What the... What is wrong with you people?
The 76 is a very good tank that cost 80 fuel...... 80 FUEL
ONLY 80 FUEL!!!!
ho well i guess one who complain is the same that thinks conscripts are bad just because they build only one unit.
Spoiler : Build multiple T34 and your life will rise and shine.
If i remember correctly, the utility package already increase repair time of all engi, so i guess your suggestion is already fulfilled.
You also made a valid comparison with shocks but you ahve to notice that soviet shocks, while fullfiling a similar combat role are a milion times more resistant than sturmpioneers (2 more mordels and +0.5 armor)
Comparing Sturm and other eng squads is difficult, the sturm are less an engineer squad and more a combat squad that happen to have a repair/plant mine ability.
Other engineers have far more utility and build real things and also happen to be extremely cheap compared to the sturm.
I think it is an honest bargain after all.
Your suggestion to cut the firepower and add an upgrade is interesting but it has to come with a decrease of the price...balanced with a munition price later. You dont have the same unit anymore.
I like the way it is now.
Increase their cost (320), reduce their vanilla received accuracy (0.92 should do), increase their midrange distance (12 should be fine)
Very good idea!
But you are not going far enough.
Here what i propose :
Increase cost (580)
Increase vanilla accrec to 1.3
decrease number of model to 4
add smoke grenade
replace weapon by kar98
I know most of the suggestions probably aren't originally mine. I don't have time to search all the possible quotes that may or may not exist. The point of this thread was mostly to bring it to the developers' attention, if they still read these forums.
TNrg.
Mgnmhn.
Actually, my answer was a pile of acid bitterness and sarcasm about a complain that have been answered countless times.
What i reproach you is to ignore the answers that have been given to supposed problem you point.
To clarify things, yes they do read the forums more carefully than us. But unlike us, they do not post what get through their minds blindlessly and instead, choose carefully their words when they post something.
The supposed problems you shows are subjective ones that are part of a bigger picture. To caricature it would be like saying "tanks are imb@ vs infantery".
Remember that Devz got the whole picture, backed up by numbers, statistics and win ratios, something you do not have and lacking it you can only make assumption based on your own personnal view of the game. Biais everywhere, double standard.
I was afraid as there was a lack of thread named "OKW is too strong/need rework/nerf/broken" in the first 2 pages of the balance forum.
Thank gods you are here to perpetuate this healthy tradition. However i am a little bit sad as the arguments you put in are the same that got countered milion times before. I admit i expected a little bit more imagination. :/
Basically your argumentation is just a basic copypasta from a sea of previous posts and i think you should have showed some respect to previous poster by quoting them explicitely. Shame on you!
For my part i am a little bit to lazy to quote the usual answers that kind of thread used to recieve and let you use the research button.
My late game options usually involve IS2 and/or KV8. If not viable, multiple T3476 (understand 4+) are what i use when i speak vehicles.
Unless in specific scenarios, i try to avoid SU85 and ISU as much as i can and keep them for multiplayer games.
Prepare yourselves to open your eyes to the truth after this patch, because it's all been a lie.
Things wont probably change at all, i can't remember a single game where a vetted unit was the reason of my defeat/victory. After all, abilities related to veterancy correctly worked and every faction suffered from the same problem.
When you loose it is because you where outplayed.
When you win, it is beacause you played better.
France
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
