Soo..... according to your logic, vet2 puma is light vehicle, but vet3 puma is medium tank, because its gun is as good as medium tanks, AT dedicated, but still as good as medium.
It could be considered a tank destroyer but not a tank because tanks are mainly meant to support infantry but the Puma is only useful as an AT unit but it would still be a light tank destroyer because its gun would be small for tank destroyers and it has very light armor.
The Pershing is a heavy tank because its gun size and armor are much greater than other American mediums and just because the German military had different standards for what a medium was and what a heavy was doesn't make the Pershing a medium and this fits into the game well because the USF are supposed to have inferior armor in the same categories compared to the Axis. |
On average 50% of my allied games are against OKW, having played thousands of games I can assure you that I have used the rak on several hundred occasions and never found it to be underwhelming against axis tanks, you know, better armour etc.
I don't have to play OKW and use a rak as OKW to understand how the rak plays, but, if anyone here would like to play me, Earth, ill give you the first shot. I'll go OKW you go USF, lets see how long the Stuart lasts with a faust + rak combo when used by someone that knows how to use them effectively.
You cant properly evaluate a unit by using captured ones because captured units are not a part of your factions arsenal so you will have different units supporting the captured units and the captured unit will be fighting completely different units. In this case the raketen would preform better than usual in allied hands because its penetration is indeed good enough (which has never been a problem with the raketen) to penetrate Axis armor but also the general lower mobility and worse AI of Axis tanks would put the raketen at less risk because it would be harder to flank and wipe the raketen with Axis tanks. |
not to mention how reketen can retreat like an infantry unit....
The only reason why retreat is a good thing on the raketen is because the raketen often doesn't hit with its first shot so it needs to retreat once the allied vehicle has flanked it and even then it often gets decrewed on retreat. |
then what is the IS-2?
Expensive close combat Anti Infantry Tank?
Because the damage against tanks - a joke. It can damage Pz-4.
Against the Panthers, Tiger and OP KT it is very bad.
Plus a huge GNR bounce
I said it was a heavy assault gun and that its meant to take out softer targets like infantry and structures rather than tanks, you cant have your cake and eat it too. Also how is it a close combat Anti Infantry Tank, it has great range. |
I'd take a rak over any allied AT gun any day. What you fail to sum up is just how broken an invisible at gun is, I'll say that again an INVISIBLE AT gun.
"But its ROF is crap and it's rotation is poor" + other bullshit people throw out, whilst ignoring the fact that when the AT gun is invisible you can position it in such a way it doesn't need to rotate for the second shot. The first shot is a fucking surprise, you can't see it coming, by the time you realise it, a second shot has hit.
Anyone that thinks the rak isn't good needs to watch/rewatch barton Vs Wada and learn how broken an invisible AT gun actually is.
Most AT guns get their first shot in from the fog of war from spotters anyways so the camo doesn't have much of an impact and that first shot from the rak often just hits the ground or cover between the gun and the vehicle. I cant believe that people like you continue to say that the Rak is great and that its many "bullshit problems"(which are actually crippling flaws) are irrelevant just because of its dumb gimmicks that barley ever make a difference, the camo is mostly just useful for backcaping.
On topic:I would say that the stuart's abilities could use a nerf because the stuart's utility is insane compared to the other light tanks because of its ability to harm mediums and heavies for basically the same price. |
I am game for solution 2. I feel that a late game TD for allies is better
The su 85 already got buffed so that it could better counter heavy armor and the ISU 152 is a heavy assault gun not a heavy tank destroyer, its not meant to be a soviet Jagdtiger its meant to decimate infantry and structures and to only occasionally deal with armor. |
LeFH
You're right, ill fix it, I did have the halftracks mentioned, but I forgot to give them their own header cuz they're so bad
Oh well I must not have seen them because of the lack of a header, my mistake |
Post
You didnt list all of the units, you forgot the Kubelwagen,the infrared halftrack, the tier 1 AA halftrack,the Goliath, the sturmtiger,the command panther,the pak 43 and the artillery piece in fortifications doctrine whos name escapes me. |
|
I think this would be a good change but dont grenadiers already cost a lot of munitions to use? |
Since i'm not gonna go through the whole discussion (and i should just clean that 1v1 discussion but let's move on) and read all pages i'm gonna summarize my opinion on the subject.
Note: it shouldn't be isolated changes rather than take this as a whole.
1- AA in the game is outdated. Both how the mechanics to take down a plane and the capabilities through different factions.
M5 AA performance is sad and people joke accordingly that the IS2/ISU gunner are just plain better. For cost, Ostwind is not amazing compared to Centaur and the Flak HT remains a "badly bugged" unit (AA is good/fine for both USF/OKW HT).
For options: see Mirage approach on the subject.
2- Flak bunker in base are not required right now, specially when OKW now get's access to snare. Simil reason, i don't see why USF get's extra MG bunkers on it's circular base.
Remove extra bunkers and replace flak bunkers with MG bunkers. This "decent" flak bunkers could replace the ones which are on the commander slot for OKW.
3- Finally we arrive to the Schwerer. I do think the AA gun should require an upgrade BUT i think it should be done with this other changes.
3.1: Medics no longer requires an upgrade. Building T1 comes with the medics.
3.2: Deploying T3 (Schwerer) cost from 1/2 to 2/3 of it's current cost. It comes without the gun and ONLY have access to Obers + JPIV
3.3: Unlocking the AA gun cost 1/2 to 1/3 PLUS the current medic cost. This unlocks the AA gun and gain access to PIV + PV.
3.4: KT requires that the T3 must have been upgraded once.
The AA gun capabilities should be a toggleable option with a long cooldown. Either you want it to focus on AA or against ground threats (Simil to ISU behavior).
The point of the changes is to keep the current total tech cost, while slightly buffing the midgame from OKW (healing, Obers timing and somehow early access to AT tank). Replacing T3 shouldn't be as hard nor the only option after losing it been a call in tank or KT.
Great ideas man, I think this would really help balance the Schwerer gun and the OKW because being able to bring out Obers earlier on would make them much more formidable because their greatest weakness is that they have to fight hard for vet to reach their full effectiveness against squads that are already vetted, if this was implemented I would definitely start making Obers again. Also I like how you managed to make a side tech without having to increase the actual cost of the OKW medium tanks and of course you made a system where the Schwerer gun would actually require micro to be effective and there would be decision making. In addition I like the change that would take away the cheesy staling for a KT and the elimination of the medic upgrade but I have two questions
1:Would the medics still heal at a rate of 8 or would they go down to 5 again? (im pretty sure those are the numbers but if I got them wrong im sorry)
2:If the Schwerer was destroyed and rebuilt would the side tech for medium armor have to be repurchased or would only the gun have to be repurchased or would the gun also automatically rebuilt? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
