Interesting points. However, I still think the intended QoL improvement is superior to the lack of being able to use one healing option to reach both bases.
I think the sprinting medics is enough of a fix without having to reduce the search radius to the point of making 2v2+ annoying. Upping it to 25 should be enough. |
Cause it cant move and no one will ever walk in it range after the fist time they see it. The only match where Bofors can vet up is vs AI.
At the very least, give it some + suppression so it can still deni areas. I feel like the Bofor 1.2 nearly cant do anything. I saw a rak coak right up to the gun and then retreat while drop only 1 model.
Yeah, increased suppression would be good. |
Isn't the T70 arriving the latest of all the light tanks due to requiring more investment?
AEC-Stuart had been tailored towards been AT. I don't think the T70 can kill any light tank without any assistance from another AT source. At that point, it's equal to the P2 been able to finish other lights with assistance as well.
AEC functions as a generalist that leans towards AT, and Stuart is the opposite in my opinion.
If the P2 arrived a few minutes later at similar timing and had the same lethality as a T70, it wouldn't be ok.
The main issue with the T70 in my eyes is its ability to easily wipe squads on retreat/its accuracy on the move. |
|
T70 easily wipes full health squads on retreat unlike the P2, 222, AEC, Stuart, M20, or Greyhound. Why is it the sole exception?
Why is a so called "generalist" unit so much better at killing infantry than the rest, even those that are AI specialists, and better at countering light vehicles than most?
Sounds like a crutch unit to me. |
|
Not sure about the bofor changes, but I feel that they're in the right direction to make it less of a surprise squad eraser.
Maybe take a look at it's vet requirements/bonuses as it takes forever to level up. |
Medic chase range standardized to 20 for all base and forward structures
Something I haven't seen discussed, but does significantly impact team games are the changes to medics. Mainly the above change, which caps their radius of target acquisition to 20. Doing some tests on 2v2 maps where team mates share a base area, it seems that 20 is slightly too small even with perfect placement to reach the retreat points of both players. This might not sound like a big deal, but it is a huge hit to QoL, and it seems like it's not really necessary. I'd like the range upped to 25 and see how that feels.
|
snip
Thanks for the numbers rundown, that's interesting.
From my experience, what that translates to in game is a lot different than what is shown on paper. I believe it's due to a few factors:
- The projectile difference you mentioned, which can turn a miss into a hit for a PAK40. This appears to be the major factor that makes the raketen seem incredibly inaccurate and inconsistent.
- No Tier 0 fausts like Ost to keep M3 scout cars from wiping your squads or for keeping Bren Carriers at bay, making any raketen misses in the early game absolutely devastating for the OKW player.
- Sturm shrek package costing 70 munitions for a single shrek AND locking out the mandatory mine sweeper. Also if you do opt for the shrek upgrade, it can hardly be used offensively vs light vehicles. Most of the time the sturms just stare at the target aiming until it gets slightly out of range again.
- Unreliable penetration of the JP4 vs allied heavies, limiting your AT options late game to Panthers (handily countered by TD), KT (TD food), or the complete gamble that is the JT.
It's probably not an option, but honestly I'd much rather have Tier 0 fausts than a Tier 0 raketen. The rak being at T0 really limits how good it is as the argument will always be that raks should be worse than any other AT gun as it doesn't require tech. For those that oppose fausts and rak being switched in timing due to faction design, Id remind them that Volks used to get shreks to make up for its short comings. That was changed because it was poor design, and so should this in my opinion.
|
|
I feel like these rak changes miss their biggest pain points, which are inconsistent ability to hit light vehicles (greatly impacts OKW/SOV and OKW/Brit match ups early game) and inability to penetrate allied heavy armor late game.
|
I don't think it's a worse tank destroyer, it just has different strengths. Its high rate of fire, low target size, good armor and huge veterancy bonuses (camo, 800hp, highest accuracy in the game, ridiculous rate of fire) make it incredibly good versus medium tanks and TDs which makes it well worth its current price.
I never really think to get a JP4 to counter mediums to be honest, I'd rather invest in a P4 that can't be so easily swarmed/flanked. JP4 can do well vs other TD, but TD can do well against it also...so it's not exactly a counter like an Elephant is.
I'd gladly trade slower ROF for more penetration so it can at least have a similar impact late game as an SU-85/Jackson/Firefly do. Being forced into Panther or the meme that is the JT to reliably penetrate allied heavies is frustrating to say the least. |
How so? The Jagdpanzer IV has really bad penetration that does not scale with vet, limiting its use to countering mediums and TDs and having mediocre DPS against anything bigger (unless you're constantly spamming HEAT shells). I think the cost is fair, they just have different strengths.
Why does the JP4 cost more than an SU-85 if it's a worse tank destroyer? Can't self spot, can't reliably penetrate heavy armor like all allied TDs can, and still feels like it almost always misses when it has to rotate to a target (bug?). Its cost only makes a little sense with the old, broken, vet bonuses. Even with HEAT rounds it struggles to penetrate an IS2 in my experience. |
United States
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
