" when waht mark target does is reduce the time you have to react at all.

again: 3 sources with 160dmg cause damage to a p4 that is maked = death
with pen-increase instead of dmg-increase they would have to reload for 1 additional hit and actually give the p4 a chance to react