I'd argue that that seems pretty fair though right? If you are facing down a tank and there is a hole there you are going to jump in it. If anything it's in line with the game mechanics.
BUT you could maybe buff the coaxial MG (shooting higher, shoots into the crater) to deal increased damage.
I don't see how tank mgs being extra punishing against units outside of cover at the cost of a little less when in cover would be much worse than getting caught out of cover and being wiped.
Idk. For me it's so silly to see a tank roll up point blank to an unsupported AT gun and support to arrive because all of iuts AI is in its cannon and it missed 6 shots in a row. I think MG powered AI gives us more control over how tanks interact with infantry and how reliablely they do so. Less RNG and more consistency has don't nothing but good for the game
Also can't modifiers be added to lessen the power of cover? Could set it at 0.6 or something and go from there?
I know there's cover damage mechanics, but I'm sure you're able to set certain entities, like MGs, to do bonus damage in certain situations. I'm not a modder, but if I had to guess I'd say yes.
I don't really see why they need to be so bad anymore. Previously when they were gigastrong, AA vehicles were all a piece of crap. I see no reason not to either reduce the cost or up the power of this loiter now that reliable AA is a thing. That or I'd say buff the accuracy. Right now their accuracy is pretty poor compared to stuka CAS.
I'd rather MG performance be looked at than tighter scatter. Tanks should, imo, be a constant threat to infantry who are in front of them. Let's cut this "wipe or miss" crap once and for all and load most of tank AI into the mgs and allow select tanks to stand out via high AOE HE. I don't think anyone can argue that the t34 isn't the best it's been now that it's constant against infantry under its sights.
This would also be an interesting way for axis vehicles to scale a bit better vs larger allied squads via their pintle mgs at a cost (usf too I guess)
The T34 is probably the pinacle of hull/coaxial MG mounts, and they are fantastic yes, but I do really hate how lategame when the field is covered with yellow that the all so great DPS gets halved. I'd be all for constant MG damage if it wasn't for that fact, and the UKF landmattress is king of making that yellow cover a reality. Fantastic for commandos and tommies, terrible for small arms fire.
Woops set it to the wrong setting. Should work now.
Watched first 4 minutes, and I'm still unconvinced it's a "good" unit. mediocre for price I'd say. Yes it had a couple good shots in there but it doesn't seem to be able to operate independantly. It almost always had another unit providing damage support. You may say "well no unit should operate independantly". Of course no unit should be a 1 man/tank army, but that doesn't mean you should be able to lounge infront of the most expensive unit ingame and not feel the imminent threat of being wiped. You can't sit in front of a t70 and not feel the threat of being wiped. Not to mention your opponets complete lack of mines or TDs. The only TD I saw was an Su-85 running up to the rear of the KT almost. And although the video should not be a prime example of how good the KT may or may not be, I wasn't impressed by it. Although I did notice the veterancy, which I hope is much easier to obatin now.
I found heavy tanks, and the KT in particular, a lot more reliable on average than they were before in more realistic scenarios, i.e. against clumped and damaged squads, with all MGs firing, and with other units firing too.
That said, the new AOEs are just a first iteration and we can tinker with them still.
Here's a test vs active bots that I did, judge for yourself. Don't mind the speedhacks.
Video doesn't seem to work at least here. I think having the KTs OHK radius at 0 is crippling its ability I think, however that may be because of its 240 damage so the dropoff needs to be steeper. Idk, just doesn't sell me for most expensive unit ingame. I see little reason to build it still.
Consider lowering the absurd 290 armor value of the comet for further buffing its scatter. It should be a threat to infantry. The Comet already gets free EWS with hammer tech and has the speed to flank JP4/StuGs. StuGs and JP4s should not have a ~64% chance (off top of my head) to pen a high speed flanking tank.
Faster "projectile", better scatter, lower armor. That's my suggestion.
I found the tanks tested in the UKF/OKW video by tightrope very lack luster. It shouldn't take a stationary tank 50 seconds to kill a single squad, panzer 4s and HE shermans are currently all better than the Tiger/KT/comet in the AI department at max range for some reason. And don't say "armor", armor is completley RNG dependant and honestly is probably the primary issue with tank balance.
IMO I think the comet needs a faster "projectile" even though there is no projectile as far as I'm aware.
KT needs better AoE or something, the display was pitiful vs a conscript.
The Tiger was even worse, taking ages to even hit the opposing squad.
I like the brummbar treatent to tanks, I don't like how they deal next to no damage along side the larger damage spread.
If there is truely and issue with tanks being too lethal, specifically heavies, change the defensive stats so TDs are more reliable and thus are better at repelling them. That and adjust the price. Make the KT an actual threat to infantry and raise its price to 310F again.
TBH I think it's the best squad for price ingame. 3 G43s, ambush camo, smoke grenade, flare, sprint, 5 man. And I think it's only like 300MP(?). It's really fantastic.
United States
Tobis
Siddolio
Siddolio
Tobis
Refero
Relic Entertainment
