Winter Balance Preview Changelog

And then we take a look at all the factors at play here (instead of omitting everything that doesn't suit our point), only to see that Ostheer teching is more expensive in return, and that PzGrens are a more vulnerable, more expensive unit. "HOW DARE THEY BE BETTER AT SOMETHING WHILE COSTING MORE", to more or less use your words…

I don't have a problem with this unit in the slightest.

...

A little bit of the topic

Guys i know that currently you can balance only things that Relic allows you to do (that mainly inflict 1v1) but is there ANY chance of convincing them to change the map pool for 2v2 and higher modes? As a moders who cooperate with Relic i belive you can explain them how much important it is. You have to realise that no matter how much you will balance the game becouse of horrible design maps those mods will be still broken.

It's not only my opinion but many other players too. Map pool must be change!

A little bit of the topic

Guys i know that currently you can balance only things that Relic allows you to do (that mainly inflict 1v1) but is there ANY chance of convincing them to change the map pool for 2v2 and higher modes? As a moders who cooperate with Relic i belive you can explain them how much important it is. You have to realise that no matter how much you will balance the game becouse of horrible design maps those mods will be still broken.

It's not only my opinion but many other players too. Map pool must be change!

Although we are trying to address issues that plague 1v1's, we are very team-game minded. Thus, we try to come up with solutions that will affect all modes beneficially. One such example was the PIAT change which was blatantly OP in teamgames, and stupidly UP in 1v1s.

Regarding teamgame issues, we have already been beseeching advice from some of the top players from those modes too, whenever possible. Unfortunately, most of the changes we are allowed to do with the patch only touch the early game. Thus, this might not affect teamgames that much.

The main issue, however, when it comes to assessing how some changes will affect teamgames is that it is extremely difficult to come up with 2 similarly-skilled teams that can play the game and give us feedback. Thus, if you really want to help us, the best thing you can do is launch a 4v4 lobby for the mod, and play the game.

Then, let us know if/how some of the changes we recommend will affect those gamemodes.

Although we are trying to address issues that plague 1v1's, we are very team-game minded. Thus, we try to come up with solutions that will affect all modes beneficially. One such example was the PIAT change which was blatantly OP in teamgames, and stupidly UP in 1v1s.

Regarding teamgame issues, we have already been beseeching advice from some of the top players from those modes too, whenever possible. Unfortunately, most of the changes we are allowed to do with the patch only touch the early game. Thus, this might not affect teamgames that much.

The main issue, however, when it comes to assessing how some changes will affect teamgames is that it is extremely difficult to come up with 2 similarly-skilled teams that can play the game and give us feedback. Thus, if you really want to help us, the best thing you can do is launch a 4v4 lobby for the mod, and play the game.

Then, let us know if/how some of the changes we recommend will affect those gamemodes.

I do not recommend with using team game as balance pillar, but if so, you should pay attention to:
1. Cheesy tactics
2. Bad commanders
3. Early, mid, late and very late timing. What unit both sides have.

Team game screw the timing quite a lot because of cache presence.

Wow, good job actually! Been out for awhile, these seem to be some pretty nice changes. Though I think the Soviets are being punished way too much. I mean, I get the t70 and penal nerfs, but I think guards are already too expensive and the half track is barely used anyway.

But hell, most of these changes are very welcome indeed. Survivable ostfantry, PIAT fix, better light vehicles, and some MUCH much needed (read: relic's overdue) bug fixes and QoL changes. Thanks to you three and the community! (and relic)

Now if we were to get a decent/consistent AT gun for OKW that would be swell...

We believe that the following changes will make MedHQ an already more valuable tier, and also make healing more accessible and affordable OKW as a whole:
- FlakHT receiving major buffs to its utility and synergy with infantry
- Medkits becoming more available, and more affordable
- The QoL change that makes medics avoid chasing after retreating infantry, which should cut down the time until healing can commence.

Thus, we decided to revert the healing rate buff of MedHQ from 8 to 5, to bring OKW healing in line with other base-medic factions. Players need not be alarmed by it though, since the healing rate increase was not applied in the first place.

This is because we do not want to create super-tiers for any faction in the game.

I get that OKW mech route is getting slightly more accesible healing now, but that healing is still limited. Other factions get to unlock unlimited healing regardless of which route they take for a balanced price. In the late game where unlimited healing HAS to be acquired, OKW mech players have to pay an extra for a tier building just to get it, while presumably other factions in the late game don't have to backtech for healing.

I heard a suggestion somewhere that instead of a supply truck transforming into a unit-producing battlegruppe where medics have to be unlocked, it would instead be the supply truck transforming into a medic-ready battlegruppe where unit-producing capabilities have to be unlocked first. Of course the price of setting up the supply truck into the medic battlegruppe would be the (current) price for the medic sidegrade, and the would be sidegrade price for unit-production would be the (current) cost for setting up the supply truck into the unit-producing battlegruppe. Now would that a would be a good fix? What do you think?

Alternately why must okw t1 and t2 always be a medic and repair truck respectively?

I wonder what the feasibility would be for having the okw hq, medic, and mech truck each individually able to upgrade for one or the other. As in a player could have a base hq with medics and their t1 and t2 set up with repair pios. I think the only blaring issue would be the graphics on the t1 truck when set up.

Just a thought.

Alternately why must okw t1 and t2 always be a medic and repair truck respectively?

I wonder what the feasibility would be for having the okw hq, medic, and mech truck each individually able to upgrade for one or the other. As in a player could have a base hq with medics and their t1 and t2 set up with repair pios. I think the only blaring issue would be the graphics on the t1 truck when set up.

Just a thought.

Well, strictly speaking, basically no one is going to get a repair upgrade first with the immediate option of both anyway - so we did that, we might as well just put two global upgrades in the starting base where the first one that makes the first truck you put down have medics and the next upgrade makes the remaining non-T3 truck have repairs but requires the first upgrades and having all three trucks down. Therefore, the current requirements for the upgrades do provide a bit more strategy from the enforced limits to healing.

Strictly speaking, a player may feasibly get neither upgrades until they need one or the other. I get what you're saying though. I just wonder if vehicle heavy builds could be be made more feasible with a repair upgrade rush. Double kubel starts, early reps for a flakHT or rushed luchs, that sorta thing.

We tried some fancy variations, like higher speed, lower range for less damage, etc.

In the end, we decided that since the USF mortar has been causing issues for so long, we should go for a super-conservative design. Thus, we mirrored a mortar design that works and nerfed it down from there.

We did try some fancy variations (e.g., lower damage, lower range, but higher reload). In the end, we decided that this wouldn't stop the community from seeing ghosts and pointing the finger, as they have already been doing with Miragefla all those months. Stuff like "Oh, the USF mortar is still OP/better than the OST mortar", or "Now the USF mortar is crap. Back to 3-rifles, guys".

Let me recap as I am still wondering:

The US mortar came into discussing to tackle MG positions as it was claimed that US suffers problems in that regard, namely to counter crowd control (the issue was not about support damage). The idea therefore was to add a small mortar, probably based around the historical 60mm M2, primarily for giving the US faction some smoke screen capability as this little thing would obviously be lower in damage and range than any other mortar ingame.

What then happened was the introduction of a laser guided atomic murder mortar even stronger than the OT one. Now we are scaling back which is more than necessary. But we seem to forget that a fully 80mm mortar has never been the orginal intention. Now, we are being offered a copy/paste 80mm mortar with only slightly worse characteristics than the OT one without questioning the necessity of a full scale 80mm US mortar in the first place.

The aim should be a 60mm light mobile mortar at T0, obviously with smoke capabilty, but less range and damage compared to 80mm or 120mm mortars as it was originally planned but never tested.

Any plans to move smoke on AEC to vet 1. Seems like one of those abilities that allows the player to recover from mistakes like t70 auto repair.

I find if almost impossible to kill, unless I build 2 AC or it hits a mine.

Apologies if this has already be included somewhere.

Any plans to move smoke on AEC to vet 1. Seems like one of those abilities that allows the player to recover from mistakes like t70 auto repair.

I find if almost impossible to kill, unless I build 2 AC or it hits a mine.

Apologies if this has already be included somewhere.

That's why AEC also kills a bit less. If Light vehicles afford your infantry more time for you to plan your attack, so should they be afforded a way to escape.

It's a live-and-let-live design, like the Shock troops.
Show Spoiler

Team game screw the timing quite a lot because of cache presence.

One can address this either by lowering fuel income in bigger and/or increase CP gain to bring timing closer to smaller mods.

That's why AEC also kills a bit less. If Light vehicles afford your infantry more time for you to plan your attack, so should they be afforded a way to escape.

It's a live-and-let-live design, like the Shock troops.
Show Spoiler

Will have to to take your word for it as I don't have time to play the mod and test every map, but it really seems a bit excessive. Granted there may be other factors to consider when looking at the entire brit faction and how they interact with other factions ( and honestly I haven't looked at the entire picture )
but I seriously doubt (now that AC spam is probably coming to an end ) that ost has any real chance to kill this unit before mediums arrive unless the brit player screws up terribly.

It will really need to "kill a bit less".

Will have to to take your word for it as I don't have time to play the mod and test every map, but it really seems a bit excessive. Granted there may be other factors to consider when looking at the entire brit faction and how they interact with other factions ( and honestly I haven't looked at the entire picture )
but I seriously doubt (now that AC spam is probably coming to an end ) that ost has any real chance to kill this unit before mediums arrive unless the brit player screws up terribly.

It will really need to "kill a bit less".

If something cannot base-dive to kill your squad, and bleeds you a lot less, do you still have to finish it off for your defense to be effective?

You probably cannot kill SU-76 without vehicles, but you can defend vs it just fine, even though you eat the occasional barrage.

Also. Removing AEC smoke means we have to also remove Puma smoke.

What i said was move the the smoke to vet1.

If something cannot base-dive to kill your squad, and bleeds you a lot less, do you still have to finish it off for your defense to be effective?

There is a fine line on this issue. Does it deserve higher survivability than a t70 or a stuart simply because its AI is lower, and what percent lower killing power justifies this. Hard to say. It can come at 7 minute mark, so its counters are limited, and if fausted will easily just drive out of range.

Edit : This is also a unit that can finish of p4s and kill ostwinds outright. It is a good allround unit.

You probably cannot kill SU-76 without vehicles, but you can defend vs it just fine, even though you eat the occasional barrage.

Su-76 comes later, is less maneuverable and definitely easier to kill than AEC if it overextends.

Also. Removing AEC smoke means we have to also remove Puma smoke.

Isn't a puma more of a AT specialist. All smoke should be vet 1, unless doctrine selected or okw 251 Half-Track due to lack of mobility.

You also increased AEC armour because of S-mines (which do nothing/had game last night where AEC drove through every s-mine field to clear it) and because of MG42 armour piercing rounds, so its survivability has increased again.


Most vehicles that drive into the arc of double packs stand a good chance of dying. But the Aec has the speed and maneuverability to often get away without smoke guaranteeing it.

Yes i can attack ground, but again speed and maneuverability make that difficult. It's not like a tank.

Move it to vet 1 so at least the player has earnt the right to use that ability because atm if feels cheap when used in the first engagement.

I support the direction you guys are taking the game but a number of changes you made were to reward micro and smart play and to punish players who just yolo around the map.

Isn't a puma more of a AT specialist. All smoke should be vet 1, unless doctrine selected or okw 251 Half-Track due to lack of mobility.

You also increased AEC armour because of S-mines (which do nothing/had game last night where AEC drove through every s-mine field to clear it) and because of MG42 armour piercing rounds, so its survivability has increased again.


Most vehicles that drive into the arc of double packs stand a good chance of dying. But the Aec has the speed and maneuverability to often get away without smoke guaranteeing it.

Yes i can attack ground, but again speed and maneuverability make that difficult. It's not like a tank.

Move it to vet 1 so at least the player has earnt the right to use that ability because atm if feels cheap when used in the first engagement.

I support the direction you guys are taking the game but a number of changes you made were to reward micro and smart play and to punish players who just yolo around the map.

If we lock smoke behind Vet1, how are Puma and the AEC ever going to be able to get enough vet to use the smoke?

Both are now on a similar level with respect to infantry-hurting. Thus, they would never, ever, gain vet, until the enemy fields a vehicle.

The situation you describe only applies to live-version AEC. In the mod-version, the AEC is not able to swoop-in, score a few kills and swoop-out. Thus, there is no need for Pak guns to be so tremendously lethal against either vehicle.

Mr Smith, what are your thoughts on having the OKW's Flak halftrack come stock as a SdKfz 51 with the Flak gun ability as an upgrade?

For an army that has no reinforcement HT, OKW would benefit the most from frontline reinforcement cause of their play style and volks being best at long range. Let's say it came stock with a 90 munition cost for Flak, it would then make a T2 first build more viable by not delaying T3 with 55 fuel. It would be an AI, light vehic soft counter for the same cost as a panzerschrek, helping to relieve the multiple roles of the sturmpio