Maybe the answer is that those trucks should absorb damage first instead of infantry, and when they die, troops inside should leave them healthy. It would add many possibilities related to sacrificing such trucks but leaving troops inside in a better tactical position on the map and fully healthy. Seems like a nice trade off. Would add a lot variety, especially if those guys inside were even less effective with some more nerds to their accuracy when inside.
Too much risk, too little reward. Maybe if you manage to steal an mg thanks to it, it pays for itself. I would develop it to become a spotter unit. Maybe sort of t-70 treatment with extra sight mode that disables weapons and later allows capping.
If you did that with KT, it would break down in seconds. It's a 69 (hehe) ton motherf***** with a measly 690 HP powering it. Many years ago I saw a documentary about the tank wars of WW2 (week before it was WW1). Most people (Sherman veterans) said that the KT was non-penetrable and that most of them were lost due to breaking down (like Panther, an extremely unreliable tank). The current stats on the tank in the game reflect that. You can't have that much armour and firepower and HP and expect to do Tokyo drifts with it. No matter if the tank lost main gunner and all other gunners on active ability effect, it's just preposterous since it would allow KT to do what Panthers can do due to their high HP pool. Get the F out of combat safely. A lot of people are treating KT as a jack of all trades, when it's not. It's a jack of "I'm a fat fu**, come at me brah, but not when I'm alone ... brah" trades.
My comment was a joke of course (maybe not clear enough as I thought the crew might actually leave the vehicle and literally push the king or its gun )
But seriously...
KT is very difficult to balance as if it gets too good it will wipe the whole armies. Because it is stock it can be combined with all other units including elite doctrine tied infantry, offmaps, etc.
In its current form it is a bit of a problem from the maintenance perspective (historically accurate ). OKW sturmpios are the only unit that can repair it unless you want to come back to base to use truck repairs (might be extremely difficult with crit engine). Sturmpios are ridiculously expensive (300manpower - almost sherman level) if you want to treat them only as a repair unit, and you have to lategame. (of course there is a chance you haven't lost them and they vetted nicely and it is not so bad then). If you lose them and have to buy another sturpio, or even two, to speed up repairs you will lose manpower war and king tiger won't make up for it. While repairing sturmpios are very voulnerable and losing models is very costly too. Basically King Tiger only amplifies the problem that OKW has when they need to repair tanks on the frontline. Anyway, I might be repeating myself form other threads, but the reality is imo that if you managed to make it possible to repair king tiger more efficiently (with a cheaper unit) KT itself might have sufficiently more battlefield presence to make it worth its cost despite being ridiculously slow. I would postulate making infrared halftrack get an upgrade for around 60 munitions to make it spam repair pios like a repair bunker. The halftrack is fragile and it could be a nice risk-reward mechanism. Such upgrade might mean that the manpower price of the halftrack itself should go up, though (I don't remember how much it costs now). Alternative apprach would be to simply build another halftrack that could uprade with repair engies (so that the OKW player will have to pay, say 100-200 manpower to get this repair option before investing munitions).
KT is fine. Wouldn't mind HEARING people ideas on buffs that doesn't relate to raw offensive or defensive performance.
give it a crew in the form of pzgrens from ost in black uniforms wth crit repairs and smoke grenades
Edit: and the ability to push the king forwards with the effect of "step on it" and another ability to quickly push the turret so that it can spin around much faster (one crew member would be delegated to do this (hull mg wouldn't be working then).
Ok i read that wrong. My bad.
But people still mostly or even only look at combat potential. That is not the whole or even a primary job off engies.
Exactly. "People" you quote here are wrong in this case. Pios primary role lategame is repair. Ost has, in general, only pios to repair stuff. The factions ost faces have free crews (plus echelons) - USF, cheaper engineers - Soviets, more durable engineers - UKF. On top of that Soviets and UKF have many doctrine repair options - UKF with every second doctrine and Soviets have cons repair, crew repairs, repair stations. USF crews can crit repair. All the above makes ost pios much less cost effective and their repairs needing more manpower. The whole lategame manpower war becomes imbalanced if pios have to be purchased to speed repairs, sweep for mines or when they are lost. At the same time allies don't need to invest that much manpower into supporting their vehicles and can use this manpower to buy frontline units.
You do not get the "most" utility, and if the CQC is decent, then royal engineers are due for a massive nerf.
I've avoided comparing them since I've wanted stick to EFA matchups, but when you take pios and RE and put them side by side you should instantly recognise that pios are either cost inefficient or that RE are too strong for cost.
They have nearly identical weapon profiles, but RE start out with 0.9 RA while pios are 1.0.
Pios get better offensive vet, but RE get 5th man upgrade which gives them a rough equivalent to pio vet damage increase while simultaneously increasing their durability.
RE can snare to make up for IS not having them, but in exchange IS can be upgraded with pyrotechnics which let's them spot like pios -and arguably do a better job of it.
RE vet reduces their reinforcement cost which takes a squad that is already very durable (5 man, 0.59 RA with vet) and makes them even more cost effective. And this isnt even getting into weapon upgrades.
Those 200mp pios with 25mp reinforce arent looking so good compared to 210 RE with 23mp(at vet 3) reinforce.
Now in my opinion RE may be slightly on the strong side, but not by that much. They fulfill the roles they need to adequately, and arent oppressive despite how strong on paper they can get. It's just that pios are on the weak side.
Exactly - not much to add here. Logical and to the point started by the thread createor. Thank You.
I don't know why this topic turned into tank vs atgun while my initial point was about rewarding flanking with infantry.
Flanking any other atgun ends up by decrewing it. Why the raketen should be different? Because it has 5 less range than other atgun? It doesn't make sense, it already has 5 crew members and I'm not against the retreat button but the bonus it provides.
Retreat in time and you should save it, get flanked and lose it. This statement should be true for any atgun.
U're right, especially give its price. If it cost 320, like other at guns, it probably should be as it is. But the 5 (or 10?) less range and the retreat mechanism plus 5 men crew shouldn;t be cheaper than regular non retreatable at gun. (USF at gun is also too cheap btw imo). I'd say that either what you write or just make it more expensive (better option imo).
I agree, but the problem is most likely the volume of translation that needs to be done for different languages.
Yeah, but my gut feeling is that if descriptions were right/better the game would become all time classic/best rts ever. When a player is new to it, they have certain expectations about units performance (kind of your understanding of how weapons and war in general work lets say). Once, for example, they use an mg on a closing in squad and no models drop dead, a new player might be really baffled and even frustrated. It is just an example. Anyway, if the description specified, for example, that mgs pin rather than kill, a player would not be frustrated. It works similarly with many other weapons (big guns don't make infantry lose health/models (at tanks), etc. Descriptions that are not too complicated but specify such things could make many more players love the game imo.
I guess the biggest problem here is the fact that unit descriptions are sth that should be looked at. Certain frustrations can be easily avoided if unit descriptions suggested more clearly how a unit functions. "They are better in cover" simply is not enough, as it really sugggests that a unit is just better, not completely useless out of it. If it was acknowledged in a unit description players wouldn't find them "wrong" somehow. The decription might look like this: Inexperienced infantry that has very low performance when not in cover. Generally unit descriptions could be updated as I feel that it would help the game even more than patches.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
