So I've been comparing the three Allied tank destroyers.
The Firefly's got the lowest damage output thanks to its awful reload, but good burst damage. It's also got a medium tank's armour and Tulips if you're willing to feed its ravenous hunger for munitions. It has a turret but it turns slowwwwwwwwwwwwly...
The SU-85 is a casemate, which means it's a slow lumbering beast in desperate need of protection. It's got a better damage output than the Firefly and can self spot. It's also got better penetration than the Firefly and it's cheaper.
Between these two I can see the tradeoff. The SU-85 is cheaper and puts out more damage faster, but the Firefly is more independent.
Then we come to the Jackson.
It's got the price and damage output of the SU-85, the best penetration before you bring in its HVAP ability, good turret rotation and 0.75 moving accuracy. Put all this together and it can roll up to an enemy medium Panther-style and splatter it. The other two can't: the SU-85 gets flanked and the Firefly'll lose because of how long it takes to reload.
I'm fairly sure it used to only have 480 health (three hit kill like a light vehicle), but went up to 640 in DBP.
There's no real contest here: the Jackson is the best of the three in almost every department. It just seems like a better Firefly for less.
What gives? Does it need toning down? Do the other TDs need toning up? Or is it like this to compensate for some factional weakness I'm missing?
Agree. Jackson has no weakness. Just badly designed. The combination of insane penetration, mobility, regular HP and range is just too much.
|
240 armor is high a Stug which is a dedicated AT units has around 71% to penetrate it at max range
If a 90 fuel T3 TD has 71% chance to penetrate even from the front at max range with good accuracy and ROF then how is the 160fuel T4 slow heavy tank effective? Bringing up those numbers was a bad idea because it basically proves your whole point wrong.
Churchill is good but other than maybe removing the grenade ability it´s balanced no matter how many Axis tears are going to be shed in this thread. |
Sorry, somehow missed the comment regarding the scott/pak.
Anyway, as for the other indirect fire units - yes, they all need addressing in order to keep things 'fair' between the factions. My original post suggests this, but also points out that because of OST's 4-man, high cost squads, they are currently the most affected by this issue.
"Currently affected most by this issue" ?
As said before the mortars have already been nerfed and the squad formations were already improved. The problem that you describe has already been solved. It seems like you are playing several patches in the past.
I honestly can not agree about indirect fire units in general being OP. Pak Howi and Scott yes, the rest is balanced or even underwhelming.
|
Against OST units which need to stay stationary to do any damage (Grens, MG42); yes, exceedingly, especially in 2v2+. It's quite common to see 2 MHTs, 2 scotts, or 2 Pak howitzers in 2v2s in top 200 play against ost, simply because it makes Grens incredibly challenging to use at almost zero 'micro cost'.
I just said that pak howi and scotts are OP. They are used a lot for a reason now what about Soviet 80 and 120mm mortars? What about leig, USF mortar, Ost mortar, UKF mortars? Instead of demanding nerfs for all indirect fire units it would make 10x more sense to just adjust Pak Howi and Scott instead. |
|
They perform incredibly well when auto-firing in current patch? That´s news to me. |
|
What is this thread about? Mortars have been nerfed recently yet people claim that they are NOW suddenly better than before and break the game?
Camping with lots of mortars was a strat that was used more often a few months ago before the nerfs hit mortars hard. Nowadays no one (good) goes for this anymore.
The only indirect fire units that remain OP are the USF Pak Howi and Scott. All the other units are either balanced or bad.
|
|
No because mines are too OP compared to T34s and Su85s. Also Ostheer MG upgrade on tank is very map dependend and thus balanced against SU85. |
|
Ost vs Soviets every game is boring IMO. |
Where is the non-sence? If you have any problems with me, then write my a PM on German.
Lets maybe start at not randomly switching OST and OKW units around? Especially not units like the MG42 which is supposed to be the unit Ost is played around for the first stages of the game. You can´t seriously suggest terrible ideas like that and expect no one to call you out on it. |
- They will still have a snare, the AT-rifle-grenade. Less damage, but more range.
- The hole game is full of bad designed units, which could be solved by moving them to other fractions.
e.g. in my opinion:
- Luchs has to be in Ostheer
- HMG42 has to be in OKW
- leIG18 has to be in Ostheer
- 222 has to be in OKW
- etc.
- leIG18 is a shame of an arty. The AT-roule would be pefect. 50 range, light arty cover.
-> and yes, line-up has to be changed more.
But first, before we touch anything we have to destroy the MG-meter of all fractions. It is simply cancer.
??????????????????
|
Germany
blvckdream
Computer - Leicht
Francislaremote
Brandon
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
