Of course you can go deeper into the realms of ammunition but I think that's unrealistic to assume for a casual player, even one that's slightly into the genre.
A sniper by definition is better at using the weapon. Hardly a prime example.
As for the others it COULD be boiled down to making their shits count. The damage isn't as key as the DPS. The better solider, despite using the same gun, can kill quicker. At the heart of it that's not unreasonable.
A cannon however, having them preform radically different can lead to confusion to the avid ww2 "fan" (bad term Givin the death but idk what else to call it) but not someone all up in here asking for hard stats...
Like someone who knows the war might be confused that the pak43 deals 320 damage as an emplacement, 300 as an elefant, 300 as a JT but now with more range and 240 on the KT but with less range....
Or that the ZiS3 on the zis has less pen and damage when mounted on the T70 chassis.
I feel that it's simply more complicated than it needs to be. Obviously at THIS point there is no going back, but I almost feel that it would be easier in a sequel (and better for the casual player) if performance is normalizes and price is the defining balancing factor (that and things like ROF and accuracy which can be accounted for by crew conditions)
Its all simantic and theory now so I won't persue the discussion but I can understand the infantry variable but less so the vehicle one simply due to perception.
The player base is shrinking and its only hard fans left, I'd say in the future having the game simplified and more predictable and transparent will help the games health by allowing casual players to get deeper into the game without going out of their way
That's exactly what it is  But it could be amended more easily i hope (I'm an optimist by nature)- just making it more predictable would be enough. For the gameplay it could be better to have units that penetrate doing less damage consistently than to make them out of range. Stug is a relatively long barrel AT and should deal consistent damage to tanks at TDs range. Lots of players would find it natural. The heavier the tank the less damage stug would inflict. Su85 should have the same range but inflic more damage as it is bigger and has 85 mm gun. It would win against stug easily trading blows. But the situation when stug has to chase to even get this less penetrating and less damaging shot is just ridiculous to some players, and they abandon the game feeling that something is wrong here. |
It's not any different than having infantry units using the same weapons, having different performance on different ranges.
With infantry it is different as they still shoot at different ranges just have different dmg profiles, which I find OK (feels intuitive).
With say stug, you have to constatly risk by closing in the unit with inferior range while the oponent backs off luring you into other AT options. Stug is really fragile and will just die in seconds not having even a chace to fire. Those TDs with superior range really shine here, especially because they have almost sniper accuracy at max range. I'd rather have the same range and worse stats for stug (pen/dmg'rof) when the bullet hits rather than inferor range. It would mean so much less microing it and dedicating some more time to other units. When I play against a competent player using su76 it is what I would like with stug.
Range on tanks is not hard. 40/50/60 with some unique cases in between.
You could give the Stug 60 range, but then you would need to drastically increase the cost or make it deal 120dmg per shot as the Su76. Any drastic change means a rework, an effort which i don't think is needed when this types of units just need a nudge here n there.
Agreed - it's a delicate matter. But that's why US style AT may be another option - to pay munitions for this extra penetration and/or range. Stugs/paks used to have great stun ability but it got nerfed and now there's a problem, especially with stug.
|
That would simply make it too attractive of an option and would outshine other units. It would ruin team games (again) because all you would need is panthers
Reducing the front armour does nothing against its intended counters while making it weaker against other units. Premium mediums would have an easier time brawling with the panther in exchange for being more durable when flanked?
Allied TDs need toning down. Don't adjust a functioning unit due to an overperforming one
Toning down TDs a bit is another perfectly valid option. My favourite would be some faster repair option for ost or pio crit repairs - also could do the job. |
Falls have camo... Also equally if not closely comparable grenades to commandos. They simply trade durability (that extra model) for all ranges DPS and a snare.
Somebody wrote about camo before - that it is somehow different from what they would like - probably some camo bonus - I'm for it |
This is the correct answer.
They are 0.83 RA 4 man squad with basically empowered 4 bars.
The damage on bundle nade is equally powerful to the commando nade.
Ok, thanks for the info. That's 4 man squad issue than. Experiencing commandos grenades on the receiving end as ost |
You're going to keep going with that "feel"?
Should AEC have 50 range instead of 40 too? Or should Puma have 40?
I only wrote about turetless tank destroyers.
I really think it may put off new players from the game. Stuff like one TD has 5 less range than another. One unit throws the same granade further than another. The same type of smoke works differently when used by another unit. The same grenade in hands of one unit deals different dmg than in the hands of another and so on. One unit has a bazooka that deals that dmg and another with the same bazooka deals other damage. It's not very logical imo and if possible should be unified a bit but not kill the diversity at the same time - it's a delicate issue. Other stats od TDs should differ a lot imo (accuracy with range/accuracy/armour/penetration/unit speed/rof/etc.) but having arbitrary values for units that were known to engage from a distance makes the game sometimes overly complicated and not too logical at the same time. It destroys the 'feel' of the game and confuse a lot of players. They feel they have to read a manual before playing and discover things that are completely unexpected/illogical. So yes, imo it would be better to have same initial range for all turetless tank destroyers. |
I still think 55 range will be better than more pen. With vet pen will increase and you have Panther and PaK40 for that job too.
Outrange is the problem
Yep. Good place to start with. I feel all turetless TD might have same range. The difference between them might be sonewhere else (dmg/rof/hp/pen/armour). It would 'feel' so much more logical, especially to new players. |
Its a brawler, its supposed to outlast its targets, not outDPS them.
Also, if you think it got bad AI, I suggest you check the DPS of its MGs and compare it to actual TDs AI DPS.
I agree, but with more difficult repairs ans lots of at options it faces after the patches plus stronger tank destroyers designed to deal with King Tiger paeple rightly complain that panther stopped being sensible for its cost. They want buffs to armour, penetration, special at ammunition and so on. My idea is to buff ai to make it a bit more all around tank. It should imo have shorter range than TDs (it has) but AI of a light vehicle. This would justify the tech requirements and price more. |
what about:
move to spec ops in lace of flares
give it a target ability that increases target size of unit by something like 25%
make sweep a munitions ability with low cooldown
add mines
kind of a hodge podge of utility, but simultaneously making it more attractive in one way, but less passive power another
For example |
Oh you know, its big, its expensive, its german, so it should automatically win against everything regardless of circumstances and whatever.
Oh, and obviously, krupp stahl!
This is really good I laughed my head off Super stuff
But seriously - I feel panther is ok - it should get some more AI capability (not like HE sherman or other infantry killers), just like I wrote, similar AI performance to a light vehicle. It's just crazy to see players use an expensive and requiring a lot of tech tank as a ram instead of relaying on MGs. It should be a solid anti tank tank but unlike tank destroyers have less range (which it has) with some anty inf capabilities.
I don't thing ppl want a tank that auto wins but compared to a some allied TDs and other tanks it just feels strange to use it as neither a TD nor AI - sort of TD with shorter range than other TDs and almost zero AI capability. Like a lot of HP with that can die really quickly when snared. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
