It makes sense as long as the buffs are enough to make the unit viable which i don't think are enough, specially when PF exist and the time frame at which the unit remains viable is so short.
T1 as a whole needs buffs. (see my post in Soviet thread) I don't think the M3 itself really requires more buffs. It's just that by going T1 -> Penal -> M3 you enter a total dead end once axis LVs hit. The fact that the opponent can just spot your T1 in the FOW and react accordingly immediately (-> Füsil second unit, blob his grens) doesn't help either. Not sure if fixable.
The way I do T1 builds I usually get 1 Conscript squad for the snare and plant a bunch of mines. I guess after downgrading you can build a 2nd conscript?
I don't think you necessarily live or die by having a 3rd or 4th snare squad, even though it's useful.
I agree, but that was the response I got so I can't really say much else about it.
The problem with this right now is that you effectively pay 240 mp + at nade cost for one snare squad if you do this. Add this waste to an already slow T1 start and its just not gonna work out. What do you think about my Con Ptrs suggestion? I feel like this would be such a beautiful solution but i might be missing some non obvious consequences.
Why would nerfing the M3 against small arms fire be a good idea? I am confused.
It actually makes a lot of sense because the main problem with balancing the M3 is that one opposing faction has access to early fausts and the other doesn't. So making fausts no longer a "necessity" to counter it while improving other aspects is a smart move.
Tune PTRS Penals to counter LVs with the upcoming PTRS change, then once T4 is up give players the option to pay 60 munis to downgrade back to SVTs as a stock penal squad that can’t upgrade again and doesn’t have a satchel snare anymore.
You cant really play without snares tho, so you'd probably still end up with 2 ptrs penals.
I'd argue it's the opposite. The Schreck is a total non-choice right now. By making it more viable, players will actually have more strategic decisions in the mid game because getting a Schreck would mean getting 1 less STG44 or G43 upgrade for a mainline.
One is a balance issue and the other is a design issue. It could become an actual choice if double sturmpio was viable. I get your point tho.
Not really the goal of these changes.
Fair enough but that's really unfortunate. Viability of double Sturmpio would be a very simple way of making the OKW early game less one dimensional. (with the added side effect that it would allow for mutual exclusivity of schreck and sweeper)
which would hopefully make BG a more viable choice over Mechanized.
MedTruck is already viable (within the boundaries of the limited viability of OKW as a whole).
Possibly, of so then play tests should hopefully show this. 1 Schreck is only enough to keep a light at bay and not kill it. LVs should still be able to keep the 251/17 in check while making it harder to dive it and get away with killing it.
Early to mid game infantry never kills LVs unless one side fucks up massively. The point is always to keep them at bay. 1 Schreck makes a MASSIVE difference. 1 Schreck shot means that you only need two Raketen shots to kill a 400 hp vehicle like the AEC. It also means that you cant circle strafe the Raketen. (Right now even when fausted you can take out one Rak once youre close) Effectively it has a similar effect as double Rak without requiring the additional unit.
You still could put "specialist training" or sth instead for dank hunters, so PTRS cons with the doc would have 5 more range or sth on top of what it already provides.
However, it all depends on how PTRS will be improved to have a relevant place in late game as AT weapon.
No one ever said a thing about Guards exclusively because of its AI usefulness, but cons/penals one are never worth it for the weapon and you pick them exclusively to zone out armor through abilities.
They would definitely be better than penal version due to the cheaper carriers and the fact that you combine them with Ooorah and regular snares but I agree that they could need further rebalancing.
As mentioned above Tank Hunter PTRS would maintain at least some kind of (theoretical) relevance because you'd be able to get them without T1. Imo decreased relevance of an already irrelevant doctrine is a small sacrifice for a change that would vastly increase the amount of possible soviet openings and finally serve as a solution for the penal identity crisis.
Edit: Plus a doctrine patch has already been hinted at. So tankhunter may very well get a rework either way.
I've thought about a similar approach myself and I agree it is a more wholesome solution to fix T1's AT problem. The PTRS upgrade for Penals always felt a bit shoehorned into T1.
Balance wise, it would have a much greater impact than improving the PTRS upgrade on Penals. T1 would have access to more sandbags (and other utility) from the PTRS Conscripts. Penals would be able to focus fully on their AI role. Giving AT satchels to all Penals would also be a big (maybe unnecessary) change. T1 would be played very differently from now.
It's an interesting idea that would definitely be worth testing, but it would require further finetuning like Vipper said.
I agree that satchels on penals could be problematic. There's a few things to consider. Like tank hunter doc would probably need a rework? I guess it would maintain its value with T2 builds but still. Also you'd have stock at units with snares but then again same thing exists in the form of Piat Royal Engineers.
Bad change imo. I understand the intention but this makes MedTruck way too convenient especially in conjunction with the earlier Ober, Hetzer and Ostwind timing. It also takes away decision making which is generally a bad thing imo. I feel like the obvious solution would be some kind of tech split (I'm too lazy to come up with the details atm).
The point is to make healing (and possibly ISG) more accessible. This doesn't require the removal of the additional medic cost if you just introduce a sidetech for the Flak ht. This could also be a way to allow OKW to get earlier fausts and MGs which would extend their flexibility. This change here doesn't really change much about the frequent critiques regarding OKW.
Several Problems with this:
A. Reducing player decision making. Stumpio will end up being upgraded with both the vast majority of the time.
B. This doesn't encourage double sturmpio builds. If you want to encourage double Sturm reduce their price slightly in addition to the pop decrease and make Schreck and Sweeper mutually exclusive. This way opening involving 2 Sturmpios might actually become somewhat common.
C. The Schreck change will make the Flak HT overpowered. Flak HT has one of the strongest shock values in the game instantly forcing retreats even against squads in green cover. An ATGun is a must against it to keep it away but it barely threatens to kill it due to its cheap smoke ability. The big disadvantage of the Flak HT so far was its vulnerability to light vehicles. Covering it with fausts and Rak is very challenging in the live version. However now that both the T70 (reload nerf) and the AEC (timing nerf) have lost potency against the FlakHT it will be even stronger. Add to that the additional coverage by the schreck (1 Schreck makes a HUGE difference vs LVs when they are diving early mid game) and you end up with a broken unit.
I love the Schwerer change with regards to the new Ober timing. However I think Ostwind and Hetzer rushes are too quick atm. They are also very cheap manpower wise due to the low Schwerer cost. I think the Hetzer should just go back to being locked behind the Panzer Authorization because of its potency against armies that rely on Infantry base AT. The Ostwind issue could probably be resolved by reverting the battlegroup change (see above) and possibly increasing its build time.
M3 change is fantastic. However T1 requires further buffs. T1 is still extremely weak due to the following reasons:
A. The only T1 AT option forces you to give up the Anti infantry strength of your mainline.
B. The AT option itself is bad because it doesn't have enough damage output to avoid getting forced to retreat or at least getting bled before the vehicle is pushed back.
C. You only have very few snares (2 max) and they have very limited range. This is particularly problematic when using the Sniper.
D. ATGuns are the most cost efficient units in the game so there's very little reason not to get ZIS-Guns.
Sanders suggestion of giving the PTRS upgrade three PTRS while increasing the price accordingly would solve problem b. but enhance problem c. All your early AT on one squad would mean that if that squad gets pinned or forced to retreat you are completely exposed.
My preferred solution:
- Move PTRS to Cons, unlocked with T1 build
- Penal AT Satchels get unlocked with AT nade tech
- Possibly give Penals Molotovs
- decreased Penal buildtime
This directly solves Problems C. and A. because a mix of Cons and Penals combined with AT nade tech would lead to normal amounts of snares and Penals no longer have to waste their AI strength by upgrading PTRS. It would also partly solve Problem B. because cons bleed less when getting slaughtered by the vehicle they're fighting. Better Penal Buildtime would give the T1 opening quicker map presence. It would still be significantly weaker than a con opening in this regard.
Penals would now function as a supplement to cons (which from my understanding makes perfect sense thematically). Realistically you'd probably only get 1 (when combined with a sniper) or 2 most of the time because you'll want two PTRS cons for AT. 2 Cons, 3 Penals into T70 would be very manpower heavyy but not unthinkable. Encouraging Con/Penal Combos has the additional advantage that it allows for usage of merge and sandbags which both benefit penals but isn't enough of a reason to mix the two in the current version since Penals don't benefit at all from the at nade upgrade so you might as well just spam cons to make it worthwhile. For the same reason i would at least consider giving penals molotovs.
ZIS-Gun barrage is still broken. It negates MG positions without any significant additional costs. Mabye increase its ammo price to 50-60? This could at least lead to a little less mid game ammo float for soviets. Its uncounterable nature justifies the price increase imo.
SU 76 needs to be less of a pain in the ass to micro. You need to play multiple SU76 most of the time and it's an absolute pain in the ass to control them because the unit feels unresponsive as hell. Buff base acceleration. SU-76 needs to be handled with care though because it is one of those units that can quickly become op when spammed.
T 70 is still overpowered. Rebalancing the core armies should finally end the t70s reign as a "crutch unit". Osttruppen Nerf, 5men nerf, Puma Nerf, Maxim Buff, (hopefully) sufficient T1 buff should allow for further nerfs. However I wouldn't further nerf its reload because its AT performance is not in question.
Germany
-虎贲-PauL.a.D.-CPSSS-
ghost
Quiritz
Niklas
Quiritz
Relic Entertainment
