Only for smoke grenade. I won‘t say anything, if cavalrly riflemen have Garand as a weapon. Cap and Leut have Garands in the their squads, so nothing strange. What about major...well... it can be solved in two ways:
1. Change Carbines on Garands. With same stats if you worry this change makes him OP
2. Remove this abillity for major
IMO this is one of those many situations where gameplay trumps semblance of realism. Another example of mechanics that are good for gameplay but would be nonsensical in real life is at grenades and panzerfausts causing engine damage when shooting at the front of a tank. Or cav rifles, guards, and most axis infantry literally just pulling guns out their ass some weirdly specific amount of seconds after you told them so just because you told them to (I’m talking about weapon upgrades lol).
Actually, I’d imagine it’s not so far fetched that assault infantry such as cav riflemen would carry an extra rifle in addition to smgs just for rifle grenades if they’re already lugging around satchels.
As if giving garands to the major guys would make him OP XD
The mortar HT was not used by British forces in WW II as far as I know.
One idea would be for the Valentine to lose barrage and spotting and to be have clear role either as light tank or medium tank or infantry support tank.
Once that is shuttle the unit in Royal artillery could have an upgrade available to upgrade to Forward observer Tank gaining abilities that allow it to synergies with sexton. The trade of would be to lose some of its damage similar to command vehicle. The upgrade should also be limited to 1.
The same Valentine could also become available to Tactical support without the FO upgrade and become a good candidate for a command vehicle.
M-10, Shermans or Sherman dozers could also work for Tactical support.
Considering that they had no Halftrack and used the M3 one (Like in Special Weapons) I don't see a problem in using a bit of fantasy with the mortar HT.
I mean they now have the M1 81mm Mortar in the air supply operation drop, you could just say that it didn't need a genius to figure out how to make it a bit more mobile by mounting it on a Halftrack.
Stormtroopers can be used much more actively and offensively since they have a far and away superior camouflage to ambush camo pgrens. It’s much easier to sneak behind enemy lines with stormtroopers or commandos than ambush camo pgrens because as soon as pgrens take a step out of camo they are revealed.
This opens up a wealth of possibilities for more aggressive and offensive ambushes and flanking through camo to get at support weapons or low health squads without he enemy even realizing.
Ambush Camouflage (Affects Storm, Jaeger Infantry and Encirclement)
* Renamed Ambush Training
* Camouflage cost from 30 to 20.
* Camouflage now works when moving. Requires all squad members to be in cover.
* Infantry can now use the Sprint ability. No upgrade required. Snipers and weapon teams cannot sprint.
Again it is not about who can do it better.
PGs can sprint and can move while cloaked, that also allows them to move to flank undetected. The units overlap. It is as simple as that and that is why they need to bring something extra to the table like the anti cashes capability.
Only for smoke grenade. I won‘t say anything, if cavalrly riflemen have Garand as a weapon. Cap and Leut have Garands in the their squads, so nothing strange. What about major...well... it can be solved in two ways:
1. Change Carbines on Garands. With same stats if you worry this change makes him OP
2. Remove this abillity for major
Or change the weapon to smoke grenade instead of rifle grenade.
Ambush Camouflage (Affects Storm, Jaeger Infantry and Encirclement)
* Renamed Ambush Training
* Camouflage cost from 30 to 20.
* Camouflage now works when moving. Requires all squad members to be in cover.
* Infantry can now use the Sprint ability. No upgrade required. Snipers and weapon teams cannot sprint.
Again it is not about who can do it better.
PGs can sprint and can move while cloaked, that also allows them to move to flank undetected. The units overlap. It is as simple as that and that is why they need to bring something extra to the table like the anti cashes capability.
Yeah but LoopDloop has right. It's a big diffrent when all your models need to be behind a cover to move in camouflage or to have only 1 model behind a cover. That's a huge diffrence in a gameplay. Ambush Camouflage and Stormtroopers are in diffrent commanders so i don't see argument about overlaping so relevant.
I agree with the rest said about stormtroopers.
Btw shouldn;t the 5th model upgrade shouldn't include a stormtroopers?
Yeah but LoopDloop has right. It's a big diffrent when all your models need to be behind a cover to move in camouflage or to have only 1 model behind a cover. That's a huge diffrence in a gameplay. Ambush Camouflage and Stormtroopers are in diffrent commanders so i don't see argument about overlaping so relevant.
I agree with the rest said about stormtroopers.
Btw shouldn;t the 5th model upgrade shouldn't include a stormtroopers?
There is a difference but point is that St.T need to bring something extra to the table like the anti cashes capability. Can we move on?
Yeah but LoopDloop has right. It's a big diffrent when all your models need to be behind a cover to move in camouflage or to have only 1 model behind a cover. That's a huge diffrence in a gameplay. Ambush Camouflage and Stormtroopers are in diffrent commanders so i don't see argument about overlaping so relevant.
I agree with the rest said about stormtroopers.
Btw shouldn;t the 5th model upgrade shouldn't include a stormtroopers?
Both you and LoopDloop are wholly right. The camouflage is the main reason why Stormtroopers are superior and preferred ; they are a clear and definite choice for opening gameplay scenarios. I approve with you too, there's absolutely no overlap to anyone who used PG and Stormtroopers in-game. Theoretically, people may look blindly at the stats and conclude they're similar units, but they feel different, play different and they are distinct unique in-game units.
I'd increase the close range DPS; that's what I feel is missing on the STs. Some bigger close range punch. I'm starting to love STs; they should just make STs non-doctorinal instead of PGs.
Urban Defense Units KV-2
Apart from fact that this unit is not good for the commander as I have explained the changes made to unit are also in the wrong direction.
KV-2
In reality the KV-2 was more of self propelled gun providing indirect fire and although the gun of the same caliber as the ISU it was the M-10 and not ML-20 and was inferior. The unit become obsolete as soon 75mm gun become available to the German and it was a far less successful design than the ISU-152.
In game the unit has several difference from ISU-152. The idea of modeling the KV-2's after ISU-152 is problematic for a number of reason.
Comments:
Bugs:
The unit still gets a red icon over it while switching modes indicating a penalty although those have been removed.
(?)The uni does not have an option to attack vehicles in siege mode only to attack ground.
The idea of giving the same AOE profile as the ISU-152 is bad for number of reason. ISU HE munition have very low penetration and the chance to do AOE damage to tank is very low. KV-2 with an AOE 6 combined with the lower scatter be able do AOE damage to tanks far more often.
In addition KV-2 get 120!!! deflection damage when ISU-152 get half that, the value is simply way to high.
Further more KV-2 can fire behind shot blockers, has lower reload and has a turret that allow to better track enemy targets.
Finally KV-2 has increased range with veterancy to 80 which even longer than the Elephant.
When comparing the 2 units ISU is more difficult to use since it requires open space and can be flanked (although its rear armor is a bit high at 155) while KV-2 is easier to use and much harder to flank with 180!!! rear armor and a turret.
If one really wanted to follow the ISU-152 solution one would give the unit two types of munition maybe general purpose munition for tank mode and HE for siege mode.
The idea behind the vision penalty was that the commander would go into the tank to help with reload and thus the animation. Although the 0 vision in siege mod is wrong one could make use of the idea and animation with either making the penalty smaller (20?) or having the commander as an upgrade or vet bonus.
Replacing the vet 1 bonus is a good idea but "inspiration" is badly designed ability that promotes blobbing and allow PTRS Penal to protect the Tank very effectively. CD increases PTRS DPS vs Vehicles allot and sprint allow easier use of satchel charges.
The damage reduction at vet 3 is simply over the TOP, I am not sure why some many units are given that ability. Having a deadly 300/180 armor unit with effectively 1300 HP makes little sense.
Suggestions:
The unit in siege mode has a minimum range of 25 that is apparent to users especially since they cannot manually target enemy unit and can only fire on the ground. Maybe reduce that minimum range to 15? and/or give some indicator of that limitation.
Lower the rear armor value of the unit 180 is simply way to high for the unit
If the unit need more armor or HP that should come via veterancy since mobility should not included as vet bonus for this unit.
If the unit need addition firepower that again should come with veterancy.
Instead of trying to replicated the ISU-152 and creating another Soviet super heavy, reduce CP and price to lower level even than IS-2 and balance the unit accordingly.
Alternatively redesign the unit so that once is siege mod can fire a 3 shell barrage or give switchable munition to the unit similar to the Sherman (maybe for tank and siege mode).
Urban Defense Units KV-2
Apart from fact that this unit is not good for the commander as I have explained the changes made to unit are also in the wrong direction.
KV-2
In reality the KV-2 was more of self propelled gun providing indirect fire and although the gun of the same caliber as the ISU it was the M-10 and not ML-20 and was inferior. The unit become obsolete as soon 75mm gun become available to the German and it was a far less successful design than the ISU-152.
In game the unit has several difference from ISU-152. The idea of modeling the KV-2's after ISU-152 is problematic for a number of reason.
Comments:
Bugs:
The unit still gets a red icon over it while switching modes indicating a penalty although those have been removed.
(?)The uni does not have an option to attack vehicles in siege mode only to attack ground.
The idea of giving the same AOE profile as the ISU-152 is bad for number of reason. ISU HE munition have very low penetration and the chance to do AOE damage to tank is very low. KV-2 with an AOE 6 combined with the lower scatter be able do AOE damage to tanks far more often.
In addition KV-2 get 120!!! deflection damage when ISU-152 get half that, the value is simply way to high.
Further more KV-2 can fire behind shot blockers, has lower reload and has a turret that allow to better track enemy targets.
Finally KV-2 has increased range with veterancy to 80 which even longer than the Elephant.
When comparing the 2 units ISU is more difficult to use since it requires open space and can be flanked (although its rear armor is a bit high at 155) while KV-2 is easier to use and much harder to flank with 180!!! rear armor and a turret.
If one really wanted to follow the ISU-152 solution one would give the unit two types of munition maybe general purpose munition for tank mode and HE for siege mode.
The idea behind the vision penalty was that the commander would go into the tank to help with reload and thus the animation. Although the 0 vision in siege mod is wrong one could make use of the idea and animation with either making the penalty smaller (20?) or having the commander as an upgrade or vet bonus.
Replacing the vet 1 bonus is a good idea but "inspiration" is badly designed ability that promotes blobbing and allow PTRS Penal to protect the Tank very effectively. CD increases PTRS DPS vs Vehicles allot and sprint allow easier use of satchel charges.
The damage reduction at vet 3 is simply over the TOP, I am not sure why some many units are given that ability. Having a deadly 300/180 armor unit with effectively 1300 HP makes little sense.
Suggestions:
The unit in siege mode has a minimum range of 25 that is apparent to users especially since they cannot manually target enemy unit and can only fire on the ground. Maybe reduce that minimum range to 15? and/or give some indicator of that limitation.
Lower the rear armor value of the unit 180 is simply way to high for the unit
If the unit need more armor or HP that should come via veterancy since mobility should not included as vet bonus for this unit.
If the unit need addition firepower that again should come with veterancy.
Instead of trying to replicated the ISU-152 and creating another Soviet super heavy, reduce CP and price to lower level even than IS-2 and balance the unit accordingly.
Alternatively redesign the unit so that once is siege mod can fire a 3 shell barrage or give switchable munition to the unit similar to the Sherman (maybe for tank and siege mode).
Maybe turn it in a Soviet self-propelled gun like our ideas for the Sturmtiger?
Siege mode becomes Artillery mode, gives a far greater range but instead of auto fire you have a barrage ability of a few shells like you suggested.
That would make it a unique vehicle and at the same time have a specific role to fill that no other unit can.
Urban Defense Units KV-2
Apart from fact that this unit is not good for the commander as I have explained the changes made to unit are also in the wrong direction.
KV-2
In reality the KV-2 was more of self propelled gun providing indirect fire and although the gun of the same caliber as the ISU it was the M-10 and not ML-20 and was inferior. The unit become obsolete as soon 75mm gun become available to the German and it was a far less successful design than the ISU-152.
In game the unit has several difference from ISU-152. The idea of modeling the KV-2's after ISU-152 is problematic for a number of reason.
Comments:
Bugs:
The unit still gets a red icon over it while switching modes indicating a penalty although those have been removed.
(?)The uni does not have an option to attack vehicles in siege mode only to attack ground.
The idea of giving the same AOE profile as the ISU-152 is bad for number of reason. ISU HE munition have very low penetration and the chance to do AOE damage to tank is very low. KV-2 with an AOE 6 combined with the lower scatter be able do AOE damage to tanks far more often.
In addition KV-2 get 120!!! deflection damage when ISU-152 get half that, the value is simply way to high.
Further more KV-2 can fire behind shot blockers, has lower reload and has a turret that allow to better track enemy targets.
Finally KV-2 has increased range with veterancy to 80 which even longer than the Elephant.
When comparing the 2 units ISU is more difficult to use since it requires open space and can be flanked (although its rear armor is a bit high at 155) while KV-2 is easier to use and much harder to flank with 180!!! rear armor and a turret.
If one really wanted to follow the ISU-152 solution one would give the unit two types of munition maybe general purpose munition for tank mode and HE for siege mode.
The idea behind the vision penalty was that the commander would go into the tank to help with reload and thus the animation. Although the 0 vision in siege mod is wrong one could make use of the idea and animation with either making the penalty smaller (20?) or having the commander as an upgrade or vet bonus.
Replacing the vet 1 bonus is a good idea but "inspiration" is badly designed ability that promotes blobbing and allow PTRS Penal to protect the Tank very effectively. CD increases PTRS DPS vs Vehicles allot and sprint allow easier use of satchel charges.
The damage reduction at vet 3 is simply over the TOP, I am not sure why some many units are given that ability. Having a deadly 300/180 armor unit with effectively 1300 HP makes little sense.
Suggestions:
The unit in siege mode has a minimum range of 25 that is apparent to users especially since they cannot manually target enemy unit and can only fire on the ground. Maybe reduce that minimum range to 15? and/or give some indicator of that limitation.
Lower the rear armor value of the unit 180 is simply way to high for the unit
If the unit need more armor or HP that should come via veterancy since mobility should not included as vet bonus for this unit.
If the unit need addition firepower that again should come with veterancy.
Instead of trying to replicated the ISU-152 and creating another Soviet super heavy, reduce CP and price to lower level even than IS-2 and balance the unit accordingly.
Alternatively redesign the unit so that once is siege mod can fire a 3 shell barrage or give switchable munition to the unit similar to the Sherman (maybe for tank and siege mode).
I want to add, that tank-commander need to go. Before it was to recognise on/off sight. Now, when there is no sight penalty, no need in this guy. Also, i want to remind about idea to change it's siege indication on green brace padlock, like handbrake was made (small green shield near unit's shielsymbol)
Maybe turn it in a Soviet self-propelled gun like our ideas for the Sturmtiger?
Siege mode becomes Artillery mode, gives a far greater range but instead of auto fire you have a barrage ability of a few shells like you suggested.
That would make it a unique vehicle and at the same time have a specific role to fill that no other unit can.
Trying to model the unit after ISU-152 is step in the wrong direction imo.
In addition the unit was far inferior in real life and there is little need of reason for the unit to compete with ISU-152 in game.
Imo if one removes the penalties, lower the CP to 12-10 and the price to 600-650/180-200 the unit might offer an alternative as early "mini" Super heavy, less powerful but more accessible.
The indirect fire support unit is the other option that could also work for Dozer (even brumbar).
Trying to model the unit after ISU-152 is step in the wrong direction imo.
In addition the unit was far inferior in real life and there is little need of reason for the unit to compete with ISU-152 in game.
Imo if one removes the penalties, lower the CP to 12-10 and the price to 600-650/180-200 the unit might offer an alternative as early "mini" Super heavy, less powerful but more accessible.
The indirect fire support unit is the other option that could also work for Dozer (even brumbar).
I get that it was based on the obsolete chassis of the KV tanks and that it's gun was inferior to that of the ISU-152 and the turret was a bit of the wrong design but I don't see what that has to do with my suggestion into making it into a hybrid Self-propelled gun.
I get that it was based on the obsolete chassis of the KV tanks and that it's gun was inferior to that of the ISU-152 and the turret was a bit of the wrong design but I don't see what that has to do with my suggestion into making it into a hybrid Self-propelled gun.
I did not disagree with that I simply presented less drastic options.
Your suggestions regrding KV-2 are laughable, they will make already unviable tank even worse than live version of the tank which is meme
KV-2 does not need switch ammunition because it already gimped by fact it has to change modes to get ISU range and completely helpless while doing so.
ISU is much more reliable at long ranges compared to KV-2 and IS-2 is much better brawler, KV-2 on live version is just fail version of both instead of being middle ground, which it somewhat manages to pull of in patch mod.
Your suggestions regrding KV-2 are laughable, they will make already unviable tank even worse than live version of the tank which is meme
....
Dear Kirik
I am sory to have to point out this to you, but this thread is for providing feedback to Relic about the patch, which I did.
If I ever need feedback from you for my suggestions be sure that I will ask for it but will do so in an appropriate thread. Now can you pls be so kind as to tone down the aggressive attitude?
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
