Balance Suggestions

Now i made a balance suggestion posts a long time ago which was ignored by relic but in-spite of that i will make more balance suggestions. since many of the balance changes relic made did not improve much, so i offer some suggestions based on the current patch. the changes i suggest are only the numbers, like cost, damage, speed, range, they should be pretty simple for relic to change, or are they simple to change? i don't know. i make these suggestions since relics previous changes were questionable and some problems since open beta had not been changed.


infantry.

-mg42s should be put back to 3 men teams.
-german mortars should shoot slower to 3.2 seconds
-panzer grenadiers should only have a 1 shreck upgrade for 75 munitions, and have one shreck does 160 damage, and fires a bit faster. i found that they drop there shrecks a bit too easy since they don't have many men in their squads.
-guards troops antitank rifle should not be dropable, they drop their weapons so easily it's aggravating.
soviet snipers should only have 1 men per squad and the sprint ability removed, i don't see why they have that it makes then even more OP.

mines.

soviet mines need to cost more, they can wipe out squads for a cheap 30 munitions what kind of idea is that? and german s mines need to change.

tanks.

t34/76 should be cheaper to 240 mp and 85 fuel, and have a damage increase to 110. there is a big gap between the t34 and the panzer IV so the only good thing about it is the ram ability which is just annoying to know that the only purpose that thing is to ram other tanks not fight them. the ram should be nerfed or removed, maybe just damage the engine if possible.

panzer IVs, damage should be reduced to 135, fuel cost should increase to 125, fire rate should be the same as t34.


su85 armor decrease to 160, i don't see why they need an uparmored front in the first place.

panther range increased to 60.

t3485s should have faster reload times and less HP.

tiger tank armor increased to 400.

is2 armor increased to 400, cost reduced to 600 mp 260 fuel.

range increase in is2 and tiger tank to 50, i thought about increasing range to 60 but because of is2s big splash damage, that would be too OP, but if only increase range on tiger than that would be unfair for the is2 so might as well settle at 50.

t70 accuracy needs to be reduced, every time one of its round hits the infantry just bounce around, making it very difficult to counter an early t70.


so what i want are less effective soviet snipers, useful t34s and better heavy tanks.

veterancy - this needs to change, having a 50 pct damage decrease or a 70 pct damage increase is too big a gap for a non veteran unit to a veteran one, this needs to change.
to maybe 25 pct damage increase, or defense. this system makes it harder for the other opponent to come back if he lost a squad due to the amount of randomness that happens in this game. like squad wiping mines and grenades one hit killing buildings.

well a few points, the soviet sniper needs the two man squad because well, they tend to miss sometimes if they make it like the german sniper then all i fair i guess, but you can't have same number of men with less accuracy or w/e . SU 85s would need the extra frontal armor because well thats how you have to position them. while other tanks can go very fast ( mario kart style) is su85 is a very slow turtle indeed. if they had no frontal armor AND were very slow, not very fair i would think .Overall i think the heavy tanks are fine, and well the whole point of veterancy encourages well thought out strategic play, in a sense. If you can control your troops better than the other player, then well yes you probably should be rewarded for it, it should be harder for the other player to come back. Vetted infantry is not so much of a deal that you auto lose in a sense if you do not have as many as he does. Keep up the good thoughts.. good luck and have fun

well a few points, the soviet sniper needs the two man squad because well, they tend to miss sometimes if they make it like the german sniper then all i fair i guess, but you can't have same number of men with less accuracy or w/e . SU 85s would need the extra frontal armor because well thats how you have to position them. while other tanks can go very fast ( mario kart style) is su85 is a very slow turtle indeed. if they had no frontal armor AND were very slow, not very fair i would think .Overall i think the heavy tanks are fine, and well the whole point of veterancy encourages well thought out strategic play, in a sense. If you can control your troops better than the other player, then well yes you probably should be rewarded for it, it should be harder for the other player to come back. Vetted infantry is not so much of a deal that you auto lose in a sense if you do not have as many as he does. Keep up the good thoughts.. good luck and have fun

i understand the su85 does need a good frontal armor but why did relic change it from 160 to 180? my suggestion was to put it back to 160, since 160 is still pretty good armor. also the disparity between the speeds of the su85 and the panzer tanks are not like mario kart and turtle, thats more like elefant and any other tank. the su85 can reverse fairly fast and it's turning speed is not so bad, even though it's still flankable as it should be.

i think veterancy encourages more unit preservation than strategic play, which is good. unit preservation should be encouraged but the disparity between non veteran troops and vetted troops are still too high. in my opinion.

Good job summarizing all the balance threads in one quick review.
But why not comment in those threads instead of making a new thread
Most of the things you list have been said a lot of times before

disagree on the german weapons teams.
what about the stug?

I can agree on all accounts except MG crew size and your T34/PIV balance.

MG crew size is equivalent to Maxim, and the remaining asymetric design between them is balanced.

Your T34/PIV changes favor T34s far too much, especially at that increased fuel cost for PIVs at that drastically reduced damage.

disagree on the german weapons teams.
what about the stug?

i forgot about that, i think the stug should just have a range buff and increased accuracy. its still good against t34 and su76, but not against su85s which is fine. the stug currently doesn't have good splash damage i heard, hopefully that's fixed. the germans intended it to be an assualt gun that happened to be a good tank destroyer, so i'm looking forward to see the stug in a good assault role since the last time i used it, it couldn't hit shit.

I can agree on all accounts except MG crew size and your T34/PIV balance.

MG crew size is equivalent to Maxim, and the remaining asymetric design between them is balanced.

Your T34/PIV changes favor T34s far too much, especially at that increased fuel cost for PIVs at that drastically reduced damage.

the small mg crew size is made up by its huge arc and rate of fire, i think one of the main reasons why the german crews have increased squad sizes is because double sniper squads can decrew german weapon teams with one volley, because the last surviving guy runs away, but that doesn't happen with mg crews. the mg should die easily when flanked but with 4 man crew it's a bit difficult.

just think of a common scenario, one german mg and a grenadier squad against 2 conscript squads each opposing side cost 480 mp total. during a soviet attack one squad usually takes the bait while the other one flanks. before, when the teams used to be 3 men, one flanking conscript squad can take out the mg before the grenadiers can take out the conscripts, but with the increased size that doesn't seem possible. i have yet to test that though, but i really doubt the two conscripts have any chance against a grenadier mg combo.

The situation you describe is the same vs Maxims with Grens.

The difference being that Maxims are infact +25% more durable than MGs.

I dunno why I need to keep repeating this.

The situation you describe is the same vs Maxims with Grens.

The difference being that Maxims are infact +25% more durable than MGs.

I dunno why I need to keep repeating this.

well we just have different opinions on balance. yes, the maxims are tougher than mg42 but that's also to compensate for the arc of fire and low suppression rate. i know the maxim also deploy faster, if you're going to mention that.

i just remembered something, medium tanks have 640 hp not 600. changing suggestions to panzer IVs should do 135 damage while t34s do 110.

If you think uprooting an MG is hard, it is 25% harder to uproot a Maxim.

I'm not a great player, so my 2 cents are wooden at this point:

One thing I would like changed is sniper versus garrisoned units, and since russian snipers are already so awesome, maybe just change the ratio for the ostheer sniper, who has to deal with 6 people in a building. I'd like to keep the russian sniper to the 40% anti building accuracy, but boost the ostheer to 60%, slightly more hits than misses. Right now, a unit can just camp in there, while the sniper stays in one place way too long.

Not sure why the speed decrease of the ostheer mortar, given that the things it counters, mass conscript spam, hit-the-dirt, 6-man maxims, etc. are community complaints.

No mention of hit the dirt or straff. Both are being dealt with already though, so I guess no need, though with hit-the-dirt, I think they should just lower its overall effectiveness and allow it to stack with cover as it does anyway so that in green cover the ability is as powerful as intended, and outside of it, less so.

I'm not opposed in principle to the single shrek buy, because that will definitely allow for more munitions flexibility for ostheer without really letting it get out of hand(they usually seem strapped for munis in the early and mid game). Just wonder how much more effective that will make pgrens, and if its a balance concern to protect shreks from dropping and to spread out the at power while not compromising as much anti infantry strength. I actually think they could stand to get a slight boost given their cost, so maybe not a bad idea.

I must not be playing at a high enough level. I saw golradier's post, and some high level players definitely think the t-34 needs some help, but I find it a pretty good buy, if a slightly too expensive. A cost reduction or strength boost is definitely in order if the t-70 gets nerfed though. That thing helps to contain ostheer, drain a lot of manpower and make the later tank presence less menacing, allowing t-34's and t-34 85s, or at guns, or lots of guards to take care of them, in lieu of tier 4.

Maybe make guards rifles less likely to drop if you also tone down button. I think it should slightly reduce a tank's speed while immediately fucking up visibility, so that a tank might pay for being in a shooting match when the other guy is supported by guards, but so that 3 guards can't catch a p4 out easily and put it down without taking any damage in the process. You would still be able to get the same effect if you just added one conscript with an at grenade, but at least you'd need combined forces.

Soviet mines are brutal, just not sure if they are a problem, in-spite of the mayhem. Ostheer mine patches suck though. Vehicles shouldn't trigger them(this may make no practical sense, I don't know how mines work, but they can be pressure specific can't they?). What a waste of 80 munitions for somewhat lackluster mines that can be swept without incident by a t-70. The fields could also stand to be 10 to 20 munitions cheaper. conversely, maybe allow ostheer the ability to place single anti-infantry specific mines for 25-munis.

I haven't been having too much difficulty with SU-85s, but I will say their extended sight range could do with a slight decrease. For that matter I found the elephant with sight scopes and extended range hilarious(though I've only used that once).

Somebody mentioned stugs...they do kind of blow, but they are cheaper than the pIV so are a good quick answer to follow up the typical t-70 window. Later, they aren't bad if you have to field a couple of them against t34's, or as added damage support for your pIV's for when you go in for the flank against SU-85's. If nothing else they shoot fast, so have to be killed before the PIV's are dealt with. Given their rate of fire, more range might be a problem. Maybe a very slight fuel decrease instead?

you don't have to be a great player to voice opinions, just have to be reasonable.

i completely forgot about strafes and hit the dirt, but then they have been talked about so much and relic did say they are going to fix it, so i didn't need to anyways. i asked for speed decrease because it shoots twice as fast as the soviet mortar which kind of imbalance things between them, still with my suggestion the german mortar still shoots a little faster than the soviet counter part.

your sniper suggestion is alright, i don't really know the chances are of snipers sniping units out of buildings though.

i don't think the suggestion i made should give the t70 cost reduction, i only asked for less accuracy.

i don't think t34s are a good buy two t34s can still have trouble taking out a panzer IV unless one rams it. a t34 is around half as effective as a panzer IV for 80 pct of the cost.

guards squads are not meant to take out tanks really... i think what really makes them is their OP buttoning ability which buttoning and at combo shreds tanks.

i think giving stugs more range would give them some chance against su85s, there hp is less than the hp of any other medium tank anyways. with my suggestions a t34 would take out a stug pretty easily when flanking so i stand with my stug range buff.

Oh sorry,

didn't mean that the t-70 would need a cost decrease, but that if the t-70 took a nerf t-34 would definitely need some added improvement, either to strength or cost. Still, that might revert to the standard of building the t-34 over the t-70 in most scenarios, so that should probably be done delicately.