How I feel about the upcoming Spring patch notes

While the first part of the patch notes provided some explanation, some are just... Worthy of debate.

Things I don't mention are ones I don't want to contend, or are fine in my eyes.

Feel free to discuss/contend with my opinions. I'm learning from this, as well.

Hull Down
To increase the usability of this ability, the following changes have been made
• Cast time from 15 secs to 7.5 secs
• Offensive bonuses removed (defensive bonuses remain)

Keep the offensive bonuses, or leave it as it is. If you remove the offensive bonuses, anyone can just park an AT gun in front of the tank just outside its range and destroy it.

Elite Troops Doctrine
Damage is being greatly reduced on stun grenades to solidify their role as a stun platform.
• Model 24 stun grenade damage from 40 to 5

As it should be.

MORTAR CHANGES
• Damage to garrisons increased from 0.25 to 0.5

Less merit to use/rely on incendiary/WP abilities to deal with garrisons.

120mm Mortar
The 120mm is losing a member of its crew to make it more vulnerable to assaults and to compensate for its ability to operate at one man.
• Squad size reduced from 6 to 5
• Vet 2 20% increase to barrage accuracy removed
• Vet 3 range bonus replaced by 20% increase to barrage accuracy
• Smoke barrage ranged changed to 120

Alternatively, rather than making a 5-man squad in a mostly 6-man faction, you could just increase the minimum crew members to 2. It would serve the same purpose.

Snipers are being adjusted across the board to be more vulnerable to flanks from infantry; the aim time changes will reduce their ability to snap off a shot and soft retreat against incoming threats. To improve anti-garrison tactics, all snipers now benefit from 100% accuracy vs garrisons.
• Retreat received accuracy modifier from 0.4 to 0.65
• Ready aim time increased from 1 to 1.5
• Fixed an issue where the Soviet sniper would be able to return to stealth fast
• Anti-garrison accuracy standardized to 100% for all snipers

Snipers are already fragile when put in any bad spot. Aim time increase does not reflect the cost needed to field a sniper in the first place. I do not agree with the garrison accuracy bonus. If a sniper is firing on a garrison prior to this change, it's already painting itself as a target by being stationary, while having the chance to not deal any damage, prolonging this state, and allowing it to be countered by a mortar.

A number of units have been given additional boosts to their MGs against snipers, increasing the number of mobile counters to these units.The following units’ hull MGs now have a 1.5 accuracy multiplier vs snipers
• USF: Stuart and Greyhound
• British: AEC
• Soviet: T-70
• Wehrmacht: Puma, 222 Armored Car
• OKW: Puma, Panzer II

Unnecessary. These units can already chase the fragile snipers as-is. If they get up-close, the sniper is likely to already be dead before it can retreat.

222 Armored Car
The 222 is receiving a cost and armor adjustment to make it more viable early-mid game and easier to replace in the later stages should it be destroyed.
• Manpower cost reduced from 250 to 200
• Front armour increased from 9 to 14
• Rear armour increased from 4.5 to 7

222s already have shock value by having an autocannon and machinegun. Adding more armor gives it a role overlap with the OKW Luchs, while having better sight range. It also allows it to extend into areas where it would normally be forced away from using rifles. The cheapness makes it spammable, and the intended armor buffs will make it hellish to fight against as UKF.

Panzergrenadiers
Panzergrenadiers are being given increased versatility; cheaper and more accurate panzerschreck will allow an alternative to the Pak40 that can support assaults with smoke grenades.
• Now have access to the Model 24 Smoke Grenade
• Panzerschreck upgrade munitions cost reduced from 120 to 100
• Panzerschreck far accuracy increased from 0.028 to 0.032

Let's make a non-doctrinal, Ost Shock Troops that, while already having a very wide range of utilities via doctrine choice, will also get accuracy buffs to its already potent AT upgrade1!!!1

It's silly to put the shreks that have superior AT performance to most allied handheld AT at the same cost as them.

Brummbar
The Brummbar is having its scatter increased to reduce its squad wiping potential and allow it to better push back multiple squads grouped together.
• Scatter from 2.5/6 to 4.8/7.5
• Bunker buster (vet1 ability) scatter from 2.5/6 to 6.4/7.5

Scatter won't push back multiple squads grouped together. It's the fear of losing a squad. Doubling/tripling its scatter without increasing either its range or rate of fire would just make it underwhelming for the investment needed to field it.

In the first place, a Brummbar will only be built to counter infantry blobs. Increasing scatter would be detrimental in this regard.

Sniper
The Soviet sniper is becoming a 1-man/woman squad similar to the Wehrmacht and British snipers to allow more counter-sniper play from Wehrmacht players and reduce frustrating misses from the Soviet sniper.
• Squad size reduced from 2 to 1
• Camouflage combat reset time from 16 to 10
• Camouflage revert time from 3 to 6
• Hitpoints increased from 64 to 82
• Population increased from 8 to 9
• Ready aim time changed to 1.5
• Cooldown changed to 3.5 (min) - 4 (max)
• Reload duration decreased from 5 to 4.5
• Reload frequency increased from 4 to 9
• Population from 8 to 9
• Out of cover camouflage decloak time increased by 2 seconds

Alternatively, you can choose to increase the price tag of the squad to 400MP OR increase the reinforce cost to 110MP. Losing the 2nd man is equivalent to paying for almost half of a new squad, so this prevents reckless play and spam.

This would keep its identity as the only 2-man sniper squad without changing how it's played.

Katyusha
Reload time between salvos have been increased to give more time for players to react to Katuysha volleys.
• Reload time increased from 2.5 to 3 (delay between each volley in the barrage)

Already the slowest rocket arty to finish its salvo (Excluding the doctrinal land mattress). Dies to a single tank shell, too. This change makes it even more vulnerable to tank dives and counter-artillery mid salvo.

Conscript PPSh
Conscripts are now only upgraded with 2 PPsh’s per squad to reduce their close range lethality, improve counter play and increase reaction time for the opposing player.
• Number of PPSh slot items awarded from 3 to 2

And comparatively make them worse than a Volksgrenadier squad that costs the same amount of munitions and a similar amount of MP for a far better close-medium weapon? To get into CQC range, they already have to approach and take damage. During this, they're vulnerable to machineguns and any CQC weapons Axis has.

PTRS (all variants)
We are lowering the PTRS’ deflection damage to reduce their impact against heavy armoured vehicles when attacking from the front.
• Deflection damage reduced from 20 to 10

PTRS rifles already cost 70 munitions to unlock, unless they're Guards and take up both weapon slots they're purchased for. They hardly do any damage to anything that isn't a light vehicle, too.

Even when spammed, they aren't as efficient as other handheld AT.

Penal Battalions
Given that the AT Satchel no longer cancels when units exit its range, we are reducing its range of activation.
• Targeted satchel charge range reduced from 10 to 5

AT satchels only really work to punish bad tank micro. They're already easily countered by backpedaling any tank. Halving its range is silly when you consider that you have to first unlock the ability for 70 munitions, then pay another 45 munitions to use it.

And, assuming it does land, a smart tank player can just stay close to the squad that threw it and kill some members or wipe the squad out entirely, because it can damage friendly units. Halving the throw range makes using it plain suicidal and anything but economic.

Literally every other faction has far more efficient and far less risky handheld AT options for the same munition price. Just leave it alone.

IL-2 Loiter
The IL-2 Attack Loiter is having its damage reduced to lessen its ability to wipe infantry squads at full health.
• Damage from 5 to 3
• Loiter time for each plane reduced by 3 seconds

One or the other. Alternatively, increase the muni price by 30-50 and retain as-is.

P47 Rocket Attack (Loiter)
We felt the P47 rocket attack was causing too much damage for its cost.
• Damage from 80 to 65

Or just increase the cost.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

Additionally I would mention the ISU nerf. It already has a huge scatter and is a RNG cannon. Why increase scatter even more? Makes no sense to me. It has a very long reload and often doesn´t even kill a model. I think more scatter makes it even less useful. ISU isn´t really that good in the current meta anyways.

SU 85 nerfs are over the top... They are just too much and add unneccesary frustration to tank micro.

Replaying ML 20 with B4 in the Tank Hunter Doctrine is just a wtf change. I have no idea what this is supposed to accomplish. Making a meme doctrine even more meme? Whats the point?

Dshk was effectivly nerfed out of the game in the last patch. Maybe revert some of these overnerfs to make it viable again? Currently it´s just a meme unit. I called it being overnerfed before last patch was released. It was obvious that nerfing damage, supression, set up time and cost is too much. Every single time there is a strong/op unit balance team completly rips them apart rendering useless, why??

All the Brits nerfs are overnerfs. Brits do not deserve to get nerfed even more. They are already pretty weak especially in 1v1. The Infantry Section changes + Bren LMG changes are madness. Why take away the capture rate bonus Infantry Sections had? To cripple them even more in early game? Comet needs some love. So does the Croc. With all these nerfs it would only be fair if Brits get snares for their Infantry Sections now. If the changes are implemented like in current patch notes it´s RIP UKF.

Wehrmacht has some stuff that needs to be balanced. G43s for 45 munitions remain while PPSH gets nerfed, how is that fair? Tiger Ace is a retarded unit that rewards bad players by giving them a heavy tank despite losing the game. Panzerwerfer gets lots of wipes but doesn´t get nerfed like Katjusha. Adding smoke to Pgrens is ok, but why decrease Schreck price while buffing their accuracy. Not needed imo. Bunkers need to get pop cap cost + sight reduction. Teller mines need to cost more. One-shotting light tanks for 50 muni is too much.

Restricting Volks flame nade yet again is a super stupid change. It just encourages camping and MG spam and makes playing OKW very annoying vs. certain playstyles. Sturmtiger nerf has to be a joke. It´s already borderline useless already. KT should have gotten some sort of buff to it´s mobility and/or turret rotation. Or maybe even spearhead ability at vet 0.

Snipers are gonna be very questionable after these changes too. Ost and UKF snipers weren´t OP and didn´t need any nerfs. Soviet sniper was OP but why buff sniper counters AND nerf sniper RA. It´s too much. Once again.

So many useless units weren´t buffed: Shocks, KV 1/2, IS2, Sexton, Valentine, ...

Are you not concerned about Panther nerf? More HP doesn´t compensate the fact that will have Less armor + more expensive.

Am I the only one who thinks Wehrmacht lacks of a non doctrinal trully TD?

The Panther it´s a joke right now. Tiger comes too late and it´s a shitty unit (ultra slow and not that good armor). Furthermore, the only available TD option (Stug) wil be also nerfed.

If this continues this way, they are encouraging panzergren blobs (smoke + accuracy + cheap schrecks).

Couple things to point out:

222's armor is laughable right now and it certainly does not overlap with the Luchs as much as you might think. Even after the armor buff it remains vulnerable to some MGs (.50 and DsHK)and more vulnerable than the Luchs is to AT rifle fire. OKH lacks any light armor other than the 222 and 251 and both of them can be dealt with via prolonged small arms fire. I support the buff because it gives the OKH more build diversity.

They specifically said that they were having trouble forcing the Soviet 120mm mortar crew to decrew at 2. I'd honestly like to see it keep the 1-man decrew but make it unable to retreat.

I hate the Soviet sniper change, mostly for faction flavor. I agree that snipers in general were overnerfed, but I think the light vehicles having bonuses versus snipers is long overdue and is a good thing. More options is good in this case, as snipers are usually well-microed and behind a protective screen of infantry or MG.

The reason why ML-20 was replaced with B4 is that B4 has a direct fire shot for antitank duty, essentially making it the closest Soviet equivalent to the Pak43. Is it still a meme unit? Definitely. But does it fit the theme more? Also definitely.

No other faction has free grenades right off the bat. Everyone needs to side-tech for grenades on Allied side. Would like to see grenades and faust unlocked with an undeployed sWS HT instead of deployed HQ. Also Volks firenade (and many things fire-related) are cancer and didn't actually exist IRL. I'm aware flame rockets and bombs existed for Axis, but can't find any evidence of flame arty for Soviets and flame mortar for Axis.

Panther did not get nerfed. If you've played OKW before you'd find that they can get their Panthers faster. Early(ish) OKW Panther + 5* veterancy with faster RoF is blatantly OP. Enjoy the Panther buff. StuG nerf is well-deserved and Tiger is far from "a shitty unit" because of its health durability and generalist nature. If used in combined arms warfare it can do a lot.

Are you not concerned about Panther nerf? More HP doesn´t compensate the fact that will have Less armor + more expensive.

Let me remind you that taking away HP and increasing armor was a direct nerf to Churchill back in the day.
Opposite logically is a buff.

Am I the only one who thinks Wehrmacht lacks of a non doctrinal trully TD?

Why? Stug was removed?

The Panther it´s a joke right now. Tiger comes too late and it´s a shitty unit (ultra slow and not that good armor). Furthermore, the only available TD option (Stug) wil be also nerfed.

Panther is improved with better survivability against TDs and better DPS.
StuG change will disappear the moment you hit vet1, which is 4 shots against T34.

If this continues this way, they are encouraging panzergren blobs (smoke + accuracy + cheap schrecks).

That'll never work in late game against anyone semi decent, because you'll be bled to death.

Couple things to point out:

222's armor is laughable right now and it certainly does not overlap with the Luchs as much as you might think. Even after the armor buff it remains vulnerable to some MGs (.50 and DsHK)and more vulnerable than the Luchs is to AT rifle fire. OKH lacks any light armor other than the 222 and 251 and both of them can be dealt with via prolonged small arms fire. I support the buff because it gives the OKH more build diversity.

so a doctrinal MG and the latest arriving MG. bulletproof isnt the problem, its that AND the mp reduction. the only reason to think relic ACTUALLY has a hand in this patch is multiple changes to the same unit

The reason why ML-20 was replaced with B4 is that B4 has a direct fire shot for antitank duty, essentially making it the closest Soviet equivalent to the Pak43. Is it still a meme unit? Definitely. But does it fit the theme more? Also definitely.

thats the thing, its a total joke, its AWFUL as an arty piece and its AT capability makes its arty capability look good. the pak43 works because it does its job, it will still hit behind shot blockers and it hits hard. the B4 can and will miss stationary target and you have to pay muni for the privilege, and if a unit is MOVING theres no point at all in trying, between the aim time and tiny arc and inability to actually rotate

How the everloving bloody crud is stand fast situational?? Diversity is dead! Mortar nerfs, prices are nuts, intelligent thought process behind swapped commander abilities non existent.

Why sapper flamer? Why not arty flares? Would provide intelligence before an attack? Or maybe a British for the mother land kind of ability? I can hear infantry sections screaming for the queen or for queen and country.

“Whistle blows, comeon lads over the top! Whistle blows, Charge for queen and country! Let’s push the hun back Like we did in Amiens! Remember the blitz!”

Men charge

“Yeah Jerry at’s for my Nan and er Ouse!”

I can hear infantry sections screaming for the queen or for queen and country.

“Whistle blows, comeon lads over the top! Whistle blows, Charge for queen and country! Let’s push the hun back Like we did in Amiens! Remember the blitz!”

Men charge

“Yeah Jerry at’s for my Nan and er Ouse!”

At the time England had a King......

I can't quote your quotes for context, but:

Hull down still has range. They worded it poorly.

Not every faction has incendiary/WP abilities, on mortars or otherwise. And since no one likes mortars insta-wiping squads in the open, they may as well be reliable at clearing buildings. Whether the new values are balanced, I'm yet to find out.

The 120mm squad size change is probably for technical reasons relating to established animations for that particular weapon.

Panzergrenadiers cost 340MP for a 4 man squad. It becomes largely worthless at anti-infantry roles once you upgrade (especially if you lose a single model) and you're far more likely to lose that 100 ammunition than on an comparative Allied squad. High risk, high reward.

The Brummbar is currently a beast. I feel they worded the changes poorly. It should now remain of similar potency against blobs, while being less wipey against lone squads.

I suspect you haven't been on the receiving end of a Katyusha very often. It only takes one barrage (hell, one rocket even) to wipe a squad, and even if you do survive the first barrage, escaping the subsequent barrage is extremely difficult. Not to mention the huge range. In 2v2 it is very difficult to rush down a Katyusha, and it provides amazing area denial on VPs in tight situations.

The IL-2 is also total area denial for infantry. Even with these changes, there's no real alternative to immediate retreat and hoping your AA shoots down the planes soon.

Let me remind you that taking away HP and increasing armor was a direct nerf to Churchill back in the day.
Opposite logically is a buff.

If you run the numbers for a panther vs allied tank destroyers and you look at average shots to kill a panther pre and post patch, the panther has a mild nerf at vet 0 in this situation (with slightly more survivability) and at vet 2 a hard nerf. Despite mod makers saying that this will help the panther vs tank destroyers, this is not the case, you can see the calculated averages in the last couple main patch discussion thread.

Allied TDs need their pen lowered and be given deflection damage. Look at how it works on PTRS' high armour values still provide protection, but the soviet player doesnt get AT weapons with a shelf life. With the exception of the su76 there is no reason for allied TDs to not at least do deflection damage so something like a panther could roll all the golden dice and potentially dive throughh 1000 fuel worth of anti armour without taking any damage. TDs have been buffed to the point that 320 armour is arguable negligible. Reducing damage RELIABLY is better than a dice roll of not bouncing a single shot and dying.

If you run the numbers for a panther vs allied tank destroyers and you look at average shots to kill a panther pre and post patch, the panther has a mild nerf at vet 0 in this situation (with slightly more survivability) and at vet 2 a hard nerf. Despite mod makers saying that this will help the panther vs tank destroyers, this is not the case, you can see the calculated averages in the last couple main patch discussion thread.

How many times does it need to be said, that panther is NOT a counter against TDs, but is supposed to BE countered by them, until it finally sinks?

If you run the numbers for a panther vs allied tank destroyers and you look at average shots to kill a panther pre and post patch, the panther has a mild nerf at vet 0 in this situation (with slightly more survivability) and at vet 2 a hard nerf. Despite mod makers saying that this will help the panther vs tank destroyers, this is not the case, you can see the calculated averages in the last couple main patch discussion thread.

Averages are a vast oversimplication here. They ignore the difference between hit points and armour.

Shifting armor to hit points makes the Panther more consistent. It reduces the chance of the Panther surviving a large number of Jackson hits but also reduces its chance of dying to a small number of Jackson hits.



Specifically, the new Panther now cannot die to five hits and is slightly less likely to die to six. After that you're better off with armour.

If you like to gamble on your tanks bouncing shells then armor's better but if you play safe with them and pull them back when they get hurt you're usually better off with health.

How many times does it need to be said, that panther is NOT a counter against TDs, but is supposed to BE countered by them, until it finally sinks?

Well someone didn't read the patch notes.

"the health bonus at veterancy 2 has been shifted to the unit’s stock performance to improve its survivability against tank destroyers."

Well someone didn't read the patch notes.

"the health bonus at veterancy 2 has been shifted to the unit’s stock performance to improve its survivability against tank destroyers."

And snipers health was increased to 82 to improve its survivability against mortars.
Are snipers a direct mortar counters now?

And snipers health was increased to 82 to improve its survivability against mortars.
Are snipers a direct mortar counters now?

Don't try to confuse the topic because you have no other retort.

You claimed that the panther changes were "logically a buff" (based on pointlessly comparing it to the Churchill)

If you look at the numbers, the changes seem to agugably provide a decrease in performance which is "logically" a nerf.

Don't try to confuse the topic because you have no other retort.

You claimed that the panther changes were "logically a buff" (based on pointlessly comparing it to the Churchill)

If you look at the numbers, the changes seem to agugably provide a decrease in performance which is "logically" a nerf.

Let me explain to you in 1 line why panther was buffed against TDs, but is still not supposed to be their counter:

TDs have massive penetration, they already are reliable and penetrate most shots against panther, increase of HP takes away uncertain RNG element and gives you 100% probability to last for one penetrating shot longer, which gives you additional few seconds to evaluate your position and respond accordingly, but you are NOT supposed to counter these TDs without a flank on them as they still are designed to chip off your HP from greater range.

Mediums will have just as hard time against it.
Premium meds and Heavies which have more reliable guns will always require 1 additional reload to take panther down, elliminating the need for lucky RNG for panther in close situation.
TDs already penned armor easily and will continue to do so, but require one more shot now instead of lucky RNG, giving you certain time to react, which you otherwise would not have.

Logically, its a buff to survivability against TDs by eliminating uncertainty of RNG armor while providing reliability of HP and no amount of REEEEE is going to change it.

If you like to gamble on your tanks bouncing shells then armor's better but if you play safe with them and pull them back when they get hurt you're usually better off with health.

Personally, I like to attack with panthers so HP would be best. If you do not have offensive tanks you will end up with stug/Su85 walls that are not offensive. Which leads to stale or stalled out play. And before you ask, Yes, I do smoke crack

Panzergrenadiers cost 340MP for a 4 man squad. It becomes largely worthless at anti-infantry roles once you upgrade (especially if you lose a single model) and you're far more likely to lose that 100 ammunition than on an comparative Allied squad. High risk, high reward.

What I meant to say behind my sarcasm in the OP is that it turns PGrens into do-all units. One can build PGrens early, fight (and escape) from engagements, then pick the would-be-cheaper shreks.

Depending on doctrine choice, they could swap the STGs for G43s, use the infiltration grenade attack and/or even cloak in cover while also possessing smoke grenades for offensive/defensive use and the option to upgrade to shreks (which will be cheaper) later in the game when medium/heavy armor starts to show up.

Yes, they lose a big chunk of their AI capabilities when swapping to shreks, but that also applies to riflemen/IS who double-equip AT- And the problem is, for having a higher base performance, it will now be cheaper to upgrade to, while being more accurate than before, and prior to that upgrade, you would have had a very potent AI unit capable of choosing its engagements.

While it's also true that shreks are practically exclusive to PGrens when playing as Ost, I don't think there is a need to reduce the cost of shreks given their performance.

I suspect you haven't been on the receiving end of a Katyusha very often. It only takes one barrage (hell, one rocket even) to wipe a squad, and even if you do survive the first barrage, escaping the subsequent barrage is extremely difficult. Not to mention the huge range. In 2v2 it is very difficult to rush down a Katyusha, and it provides amazing area denial on VPs in tight situations.

Quite often. It's powerful, but not as powerful as you've mentioned. My point was that it would increase the time a Katyusha stays still, which would increase its vulnerability to tank dives.

Assuming you dive a single Panther, which is capable of destroying a Katyusha in a mere direct hit, the Panther can still safely return back unless there's a lot of AT with snares.

Tank diving for artillery pieces is high-risk in the first place, but entirely plausible, and even relatively safe if planned for- Could even use a mere 222 if there's a massive AT gap.

222's armor is laughable right now and it certainly does not overlap with the Luchs as much as you might think. Even after the armor buff it remains vulnerable to some MGs (.50 and DsHK)and more vulnerable than the Luchs is to AT rifle fire. OKH lacks any light armor other than the 222 and 251 and both of them can be dealt with via prolonged small arms fire. I support the buff because it gives the OKH more build diversity.

It takes at least 5 AT rifle shots to down a 222 based on a game I had, earlier.

It would imply that the 222 would not notice the incoming AT-rifle equipped troops, not already be reversing in time to kite the AT rifle squads which require the squad to be stationary to use, and not have infantry support to stall said AT infantry. This excludes panzer tac's smoke screen.

It can also facetank (non-12.7) machineguns for more than 10 seconds at medium/long range, more than enough time to get out of the way. Despite being vulnerable to small arms, it can also soak up rifle fire as-is well. It's quite survivable if not facing hard AT- which would two-shot it, or a Guards squad which would use the button-down ability for a guaranteed kill.

Micro-heavy to keep alive the longer a match goes, but that's practically every light vehicle.

Armor aside, the biggest offender is the 200mp cost. It's AA/AI with good mobility, sight range and already good armor to anything that isn't an AT rifle, or larger.

I hate the Soviet sniper change, mostly for faction flavor. I agree that snipers in general were overnerfed, but I think the light vehicles having bonuses versus snipers is long overdue and is a good thing. More options is good in this case, as snipers are usually well-microed and behind a protective screen of infantry or MG.

I suppose you're right.

Please stay civil, everyone. I'm sure you know who I mean.