They can be kept the same, just reduce the cost. They are 340 right now. When they were 360 they had armor. As they are now with no armor they should be much less than 20mp less. Something like 300 makes more sense to me.
And even at 300, i doubt anyone would invest 9popcap and 300 mp into an 'assault unit' which vanishes in about 3 seconds. If they are reworked, they should be desirable over standard grenadiers, and if the close range role is what is intended for them, they should be able to survive better. If they reach vet2, then they are good infantry units. But good luck keeping them alive until then =)
I would rather see them keeping the current price, and have a survivability boost (+ reduce reinforcement costs - time). The fifth man idea is somehow a good idea in the survivability department. But if it makes them too much to handle for tanks, as it as been pointed earlier, then maybe just armor and/or received accuracy modifier. This way they would have an elite infantry feeling attached to them, rather than being "assault grens".
I don't know if it has been discussed about, but having the shreck upgrade being 2x60 rather than a plain 120 for 2 would seem rather cool, so one can have 3+1PGs or 2+2PGs depending on the situation. |
How about improving their received accuracy? Their main problem is their wekness, they disappear to fast  . That way they won't need the fifth man.
I don't dig in the game's data so i may be saying bullshit there, but i think Relic decided to normalize received accuracy across different infantry squads. And in the operation, PGs lost a lot.
I think PGs and Wehrmacht Panthers are the 2 hot topics which require adjusting in the faction. Both of them aren't used but should be. Tier2's infantry should be good, and not be outshined by Tier1's one (be it a cost revision, a 5th squad member with adjusting dps accordingly so it is not getting higher, restore received accuracy and/or armor). Panther is another subject which was already discussed in other threads, so i won't derail any further. |
you are right, if soviet/us gets 25fuel/min, the okw equivalent is 25 * 0.66 = 16.5. okw will then need 4.24mins to save 70 fuel. the equivalent for soviet fuel rate in 4.24mins = approx 106 fuel. my apologies.
still im not ashamed because my point still stands, we are talking about a massive 225 - 105 = 120 fuel difference, care to refute that instead?
Glad to see you are rational. I didn't discuss the teching costs, but i did post something earlier in the thread about it, and it was along those lines: the T3 teching is free for Oberkommando, because it is covered by starting fuel. This means only the first Puma benefits from a "discount" (and a large one, considering how hard the first 40 fuel would be to gather for the faction). Every following Puma costs around 95 fuel (with ammo conversion ON, and this means a lot for a faction that needs Shrecks / G43 upgrades early), therefore only the first Puma is broken because it hits the field sooner than it's counters. I see that more as a feature that gives birth to a strategy (seems cheesy, but we all know how cheesy some soviets strats are, so it wouldn't hurt to see Axis have some in their repertoire as well).
But as i said also, if top players think that the unit is overperforming, a decent nerf could be welcome (decent not being nerfing 3 stats at once, as the unit is one of the core of the faction, and there are no real replacement available).
Imo, pushing the smoke to Vet1, and the current Vet1 to Vet3 would bring the unit in line with balance. I do not find it's AI performances are deserving so much attention honestly. You have to drive it almost point blank to really 'bleed' opponent. I find it rather funny to see Allied players shocked by Puma's AI when the Axis have to face the US AA HT and are being told to l2p. |
Wongtp, i dont want flame war, but your math again, and again fail. You spaeak above 235 F difference, between the firts Puma and first T34. This is WRONG too. First, the M3 is not the proper unit, what you count on, a simple-straight first Puma-first T34 tech build price comparison, i think, because i can count on the OKW T1 building 40 F price, for Crucial HEALING, what you can buy only for Manpower, etc etc... It is non sense, i hope we can agree for this.
You count on the starter 50Fuel for the Russian tech price, and not for the starting 40 Fuel for OKW. The right formula here : OKW start with 40 F, he can deploy for this the T2 building, where can build 1. puma, for a RUS price EXACTLY 100 F. So the OKW firts Puma is 100F. The RUS side, can buy T1, for 40F, but RUS starting with 50F, so you have yet 10 after you buy t1, and you need buy your t3, for 120 fuel, and first T34, for 100. IN MY math, this difference between is the first Puma/t34 is EXACTLY 110 FUEL and NOT 235. I hope this help for you understand this a bit.
I think you can skip the Medi Truck completely, and you have to, if you want to rush a Puma, so you can't count on the first 40 fuel going into T2 rather than T3 into balancing of the unit. |
The thing you aren't taking into account is how this will effect Pgrens aggainst tanks. They are already able to do a ton of damage if they get in range. This would be a significant buff against tanks.
What is the difference against tanks of 3PG +2PG with Shrecks and 2PG + 2PG with Shrecks ? They would be harder to kill, sure, but their damage wouldn't change versus armor. |
tell me if that 7 fuel difference, makes a difference to the 235fuel difference a soviet player has to cough out.
regardless of minor error, because okw takes 2/3 the fuel, the simple conversion is to multiply the unit costs by 1.33 to simulate the slow rate. its not the most accurate to the perfect demical place, but it should be sufficient to show my point.
still my point still stands.
Enough with your maths. Aren't you ashamed ?
This post is plagued with whiners who can't do maths. Seriously ? Did you even read the goddamn numbers i brought up earlier in the topic ? 66% fuel income means Puma costs 70 * 1.5 fuel, and it is 105fu, not 93. And to the previous guy who quoted only a part of my calculations just to feel better about himself, yes, it doesn't take into account ammo conversion, which brings the real cost of a Puma to about 95fu (+ losing 50% of your ammo while doing so).
Not saying the unit is overperforming or underperforming, i let the competent people discuss that matter, but if you bring numbers, at least make sure you don't spread bullshit because you fail at maths.
PS: Since blaming someone's knowledge without at least giving a hint for improving is not fair, then i'll explain you how it works: to reach 100% from 66%, you have to apply a 50% increase, 66 * 1.5 = ~100. The ratio you have to apply to every OKW cost is therefore 1.5. |
The transfer is for every 4 muni you gain 1 fuel, for the amount of your half muni income, yes? This is 25% conversion rate, i dont like, Puma itself use smoke for 30muni, the target weak points(or some other named turret paralyzed skill) is 45 muni, mines, nades, schrecks, g43, flare, off map artys, buff abiltiys etc. comes with muni too, i dont think, everyone, everytime use this transfers...
OK, now i get what you mean, i had trouble the first time
With puma I beat sherman in like 80% cases, depending on howe good opponent is or did i flanked him or he flanked me, but usually puma will fire few shots before it's near dead and then smoke pop out and back to base for repairs, it happened to me to lose puma when I flanked 2 sherman but even then i killed one and left another with 5% hp.
About economy... OKW has 100% muni and 66% fuel, when it transfers muni to fuel it's 66% muni and 100% fuel, while OKW doesnt need so much muni (only shrecks are expensive) then nearly everyone gets 100% fuel.
Ok if you feel Puma wins 80% of the time, then yes, something is wrong.
About conversion, again a few numbers problems:
After conversion, it is 50% ammo and for fuel it is 66% + 1/8 of the ammo production before conversion, which (depending on the map ressources) usually means around +7 fuel, and according to my estimations, makes ~80% fuel income when compared to other factions. That puts the Puma at (70 + 70*0,25 => 87 fuel). So ok it is cheaper than sherman, but still rather costly, if u consider that the Oberkommando players gives up 50% of his ammo.
PS: if you factor in teching costs, then the starting fuel of the Oberkommando player covers up for T3 tech, but the cost of the unit is still ~87-90 fuel afterwards, so only the first Puma may seem underpriced.
|
This is true only if you don't converse fuel, conveniently puma gets out of conversion truck.
Also, you can't say it costs more, 70 fuel is 70 fuel regardless of income, because both sides don't sit on 50% of the map whole game, its much more dynamic then that.
There is also teching cost involved, which practically does not exist for the first truck due to starting fuel allowing almost immediate placement.
So yes, the difference is there and its significant.
Unless you want to argue that 5 min puma costs almost as much as 14 min sherman.
You are right i didn't take teching costs into account (and munition conversion for that matter). But 70 fuel is more for OKW than for any other faction. This can't be denied, since by design every standard point and fuel point gives 66% of what it should give. It's just the same problem with Axis players claiming that their armor is too weak when compared to Soviets' one, when Soviets have overall weaker AT capability to oppose them. Assymetrical design in all it's glory.
PS: infact since you bring the mapcontrol dynamic changes, i also remind you that OKW has arguably the weaker early game out of the 4 factions currently featured, so early fuel means a lot more to the faction. Again, i don't rant about faction balance, i'm just comparing units costs (Sherman // Puma). That's why i ask Barton what's the usual winning % of Puma vs Sherman encounters in his games. |
This is not 50%, not 66%, is circa 70% in avarage 1v1 map, at 50-50% mapcontroll, HQ give the same value for everyone.
?? Either i don't understand what u mean, or something has been changed (and i don't know about it). Do you mean OKW has no fuel income reduction ? |
I should point out that the OKW receive 66% of fuel income not 50%. As has been said before OKW also have comparably cheaper tech costs compared to all other factions.
Simple maths issue: you earn 66% of something, and the other player earns 100%, he earns 50% more than you. Therefore, OKW's Puma price is 105fu. |
ezerkeman
![Mr.Noob [PL] flag](/images/replay/usf_flag.jpg)
Mr.Noob [PL]
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
