Profile of Mr.Smith

The range of the P.F. might be 30 the range of the ability is less (about 15-20).

I knew I slipped up somewhere. I stand corrected

The argument still holds (self-sighting for early warning & bleeding the enemy blob like a herd), even though the P.F. example I gave was a fail. I can't think of any AT ability with 30 range though

I wish this entire wishlist makes it into the game some point soon.

Sure, the wishlist doesn't solve 100% of the balance issues in the game (no patch can ever claim to do; meta always shifts). However this would solve 90+% of the most pressing balance issues that are common the entire spectrum of all gamemodes, 1v1 through 4v4.

I wish that your recommendations would have been heeded earlier, as some of these issues have been left to fester there, for a few months now.

Thanks for all the effort (up to now & the future). Best of luck!

If we accept that T-34/76 was balanced around its normal price when it was in T3 than is performing like a 310/100 unit. When it was moved, its stat did not change, it simply become cheaper...

1. I would say that 310/100 is WAAAAAAAYYYY~~ to overpriced, but whatever. Let's accept 310/100 as a fair price, for the sake of argument.
Show Spoiler

2. Now, let's have a look at the MP-to-Fuel ratio of tanks of other factions. I am listing them here in decreasing order:

- OST Panther (2.8)
- UKF Comet (2.7)
- OKW Panzer 4 (2.4)
- OKW Pather (2.45)
- OKW KT (2.32)

3. Let's discard OKW MP-to-fuel-ratios as outliers.

Fuel prices to OKW vehicles were hastily applied in a hotfix. Nevertheless, I would argue that this contributes to the Volks-blob-enabling MP float of OKW.

5. Let's pick 2.7 (Comet) as the desired MP-to-Fuel ratio we want to give to T-34's

6. Let's decide on the conversion ratio between Fuel and MP. Let's say it's 1 FU = 5 MP (even though I might be completely off)

A proper, systematic way to determine the proper ratio would be one of the following:
- Look at fuel conversion abilities (OST supply drop)
- Extrapolate from similar-size vehicles with different MP-to-Fuel ratios (e.g., Comet vs Panther, P4 vs Sherman)
- Compare the income rates for MP and Fuel for the lategame (like the one that Dullahan hinted to earlier in the thread)

I'm too lazy to find the right ratio right now, but I will probably edit this post later, once I have determined it.

7. Let's tweak the cost of the T-34 in a way such that it respects the constraints we set in #5 and #6

The algorithm is as follows:

1. Calculate the MP-converted sum cost (S):
- Convert Fuel to Manpower (T-34 used to cost 100 FU. Thus, it the fuel cost translates to 500 MP)
- Add the converted Fuel to the Manpower (S = 500 MP + 310 MP = 810 MP)

2. Transform the MP-to-FU ratio into MP-to-MP ratio (R)
- The desired ratio is 2.7:1
- Thus, for ever 2.7 points of MP, we should get 1 point of FU (= 5 MP according to our conversion)
- Thus, our MP-converted sum, should account for 7.7 parts (2.7 parts for the MP cost, 5 parts for the converted FU cost)

3. Divide S by R.
- We have 7.7 parts in total for 810MP
- Thus, 1 part = 105 MP

4. Calculate the MP cost
- The MP cost consists of 2.7 parts
- Thus, MP = 283

5. Now, calculate the FU cost
- Subtract the MP cost from the MP pool (810 - 283 = 527)
- Transform the cost remainder into FU (527 / 5 = 105)

6. Thus, we transform the cost of T-34 from 310 MP / 100 FU to 283 MP / 105 FU.
The assumptions I made were that:
- 310 MP/100 FU was an OK cost to begin with (it's not)
- That an MP-to-FU ratio of 2.7 is OK (it might be too high, still, for a fragile vehicle)
- That 1 FU = 5 MP in the lategame (this could clearly be wrong)

If any of the assumptions are incorrect, adjust the inputs and rerun steps of the algorthm.
Cheers.

I've updated the OP with a FAQ section, which basically addresses the following brought up topics:
- Why not just move T-34/76 to T3
- Why not move T-34/76 to T3 and add T-34/85 to T4

Actually my opinion about how to improve T34/76 (as many other EFA units) is to first fix abilities and veterancy bonuses.

T-34/76 could probably become far more attractive with a better VET 1 ability and with ram that scaled with veterancy.

Other than that one could make some of the less used doctrine actually provide some sort of bonuses to T-34/76. For instance Industry could allow building T4 without T3 but giving access to only T-34/76.

First, let's prioritise fixing the stock Soviet options for the lategame. Soviet lategame doesn't have to be stellar, but it should, at least, not punish the player for building late-game vehicles that the player paid good MP/FU to tech up to.

We can improve things about the T-34/76, sure. However, a terrible pricing tradeoff (MP-for-fuel-at-T4) will still remain a terrible pricing trade-off. Without a decent trade-off, Soviet T4 will remain completely lackluster (other than build SU-85s to counter KTs).

Slightly Off-Topic, but a suicidal ability (Ram) doesn't really feel like a good fit for a Veterancy bonus. Especially given the terribleness of the pricing.

Your ideas sound crazy at first, but on a second reading they actually do make sense when combined together. You might want to use something like
Show Spoiler

If I read the general direction of your changes correctly:
- You want to make OKW forces a bit more specialized at what they do (e.g., Volks for AI, Raketens for AT early game)
- You want to remove the extreme reliance of healing to teching (healing kit changes; Brits already have something similar, why not OKW)
- You want to give OKW infantry more field presence vs other infantry (FlakHT buffs, transport HT), since OKW lacks cost-efficient suppression, and OKW will lose the schreck blob (thus, they have to gain something).
- The transport HT will also help making aggressive pushes vs mg-walls, without having to rely on smoke that much.

I think that I like the general direction of your changes, as it will transform the MedHQ from the turtling option to a bona-fide Infantry-based aggression option for OKW (which OKW currently lacks).

However, I will nit-pick on the following details:

Raketenwerfer cost reduced to 240MP

Raketens become beasts when they hit Vet1 (they retain their full movement speed when stealthed). Removing schrecks from Volks may justify increasing the AT efficiency in other sections. However, we don't want a stealthy AT to become -too- spammable. (basically, I should play your version of OKW before I can have an opinion whether 240 MP is too low or not).

Sd.Kfz 251 halftrack added to Battlegroup headquarters. Cannot be upgraded with flame projectors.

Forward retreat points + reinforcement HT might give OKW too much field presence when compared to OST. This might not be a bad thing though as:
- Volks don't have schrecks (thus, you can't defend your FRP as efficiently as before).
- Teching costs to medium tanks are increased.
- OKW lacks proper suppression to prevent aggressive pushes.

Jagdpanzer IV can now only camouflage while not moving
Decrease Jagdpanzer IV popcap to 12 from 14

Basically, JP4 is afflicted by a terrible bug that makes it invisible. The stationary cloak ability is one way to bypass the brokenness bug without having to fix it.

However, even then, I would have to disagree with the Popcap reduction. JP4 starts off on a very strong foot against other tank destroyers (SU85, Firefly, Jackson) in terms of cost-efficiency. Vet1 cloak notwithstanding, JP4 gets extremely powerful veterancy powerful bonuses that radically transform the unit.

Perhaps you might want to argue front-loading some of those Vet bonuses to Vet0?

Buff MG34 HMG damage and suppression

It's almost the same story with this weapon. MG34 starts as the worst MG in the game. However, upon reaching Vet2 it starts out-suppressing more expensive MGs (e.g., Vet3 50cal or Vickers). Perhaps some front-loading of Vet would also help this unit.

New Commander: Assault Infantry Doctrine

I'm not sure I like the idea of a commander that gives OKW everything that they are currently missing

(e.g., smoke, schrecks, suppression & all-around Volks)

Finally, there's a few details missing (e.g., Vet5, doctrinal heavies: Command Panther, Jagtiger etc). However, those are mere details that can be ironed out. I think I would like the general feel of the design though.