It should be limited to one per game I think
Fine, as long as all other heavy call ins are one per game only, or if the KT is buffed to the same level in vCOH, i.e. 3000 HP (adjusted for DMG inflation), Unpenetrable from the front, no fuel cost attached, and like, 800 MP. |
|
In short, its fine.
The issue with OHK AOE and how to reduce the OHK radius is interesting, but frankly I would not touch it - one may reduce the OHK radius and increase the damage radius which is fine vs full health squads but could easily result in mass wipes if the KT shoots at damaged models already engaged in the gunfight.
Touching the KT's AOE will of course mean that you will have to rebalance ALL other AOE units, as you can't just nerf and bring down the KT to the effectiveness level of other, less expensive units.
Of course we might just get some weird explanation about 'to make the KT more accessible to players, we have decided to triple nerf it and reduce its fuel costs by 10', we have seen some of those, but then you will have just made another highly controversial and unwarrented change that will result in rejection of the balance mod as a whole in the end. |
|
The point is that comparing the KT's abilities to single units is a false comparison. Sure its impressive. It should, at that cost.
The question you have to ask yourself is which had more wipe potential - three Shermans firing on a PaK 40 or RAK or Gren squad, or a single KT. The answer is the three Shermans of course. The KT rarely wipes the squads, usally it snipes 3 models. Three Shermans firing at a Gren squad or anything is an almost certain wipe though.
Except of course the Shermans arrive much, much earlier and put pressure on the OKW player earlier. Try countering Shermans with RAKs, see how great they are - the RAK doesn't need lucky wipes, it dies 80% the time it tries to engage a tank because the crew is so unprocted.
They also do 480 damage against tanks, which works out to 240 even if we take into account the 50% pen rates. Sure its not as reliable for a single Sherman, neither it shouldn be, but you have three attempts instead of just one before waiting 6-7 seconds. Its just one Sherman that hits the ground harmlessly, while two others hit.
As a rule, every expensive unit must be more cost effective than because it can't be at several places and the player pools all resources into a single unit instead of spreading it evenly between several.
Expensive units that are not more cost effective than just spamming cheaper units are poor choices - why wait for a Panther when at the same time and costs 3 StuGs can do the same job better and earlier is a typical example of what's wrong with that approach (and the Panther).
If the expensive unit does not add a new level of ability the lesser unit can't hope to match, its unattractive. a single unit is always easier to be destroyed, flanked, baited, snared than three. |
|
... and then be re-crewed. |
|
Teching costs
T70: 95/105
Sherman 170/180
King Tiger 195 (without caches)
IS-2: CP only
Unit costs:
T70: 70
Sherman: 110
King Tiger 280 (without caches)
Thus the question to be asked is by the time anyone accumulates cc. 500 fuel (OKW can't build caches), is it one King Tiger or cc 3 Shermans firing HE is the one that decrews ATGs faster and more reliably.
It is also a question of which fires at 4 men Squads and Weapons teams the most and which one fires on 5-6 men squads and weapon teams. |
|
It doesn't need DPS. I think the DPS is fine.
It merely needs to be resistent vs. rifle fire from mass blobs. Like all other halftracks, duh, which, BTW, does not have to support the most fragile infantry vs. Riflemen, Penal and Tommy blobs.
Its good if you keep it back - true, except its basically a glorified USF Ambulance truck then, at 3 times the fuel price, without healing and locked behind teching..
Flamer halftruck can be en exception, though I do not know how it would make a differnce. When you see a flamer halftruck with infantry, you run or evacuate the building because its gonna play out one way only even with current laughable wet tissue armor, but whatever, set the base versions to the same as other halftrucks, give the flamer upgrade 50% armor penalty - even though I cannot fathom why this would be needed or justified or how it would help. Neither the Quadmount on the Sov M5 gets any armor penalty and it is bulletproof AND it shreads and outranges infantry still...
The this-Tier-that-Tier arguement is entriely invalid.
Firstly, because of the type of infantry it supports. Grens need more support and earlier than Penals or Riflemen.
Secondly, because ALL factions have ATGs by that point (or even earlier), which can two-shot them.
Thirdly, ALL factions nows have access to infantry AT options that drive away even normalized Sdkz 251 with armor raised to the same value to the to 28.5 easily. Auto pen is guaranteed every shot and it ain't got much teeth, it will always loose vs AT infantry.
Penals with PTRS at 10 fuel.
SOV ATG comes at 20 fuel.
SOV ATG Granades at 25 fuel.
Guards at 2 CP
45 mm M42 ATG at 2 CP
Dushkha at 2 CP
AT Partisans at 2 CP
UKF ATG Sniper at 30 fuel
USF M5 Halftruck at 3 CP
Bazookas / PIATS
USF Captain at 60 fuel
The Sdkfz 251 can arrive at 100 fuel (90 if you rush it and attempt gameplay with Pios and MG42s, errr...)
Bofors at 110 fuel
SOV LL HT with Guards PTRS at 5 CP
SOV HT at 135 fuel
Heck as SOVs and USF you can even build or call in your OWN halftruck which wrecks the 251 AND aids your infantry.
The counters are there, loads of them and earlier and I guess players would just have to use them, instead of equipping everyone with double BARs/BRENs and except to waltz through everything.
Which is actually the point. Diversified gameplay. Making tactical options for OST which in turn could leads to reaction from Allied players instead of building a bigger, meaner blob all time, every time. |
|
Back on the original point.
If you want fix wiping potential of a unit that results from it following different rocket spread rules than other unit by halving its hitpoints, you simply do not know what you are doing.
Equally, if as an Allied player you want to make up for your inability to counter a short ranged rocket arty by insisting that you have absolutely no other tactical option (flanking, duh!) than to go full frontal assault with by-design-punier tanks against the HEAVIEST and most expensive, yet slowest tanks and tank destroyers in the game, and expect your troubles would go away because now you'd need one shot instead of two shots, then again you simply do not know what you are doing.
Therefore, it is YOU who need to adapt not EVERYONE ELSE. |
My only problem with KT is how it often wipes USF AT-guns, and possibly the pop-cap being too low. It counters its counter.
Single ATG are specifically NOT meant to be counters to the KT. Its designed that way, it says in the unit's description - "weak against massed AT guns". And it is true - two US ATGs firing HVAP rounds can force a KT away, at least if the player handling it has any brains. They might not pen all the time and they might not do that much of a damage, but oh boy they are firing fast.
One should not except to counter the most expensive and teching intensive unit in the entire game to be countered by a single 270 MP AT gun. |
It may imperil the focus and quality of DBP even further.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with the change itself. But I do fear that this potential patch is starting to move aimlessly, which doesn't bode well for community support as Relic determines what to implement and/or when and where to pull the plug.
I am more concerned that the early patch notes and versions were just bait to once again shove down on the community's throat changes that nobody but a few modders want. The patch is loosing focus and random changes are beginning to appear. It does not bode well.
If the community's balance concern are continued to be ignored and the DBP, once again, becomes a loose cannon, then the 'plug' must be, and will be pulled, which would be unfortunate. |
I don't see why you are so whinny just because someone nerfed your stuka health.
Welcome to COH and assymetric balance. Allies have long range rockets that fire in salvos, OKW has a few destructive short range rockets and OST somewhere in between.
Nobody asked for reducing the Stuka's health.
For example I am happy with the change because every rocket artillery piece should have a counter - brave tank push. If you catch it offguard it should be dead.
100 fuel units should be allowed to be one shotted, because its quite simply retarded design, period. Nobody asked for reducing the Stuka's health. Because its quite simply retarded.
After all you have mines an millions AT sources to protect it.
And you million ways to counter it already. Stukas die in the dozen to competent Allied players. The keyword is competent.
Heck, the UKF has a ONE CLICK off map ability to counter it, the SOV have counter arty in a dozen doctrine and ALL have rocket arty with superior range to counter it.
Its just some Allied players misunderstand counter as 'one click A-move with a tank and OKW lost 100 fuel". Perhaps its time to broaden the tactical repertoire.
Or would you rather wanted to see katty health bar buffed to 320 (current stuka) ?
Sure if the Katy gets HALF the range at the same time.
As it is, the Katy is far worse for OKW than the Stuka is to the Allies, as it faces smaller squads, factions that are built on static weapons, and can unload at regural interval at OKW forward bases from ranges it is COMPLETELY SAFE.
/quote]Because either sure ability of the one is weak or the surviability of the other is over the top. There can't be in between because these 2 units share completely the same role so the must have same common counters.
Funny it works the exact other way around when it comes the Jackson changes... |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
