That would simply be a nerf to an already incredibly niche unit though, and I don't believe any significant part of their cost is in their close range DPS.
I&R Panther spawn before minute 1 equipped with 3 elite weapons available to CP3 units. The carbines are part of their cost.
If they are to be a long-range fighting unit, they could at least out-damage a basic Grenadier squad.
Not if the cost was set at 240. There is a bad habit of trying to make units attractive by increasing their DPS which imo is a mistake. Unit can become attractive by being cheap but bringing something new to the table and the scouting abilities of Pathfinder is enough. Or one could even increase their utility but turning them into sniper counters.
The Vet 3 M1 Garand is roughly on-par with their current Carbine's at close range. Their limited squad size, with one handling a DMR (which should have it's stats altered to also support long range combat) make them inappropriate at close range despite the admirable individual DPS.
If they "inappropriate at close" they do not need close DPS which they pay for. Currently the IR Pathfinder at range 4 have the DPS close to that of riflemen and that make little sense.
I believe the best solution might be to create new M1 Garands along the lines of the ones mentioned, and retool the DMR to have an inverted DPS curve like LMG's. If not, leave the Carbines alone and focus on just inverting the DPS for the DMR instead.
The scoped rifle already has an inverted weapon profile.
Think at the end of day we agree that long range units should be weak at close range.
Yes and that is my point. If one continues to bring Soviet stock units inline with Ost/OKW stock units one will have to tone down Soviet access and power of doctrinal unit.
The indication would be pick-rates and win-rates, which are lower than others.
In WC2019 they did more then fine, the WC2020 only indicates that they have a hard time dealing with Osttruppen. One will have to wait and see how well Ostheer do after the nerf to Ostt and 5 men grenadiers to see how viable Ostheer actually are. And OKW did not do great either.
Conclusion: The T-34's mobility is average and penetration is poor, which doesn't make it particularly good at flanking because it doesn't really move faster than other tanks and it cannot reliably penetrate the rear armor of a heavy tank as well as any other medium tank.
You are missing the point I made. T-34/76 penetration increase more than most tank with range.
As of its penetration is high enough to reliably penetrate enemy rear armor.
100% vs PzIV j at range 40
100% vs PzIV at range 30
100% vs Panther at range 30
He is very clearly talking about Ram's original intent, which is at odds with what the current team believes it should be for.
Those patch notes are from Relic and they clearly say that T-34's ram intention is a last resort, which is exactly what the MOD team did.
I am not sure why we are even debating this since absolutely clear.
The fact is that the ram/off map combo is not good for the game. I would suggest to people that do not like the change to RAM to come up with better suggestions.
For instance I have suggest that RAM changes to "Ramming speed" an ability that makes the unit move faster in straight line. The ability then improve with veterancy and can be used to ram at vet 1. The effect and penetration of ram also scale with veterancy.
The Paratrooper M1 Carbine is superior to the Rifleman M1 Garand at range, so giving them Garands doesn't serve your purpose of making them better at long range.
M1 is inferior close thou and if one gives them M1 one can lower the cost so that Pathfinders can become a support unit instead of fighting unit.
or create another M1 Garand that is better at long range. Perhaps an M1 Garand with the close range DPS of a Vet 3 Garand (which itself closely mirror's the Panzerfusilier G43) with the long range DPS of the Panzergrenadier G43.
The weapon of the unit should be good at long range and unit should be weak at close range. It does not need good DPS at close range.
Speaking of C.Panther the whole design is problematic. The unit is used more like a solo unit than a support unit and imo the units design should be looked at.
Either design a support vehicle that operates with rest of the army or design a Panther Ace and lose the "command" aspect...
Possibly in combination with reverting the AEC build time increase, moving medics, and giving the UC a ~10 fuel cost.
This problem start from making all these unit available so early. I would suggest to make 221 available to Ostheer to counter sniper and micro light vehicles and tone down the shock value of micro light vehicles.
And gating the destroy cover ability behind a unit upgrade or tech.
This ability is very power but it is needed to help with emplacement placing. Maybe there could be an alternative where placing would flatten the area where possible?
Imo the ability need a mu cost, longer CD and becoming more user friendly let the user know here it can not be used and the exact are it effect.
These changes may increase build diversity (think early capping power and doctrinal flamers), while also making the 222 less mandatory to counter the UC (as the UC would now delay tech) and in turn (with RE on the field) making the AEC less mandatory to counter a 222.
Again bring back the 221 and redesign the 222, Ostheer the faction with weakest light vehicles has become the faction most depended in LV.
- (Royal Engineers now have 1.25 capture rate)
- Royal Engineers moved to T0
- Blow up cover ability locked behind T1
- Medic Squad moved to T1. This way going for early doctrinal flamers (potentially strong) would lock you out of early healing on Infantry Sections
- Possibly 5-10 fuel cost added to UC
- Possibly revert AEC build time increase
Ditch the medic squad add base medic if needed.
If Ro.E are moved to T0 the F.A. should probably move behind T1.
Another issue is the IS performance (and bolster). Maybe IS should simply be redesign to start weaker but gain bonuses with each tech they unlock. The hammer anvil choice could be expanded to become allot more meaningful.
the fact that you are paying (or not paying, because its garbage) for an ability that it flat out worse than others in the same vein that are free is an enigma to me.
VG incendiary grenade where designed to as counter to maxim spam so it not the best thing to compare them with to begin with. (And you aware how I feel about them).
That meta was completely fucked up. Churchills were completely op, noone wants to go back there. Just make it a tank with some decent AI damage output and cap it a 1 (maybe shared with Crocodile/Avre).
It has decent AI since at vet 1 it get grenades and extra smg.
If one redesigned to unit be limited to 1 one could probably buff but I doubt the moderation team would go for that.
Point here is that the unit is cost efficient so any change would have to do with power level (both cost and performance either going up or down) or limiting to 1.
If you check my suggestion I think that it would be better design if Comet stayed at the same price but lost its AI abilities (grenade/WP) and Churchill got these abilities and lower pop and lost some of its AT capability by reducing penetration.
What if, Radio Silence doesn't remove all the unit icons from the tacmap, but change them maybe? Like they all show up as blank or something?
So you can still see and respond to threats, but you don't know what they are without looking at them?
Hope someone understands what I mean.
I guess you mean that mini map gives information about the position of the enemy unit but not the type of unit.
For Radio Silence - Absolutely agree, any fourth wall breaking abilities like that shouldn't be in the game. It targets the opposing player's ability to the play the game. That might be unique, but that's because it's inherently bad design. It should just be reworked to something like Smoke Raid Operation of UKF, allowing all infantry squads to camo in cover and something else like improved capture/movement speed.
Radio silence.
I do not think it is necessary to removed the ability with a few changes.
I would suggest the following:
Ability now effect a group of unit instead o being global
Unit now do attack attack until ordered to attack
Once unit engage enemy units they become visible in mini map
These changes will require some micro and smart use from player using the ability and allow opponent to react.
Infiltration nades - I see your point. An interesting design element about them is that they can't be cancelled unlike Assault Grenadier grenade assault (you don't get refunded), so you have to be smart about whether you throw them or not. If munition cost gets increased to 30 munitions, they should be refundable if cancelled on time.
Spec Ops - True, they can't be countered unlike Recon loiters. I personally had the idea of moving the flares to tanks as targetted ability, similar to the 251 in Mobile Observation Post mode for Strategic Reserves. Then you can safely decrease cost from 60 to 50 munitions as it can't be freely used anywhere on the map.
50 munition is way to high for something (251 also) Soviet mortar get from vet 0 for 30...
The current ability need some change like longer CD for sure.
What I do not understand is why people complain about flare being "uncounterable" and do not complain about about stock reckon planes that also "uncounterable" and soon will be available in 3 factions. Or why people to not complain about 3-4 UKF abilities that come also with flare/reckon for no particular reason.