I would argue that rather than buffing the armour, making the brummbär more resistant to all AT, they should increase the barrage range. It is absurd that this vehicle can not fulfil the supposed role of attacking stationary positions as its vet ability has the same range as AT gun. Increasing the range of barrage by 5 and 5 more at vet 3 would up to total + 10range. This would act as a pseudobuff to the durability. This would be more balanced way to make stupa perform better in its supposed role without becoming more resistant to the allied TDs which should hardcounter this designated AI vehicle.
EDIT: I'm also here to protest grave injustice: Hull down does not increase the range of the barrage.
If you want to take a position from afar, build a pzwerfer. If you need shock value then the brumbar is your choice. |
Upload a replay.
Define spam.
Best reply. |
Some of the game balance changes have been made with blobing in mind. Could the issue be tackled not by changing unit stats but by adding diminishing-returns on combining groups of the same unit.
My proposition is if possible add an individual aura to each squad (similar to officers, command tanks etc.) that for example give -2% accuracy if there are two units of the same type with overlapping auras, -10% accuracy if there are 3 units of the same type in relatively close proximity and so on.. That would at least help with a-move blobs and encourage combined arms.
How to you do the difference between a blob and your army being repelled to one sector before you're base entry?
With the debuff aura logic you're going to suffer even more of being repelled on a tiny part of the map making your come back harder.
---
As for HMG as blob counter the problem is usually the yellow cover popping out as the game goes. IMO I think HMG mechanism is better in Coh1 than Coh2. HMG in Coh1 are less punishing but overall stronger vs blobs. |
You've lost me. Why should a 20 fuel light AI vehicle be able to survive two of its counters that cost three times the fuel? That's like saying the Ostwind is bad because it loses to three T-34-76s.
If the enemy invests 60 fuel into light AT vehicles, they better damn well be able to secure a kill on a 20 fuel vehicle. That's the point of the investment.
You've lost yourself in your own mind, I'm not part of it.
The explanation given for removing the zook was its too hard to counter. To which I say building two 222 will always secure the kill even with the bazooka.
|
Why should it be able to survive two units that in total are worth tripple the fuel cost? Not that it even could before? Why should it even be able to survive overextending against a single 222 (its hardcounter)?
It has 45 range, 50 sight range. There's never a need to overextend except when being greedy, which is always a risk, with any unit.
That's the point, if you want to secure a kill on a m20, build two 222. |
That's not an argument at all. If something has been there for 10 years but is causing problems now, that's no reason to leave it. Not that it matters anyway, because the big Dec 2018 changes to tech have completely changed the situation anyway.
As for why it had the bazooka before, and why it doesn't need it now, that's mostly because USF tech was incredibly stiff, and the M20 was in the Lieutenant (who had a BAR) tier with the M2HB and M15 AAHT. There was no AT except for M2HB AP ammo or bazookas with weapon racks.
Now the Stuart is in the LT tier, and the LT gets the bazooka upgrade, so there is no more reason for the M20 crew to need a bazooka. On top of that it used to have a manpower premium for the bazooka, which was already changed with a hefty cost reduction (from 340MP to 240MP), so getting both the M20 and the bazooka for only 240MP was simply too cost effective when taking into account the rest of USF's (new) early game snowballing and cost effective economy.
That's hardly an argument, 222 got its price cut in half, upgrade made free and stat boosted as well vs infantry and vehicle. (NB I'm not complaining about the 222 just taking example).
Crew Bazooka was a balanced option for the M20 to be able to defend itself at cost of potentially losing the car or the crew or both. If the M20 was so powerful vs infantry its stat could have been reduce or its price increase or build time increase depending on what aspect of the unit was problematic.
I'm sorry but I have yet to see a m20 surviving two 222 and is usually most likely going to die if overextending even vs 1 222. |
If you want a real answer:
-It was much more expensive.
-It took longer to build
-It had higher popcap.
-Less utility and less scaling through vet while taking way longer to vet as well.
-Mines took ages to plant.
-Most of the time, picking an officer meant that you were locked down for several minutes and resources from getting any real AT, as the tier got an MG without AP rounds and the AA HT. The LT had a bar, not a zook.
And none of those are related to the crew zook. Making it more expensive, longer to build, increasing popcap, increasing vet requirement, increase mine deployment time... are.
|
Why? Can these players not find the bazooka upgrade key on the Lieutenant? Or any of the other light AT sources the USF has? The M20 didn't need the bazooka on any level.
Wondering why it has it since ever... |
All factions are delicate ecosystems. Continuously, parts of that system change causing ripple effects across the rest of it. A unit can be fine for years, and become a problem after something else changes (see Infantry Sections, after giving Royal Engineers a snare).
As for the recent Riflemen change being the core of the problem and not the M20, whether that's true or not, we're talking about a simple consideration: do we nerf Rifles again and 1) likely cause widespread outrage and 2) affect the entire USF playerbase, or do we nerf the M20 and affect only the high level 1v1 playerbase where the unit is used and causes problems?
You're affecting everyone using the m20, not only high level player and I'll tend to say that you're affecting much more medium level players that needed this zook to play the unit than top's one who are not even upgrade skirt thanks to their better skill and game awareness.
You made the riflesquad change you can also be the one removing it because nerfing every single other unit in order to keep the balance with riflesquad isn't going to be much more popular. The problem lies with riflesquad not the m20 and soon you'll probably be going to nerf the stuart, AAHT, M8 and .50 because of that. |
|
Sometime I wonder if people are discovering the game just now or what. M20 has this timing since a year or so and only now you're bitching about.
The problem is not the m20 but riflemen. Tomorrow people will discover that Stuart and AAHT are also too strong and they will be nerfed until finally RM get nerfed as well and the faction going back into crappiness. |
Relic Entertainment
