Has anyone else had a problem with launching the mod with multiple players? I've tried to host games, but always have the yellow triangle that warns that not everyone has the mod or has the same version, even when we are all subscribed. Any ideas?
The 3-shell barrage and long cool down also have something to do with it not being used much. It moves slow over some terrain so is easy to wipe when retreating.
However, at vet 2 it is already really good and at vet 3 is the best moveable on-map so those bonuses definitely don't need to be buffed.
Is there any chance that T34/85 could be made non-doctrinal, and replaced by the IS2 in doctrines that currently have T34/85's? One of the things that badly unbalances team games is the difference in heavies. Both Ost and OKW can have a heavy tank and still have a good mix of other units. Soviets only have the IS2 in a few doctrines, and none of them really compares to Jaeger Armor on an open map. There are also a bunch of Tiger doctrines that are okay, even if the Tiger isn't all that great.
With the way things are currently going as we wait for GCS to chug along and waiting for the powers that be to grant us permission to begin work once again, the Balance Team has been doing some work on the side to try and work on certain issues and get them tested as we remain on stand-by.
Given that the main factions we want the others to follow are the EFA, we began working on them first and resolving their issues to see how it affects the rest of the game before we work on WFA and Brits.
Down below is a list of changes separated between Soviets and Ostheer.
Most of the changes look good on paper. It would be nice to see all call-ins to be build but short of that then the 25% penalty ok. I think the Ost Panther buff might entice some people to actually build it, and also like that T4 doesn't have to be researched. The Brummbar nerf might let anti-tank guns live long enough to do something against it.
The only thing that sticks out as questionable is the change of manpower for fuel on the ML-20 and B4. This change will probably make sure that it is never built again. The biggest problem with the ML-20 and B4 is the stuka dive bomb wiping it. The price increase on the dive bomb might help, but probably not.
The second problem with Soviet arty is the cumulative changes. The old six-shell ML-20 was great. If someone blobbed, it was only a matter of time before you could punish them severely for it. The larger AOE also meant that you could fire it into an armor charge and help blunt the charge, maybe even stop it. The new model, with more shells but a much smaller AOE is mostly just good against OKW trucks.
The ML-20 would be much better if the cost was cut from 600 to 300, the shells cut from 8 to 4 (half damage, half cost), pop-cap from 15 to 10, and a limit of 2 howitzers. Alternatively, restore the old AOE but cut the number of shells to 2 or 3. This would make them much more accessible in small game modes without buffing them into something that is game breaking.
Note that two of them would fire as many shells as one of the old ones, but cost 20 pop-cap so it kind of nerfs them in terms of damage/pop cap but I don't think too many players would complain. In fact, I bet most players would agree with this and limiting all indirect fire units to 2 each (this would require the Priest to be changed so that it can't be decrewed).
Best way to fix them would be to simply lower their reinforce so it's not a ridiculous 37mp. Maybe give them an extended range snipe shot with vet that deals 40 damage and if you're below 50%, it crits and abilities on the beacons if we want to be super fancy and add crazy stuff while keeping in line with the unit.
IR Pathfinders need to get shared XP given their squishiness, mediocre firepower and their vet needs to boost their abilities.
The 2pop/model is also a problem. If you recrew anything with regular pathfinders, you add 8 pop in addition to the weapon. A HMG recrewed by pathfinders is around 10 pop cap, same with ATG. The additional upkeep costs enough to buy an extra rifle squad over the course of a game (4extra pop * 1.5*number_of_minutes), in addition to the fact that you end up with less pop cap to do things.
I like those ideas. I'm fine with the direction the thread is going, but did anyone read the OP?
I read it, but don't agree with a 4-man sniper squad. There is already another elite infantry in airborne (paras) so any other squad should be a support unit. The rest of the post I mostly agree with.
I doubt pathfinders will make it into a balance patch anytime soon, but there are a couple things that could be done to make them much more interesting.
1) lower population to 1 per model, plus maybe 1/squad, decrease reinforce to 28-30
2) allow both types to lay mines
3) give IR pathfinders an aimed shot that costs 35 munitions
4) decrease weapon slots to 1 (rip barfinders, but they would be much too efficient with double bars)
5) possibly allow them to booby trap strategic points
6) possibly allow IR pathfinders to be infiltration units
7) possibly allow both types of pathfinders to upgrade to a single 1919 instead of bars
Recon support needs other work as well, Greyhound is lousy for the cost, and airdropped combat group is a joke. P47 also needs work.
You start off your argument saying OKW should be nerfed to Ost levels, then say Ost has the highest winrate. So basically you're saying OKW should be buffed to Ost levels?
No, OKW and UKF repair speed nerfed to Ost levels.
It's bad enough that OKW gets a non-doctrinal, no-micro-involved, quick repair (UKF gets a doctrinal one that is more expensive but better), expanding this to other factions would be really bad for game play. Part of what made Comets so good was that they were hard to kill and could be back in play really quickly. Get three of them together and it was hard to lose one, your only cost was upkeep while the attrition would eventually cause the other side to collapse. OKW couldn't quite do the same because the Panther's AI isn't that good and KT's limited to one, but giving the Brummbär repair stations is a really bad idea.
I think we can agree this unit is hardly ever seen these days.
I think it's an overall decent unit but I think it could use one small change to its indirect fire mode:
Take away pack up time from indirect fire mode.
This will help increase its survivability since it will be able to retreat when it needs to. Its indirect fire mode would function similar to the OKW flakHT. Takes long to set up but can easily back away if it needs to.
Thoughts? Would this make it too difficult to kill?
Nobody would use this commander anyway. A mobile howitzer that costs 630/230/19 but has a range that is 10 less than a standard mortar is already a questionable choice, but when paired with a commander that has a bunch of other nearly worthless abilities makes it a bad choice. The cost is almost the same as two Katy's for something that is a lot less usable.
Why should the soviet supply drop be highly vulnerable, while OST supply drops are invulnerable?
PS - Setup and teardown time make it vulnerable to wonder Stuka and repair stations also get wiped by Stuka.
Yes, several hundred games between my main account and test account. I win more often with them in 1v1's than any other faction. Is there an actual point to your question?
They are my second least favorite faction (behind Brits) but that has more to do with 4-man gren squads, that get wiped way too easily to late game indirect, than anything to do with repairs. I'd pay the same as the UKF for a late game upgrade to 5-man squads. Other than that, the only unit I think isn't worth it is the Panther, which should be buffed to be similar to the OKW version.