T34 Population increased from 8 to 10 to prevent overwhelming numbers of the tank
Why..
Any 1?..is this necessary?..
Posts: 363
T34 Population increased from 8 to 10 to prevent overwhelming numbers of the tank
Posts: 260
Posts: 64
Posts: 102 | Subs: 22
Posts: 61
Can someone explain how the Jagdtiger is only a little more expensive than a Tiger I?
Posts: 102 | Subs: 22
Why..
Any 1?..is this necessary?..
Posts: 102 | Subs: 22
I think it is because the Tiger has more utility than the JT. What I mean by this is that the Tiger can effectively engage all targets, as the JT is purely AT.
Posts: 262
Why do you guys insist on turning heavies into these counter-all vehicles all the sudden. Weren't we working away from a heavy tank meta..
Posts: 985 | Subs: 2
Posts: 2238 | Subs: 15
some more updates.
Fixed issue with infantry section vet 3 scoped rifles providing a dps decrease instead of an increase
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Okay why is the King Tiger, Tiger, and Jagdtiger being buffed. These are the changes I am strongly against. Brits and flame definitely needed to be nerfed, but there is absolutely no reason why these heavy tanks need a buff.
These heavy tanks were good enough! That +5 on the Tiger and King Tiger is gonna make the tank way too safe when its shooting especially considering how much armor it has. Honestly this is going to create more incentive for heavy tank gameplay. I suggest reverting the King Tiger, Tiger, and Jagdtiger buff. Think about team games where fuel is a plenty!!!
Can someone explain how the Jagdtiger is only a little more expensive than a Tiger I?
Posts: 59
Posts: 1217
Posts: 61
you have to also take into account OKW resource personality as it is harder to accumulate that amount of fuel.
Posts: 1157 | Subs: 2
Why do you guys insist on turning heavies into these counter-all vehicles all the sudden. Weren't we working away from a heavy tank meta..
There is no reason give heavy tanks longer ranges to deal with tank destroyers. Tank destroyers are supposed to kite heavy tanks. Is that not obvious?
To deal with this,you support your heavy tank with 50-60 range units...
The KT literally does not need this. Just park a Jp4(which flat out beats SU85s and jacksons) right next to it..
Same with tiger,even though its harder since they lack a 60 range TD(SO BUFF THE STUG TO BE INLINE WITH OTHER FACTIONS 60 RANGE TD's,NOT THE TIGER. #JustRelicBalancing),park double paks,or a couple stugs with a halftrack to reinforce paks that were hit by artillery.
I dont understand. Please dont put this in live. And if youre planning on giving a pershing(when its added) 45-50 range,please reconsider. Its only moving towards taking away from late game combined arms.
The other changes are +1 btw,but why go 4-5 steps forward and 1 step back.
Posts: 2053
can you guys nerf the brits flame stuff? such as the wasp (UC upgraded with flamethrower) and the CROC. I know you guys have a P2W agenda to fulfill with the new brit commanders, but this is really broken. Thanks!
Posts: 656
Posts: 2053
Should the IS2 get 45 range so it is harder to kite with a JP4, Stug, or Panther?
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 1157 | Subs: 2
91 | |||||
163 | |||||
9 | |||||
8 | |||||
5 | |||||
1 |