But if we look at it from the opposite and place Airborne into ANY of the Guards commanders it is an immediate downgrade.(Would probably actually help with balance)
Perhaps prone position should be removed from guards then and given to airborne guards only? Idk if that solves everything, but I think it directly addresses the point your making here
I think USF paras can do okay vs obers with their abilities. The suppressing fire is pretty good, will at least force the obers to cancel it out with their smoke |
To sum up what I am saying is Guards long range Performance is BS as they have utility, EHP, DPS, along with the potential to merge with conscripts. Guards should be toned down.
The video shows that guards need heavy cover AND prone position to beat the Obers. And even then it's still a close fight. Guards would clearly lose in almost every other situation
If that's really a problem then get rid of the prone position ability. Or give it more drawbacks besides being stationary
Like others have said, I think the main issue with guards is the doctrines they are on. Guard motor is unquestionably OP and Mechanized support is still really strong even after getting nerfed. I think guards on their own are fine |
But, as you said earlier it requires a lot of RNG for the PTRS shots to hit. Yet even with that RNG, the testing done by GONK showed that they won 50% of the time under probably the best conditions for Obers as they are behind indestructible green cover. To put it another way, a Generalist elite with the cheapest muni cost performs the best against arguably the best LR AI infantry in the game.
And how did the obers do in light cover? And in no cover? Pretty confident they spank guards in both of those situations, the guards would need their prone position every time
Not to mention, obers literally have a doctrinal upgrade that let's them ignore cover bonuses
I don't disagree that there's issues with guards. I just think it has more to do with doctrine |
The problem is you are only taking into account if the PTRS hit the Ober squad. Even if the shot hits the sand bag that is a successful shot as enough shots will make it a cover vs no cover situation.
Yeah but that's an intended effect of the ptrs. The part about them doing full damage on a hit ignoring heavy cover isn't, but at least the chance of that is still low, since the RA bonus still applies
There's lots of ways to destroy cover. Especially in late engagements. Indirect fire, AT guns, etc
You must be a hardcore fan of mine
Just a hardcore fan of the game. Unlike you, apparently |
Hear hear.
This new info also explains some suspicious lost fights where my Obers got crushed in heavy cover vs firing position Guards. I had put it down to just RNG. Another thing to put on a hoped-for-new-patch.
I mean, it's still a lot of RNG. The chance to hit Obers with ptrs is extremely low, especially in heavy cover
It's about a 18% chance of hitting Ober models at long range, and that's without heavy cover
Oh so Allies are busted... thats why this thread is 1 page long....
Imagine what would happen if this was for an axis unit....
Yeah the Boys AT rifle is clearly making the Brits OP
You didn't even know how heavy cover worked until recently, stop talking lol
|
One doc has 120mm mortars where it's obvious why they're super annoying.
120mm should be removed from Guard Motor coordination. Commander would still be top tier without it. Commander gives you great AT ability and great infantry. No reason it needs to have one of the best indirect pieces in the game |
If it's not for the perceived overperformance of medium/heavy tanks using smoke, why even bother scaling its cost to begin with?
Because saying an ability is too cheap on certain units is not the same as just flatly saying it's OP like you implied:
and in order to tone it down you decide to selectively and arrogantly increase its muni tax "just bcz omg its so op".
OP gave very clear and justified reason for the change. It wasn't "wahhh OP plz nerf"... Only person being arrogant here is you
And I usually only "use" panzer tactician on lighter tanks in order to avoid a confrontation since with panther and up i win every engagement.
That's a lie, or you're just really bad at the game. You see people use it for any class if vehicle. It's so cheap why not
Can't say the same about Mark target. MTs value definitely increases in team games though, but that's a different conversation |
|
Wait was it a teammate or opponent who blocked your squad? Cause if a teammate is doing that intentionally that seems like griefing
If an opponent did it then that's just cheeky, but nothing wrong. Only have Relic to blame for that one |
I am not talking about specific doctrine with Panzer Tactician (I do not even remember the ones that DO have it).
That seems pretty important to the topic
I am merely defending my philosophical ground on this: it's not fair to consider something "overperforming" and in order to tone it down you decide to selectively and arrogantly increase its muni tax "just bcz omg its so op".
You are the only person in this thread to use the word overperforming so far, nobody said what you describe
Because, and I say it again, this is a double edged sword. The same case could be made for the Mark Vehicle mechanic (the ONLY reason Guards Coordination is no1 DOCTRINE FOR SOVIETS ACROSS ALL GAME MODES). If you want to go down that route, I propose making Mark Target 240muni against Heavies, 150muni against Mediums and the default 80muni for everything else.
How does that sound? Huh? How about them apples?
Hannibal literally mentioned that this could be done for other abilities. He already addressed this, in the first post of the thread. Calm down
And what the heck is with those numbers? You don't have sensationalize the point just so you can argue against it. The cost could just go up in increments of 15-20 depending on the value of the tank
Panzer tact could be 30/45/60 for lights, mediums, heavies. Mark target is a bizarre example to use because you usually only use that on heavier tanks to begin with |
As for Hannibals argument, while I agree with it, can cause a slippery slope. The best example would be "Mark Target" as it does the exact same thing. It doesn't provide much against smaller units such as LV upto all 4 shot MED tanks. However once you get to the Panther and heavier it creates a situation where it takes 1 less shot to kill(sometimes 2 depending on tank). With the prevalence of snares it can be quite disproportionate on the value of the ability. The much larger issue is that most doctrines with Mark Target also have Guards who have access to Button. So you get into a situation where abilities synergize a bit to well and we get to where we are now. (Guards doctrines are over picked)
True but mark targets higher cost would seem to reflect the fact it's mostly used on heavier targets. It's 80 muni for something that might not do anything if shots miss or don't pen
If anything mark target should be more expensive in team games. It's kinda like the command p4, the more teammates you have, the more potential the ability has
I like the ability cost scaling idea especially for panzer tact |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
Heartless Jäger 
