Wehrmacht September patch discussion
- This thread is locked
Posts: 498
What about giving storms their old 4x stg package in place of the G43 upgrade? It was a lot stronger combined with tactical advance compared to their very limited range Mp40s.
Posts: 783
IR STGs for PGs indeed either should be available at BP3, or limited to only one. I mean compared to Obers that retain two of their rifles, a PG squad with 2 regular and two 2 IR STGs would be absolute terminators at mid range and lower. Or just make the PG variant weaker.
What about giving storms their old 4x stg package in place of the G43 upgrade? It was a lot stronger combined with tactical advance compared to their very limited range Mp40s.
I would personally like to have that STG package available again for the Stormtroopers.
That is what made them unique, unfortunately a different path had been taken which I am really not a fan of.
Really do not even understand why they even had to remove that option anyway?
They could have simply left it there still as an option.
Posts: 4928
I think it's time to accept the G43 option for PzGrens is just not going to work. Even with the update they're still not worth it, and given they start with Stgs it's just not appealing to go for semi-auto rifles with marginal better long-range DPS.
I think the option of giving them IR Stgs is probably the way to go.
One thing they could do to retain the G43 is give them the Marksmen version that the Jaegers use.
I would personally like to have that STG package available again for the Stormtroopers.
That is what made them unique, unfortunately a different path had been taken which I am really not a fan of. The IR StG is an interesting idea but I feel it might become too widespread, it was a very rare item.
Really do not even understand why they even had to remove that option anyway?
They could have simply left it there still as an option.
They felt like Grenadiers that could upgrade to Panzergrenadiers. I wasn't impressed with them personally.
Posts: 498
They were identical to PGs with the STG upgrade with slightly lower target size and flipped vet2 and 3 bonuses. What made and would make the difference is the tactical advance ability on them.
They felt like Grenadiers that could upgrade to Panzergrenadiers. I wasn't impressed with them personally.
Posts: 72
They were identical to PGs with the STG upgrade with slightly lower target size and flipped vet2 and 3 bonuses. What made and would make the difference is the tactical advance ability on them.
That's exactly the issue, with STGs they are nearly identical to PGs, and that isn't good for unit identity, but it's good riddance too, with STGs you could easily park and hide them on your enemy's retreat path, pop tactical advance on any retreating infantry and boom, you just got an easy squad wipe without too much effort, tactical advance is too good of an ability to be allowed on a weapon that's decent at all ranges.
Posts: 783
That's exactly the issue, with STGs they are nearly identical to PGs, and that isn't good for unit identity, but it's good riddance too, with STGs you could easily park and hide them on your enemy's retreat path, pop tactical advance on any retreating infantry and boom, you just got an easy squad wipe without too much effort, tactical advance is too good of an ability to be allowed on a weapon that's decent at all ranges.
That is pretty much what the USF Paratrooper is doing now except at a far more efficient rate when upgraded with Thompson in comparison.
USF Paratrooper is doing the exact same thing. Tactical Advance.
They were identical to PGs with the STG upgrade with slightly lower target size and flipped vet2 and 3 bonuses. What made and would make the difference is the tactical advance ability on them.
It would not be a problem actually to have that option available again.
At least that would be an option which could make them more viable than they currently are.
For me the STG package was a hit, just great.
Simply bad decision in removing it completely.
What would be even a better decision is to just switch the Pzschreck package instead since its shit.
Same logic applies when playing OKW, none uses Sturmpio AT since Pzfusiliers has 2, more cost efficient (cuz price is way better) and it is simply more efficient.
Posts: 498
But on the other hand the storms still do quite well at AI job with 3 Mp40s (before you either had schreck or stgs) and they have free camo too, so it sort of explains the massive price for the schreck. (and vehicle detection hotkey is still conflicting with smoke grenade... yeah, I know, I mention it every single time, maybe the mod team notices it one day)
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
Ostheer
Leichte Mechanized Kompanie
To encourage T2 strategies and reduce the power of skiping tiers, we are moving the manpower discout for Ostheer tech to the Leichte Mechanize Kompanie.
- Manpower cost further reduced from 150 to 100
Battlephase 2
- Reverted manpower change from 150 back to 200
Tiger
The Tiger is having its AOE reduced on the outer edges to reduce it's killing power and to compensate for the tank's high accuracy against infantry.
- Far AOE from 0.175 to 0.15
- Far distance from 3.5 to 3
Panzergrenadier G43
We are reducing the cost of this upgrade to better reflect its current performance and trade-offs with the Panzergrenadier StG 44.
- Munition cost from 60 to 50
StuG Ausf. E
The StuG E is being moved into tech like other call-in vehicles. We have reduced the amount of CPs to compensate to encourage teching.
- CP requirement from 7 to 5
- Now requires Battlephase 2
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
Making t2 cheaper is also a good move and will show good synergy with the changes to the 251.
All in all Wehrmacht changes were really good in the last patches,i like the faction more than ever.
Posts: 379 | Subs: 1
Posts: 731
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Why are we still messing with the and PG?
Suggestions:
upgrade to 5 men and 5 G43 using m1 profiles
upgrade providing Vamp Mp44 adjusted to be inferior to obers or locked behind T4
free upgrade for 4 Gr43 adjusted (especially moving accuracy) making the unit from mid to close to mid to far.
other bonuses suited for "jager infantry" like flares extended sight
StuG Ausf. E
Replace TWP ability with something more useful.
Add direct fire MOD.
Posts: 498
Panzergrenadier G43
StuG Ausf. E
Replace TWP ability with something more useful.
Add direct fire MOD.
IIRC there were plans to add a free pintle mg as a vet rewards instead of TWP. Alternatives could include a barrage ability or switching to AP ammo, weaker than stug G, but in emergency situations it can come handy.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
In addition make the heal an active vet 1 ability that heal faster but has CD and move the shcu mine to riegel command ability for 222 and 251 and the riegel to pioneed.
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
How lowering the price of the 251 HT and making the upgrade to FHT cost manpower and fuel. That can help the balance both unit better.
+1 Thats exactly what i suggested 2 weeks before.
Imo its a no brainer- you would buff the base version of the 251 without making the flamethrower version stronger.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
+1 Thats exactly what i suggested 2 weeks before.
Imo its a no brainer- you would buff the base version of the 251 without making the flamethrower version stronger.
Then credits to you. Funny thing is that I had suggested that 221 to 222 should cost manpower and fuel (when the unit was available and imo it should become available again) but I was told that upgrades cost MU.
Then suddenly 221 to 223 cost MP/FU and dozer too. Since this road has been opened imo it should be applied to more units like m20 or even stug-e to Stug-g or panzer D to panzer H/J or m20 to ground hound or m3 lower fuel cost but can not fire from inside that would require a fuel upgrade or the WC carrier requiring fuel for wasp and Vickers.
Posts: 626 | Subs: 1
StuG Ausf. E
Replace TWP ability with something more useful.
Add direct fire MOD.
Someone suggested option to change ammunition AI/AT just like sherman has it. Vet1 would allow you to change into AT rounds with better penetration, diffrent AoE and faster projectile.
TWP ability for stug III E is kinda boring becouse basic version of this unit - Stug III G already has it where it suits much more.
Posts: 857 | Subs: 2
Then credits to you.
Thx but i did not mention it because i wanted to claim it as "my idea". I just think it would help the 251 so much if it would be cheaper in the base version. The Opel Blitz who basically does the same like the 251 cost also only 20 fuel. Add the additional 10 fuel on the flamer upgrade as suggested and we would not have to face ANY timing issues.
Maybe the mod team could explain why it does not want to go in this direction.
Posts: 1392
- Give Storm-Troups (Sturmtruppen) PPsh instead of MP40.
- Give OST Pio's MP40 same stats as Sten guns of Sappeurs, increase price to 210MP.
- Give all weapon crews K98 (stats of OKW)
That would make the weapon profiles more logical.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Give 251 simply little more HP, so it needs 3 shots of PaKs. So the price of 30 fuel would fit well, as it is now.
Why?
Nothing below 50 fuel survives more then 2 shots nor should it.
Given how much extra shit 251 is packed with and how early it arrives, be grateful it didn't got a cost increase being now a transport, scout and ad-hoc heal station.
Livestreams
51 | |||||
316 | |||||
36 | |||||
23 | |||||
11 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM