Profile of Mr Carmine

Jump back to quoted post17 Jun 2020, 17:28 PMachpawel

What you are trying to prove is wrong imo.

1. Allied are 3 factions against 2 axis factions. Some of the tanks are the same for both axis factions. Because of that allied stock+doc rooster has way more tanks than axis, and allies also have many more heavily armoured tanks than axis. Churchill could be a stock example of such really heavily armoured tank, but the plethora of Sov and UKF doctrine tanks just makes it much even more varied and numerous. How can anyone not see that? It is very possible that an axis player will face a completely different mix of tanks/tank destroyers/at guns in each out of 10-20 matches. Allied player will only see a few tank compositions repeated in each game. The difference is huge. It is simply a myth that axis have more thickly armoured vehicles. Now even usf have self-service dozer shermans.
2. Even if there are those tiny differences between medium tanks they mean very little. It is a very similar number of at shots to kill such tanks. If you pay significantly more in terms of manpower/fuel you might buy a panther as axis, and that would be, realistically speaking, the only more heavily armoured stock tank on the axis side. But even paying more resources might just give you 1, max 2 more at shots before it gets destroyed. The higher price tag on the panther and not being able to deal with infantry (in relation to how much you pay for it) just makes it a bit of a weirdo tank. It can be kited by tank destroyers so it is an at tank that is just too expensive for what it does.
3. Axis generally don't have that many reliable 60+ range tank destroyers. This basically means there is not much sense of having this 1-2 shot more durability if you can be kited and either destroyed or lured into at guns, mines, handheld ats, etc. You can be forced to be constantly repaired, which is a perfect tactics of denying axis arnour have any significant battlefield presence.

To sum up, allies have better armour, as it is cheaper and can reliably deal with both tanks and infantry and can be backed up by much better tank destroyers. Making raks less durable just makes no sense imo, as allied tanks are simply better than axis tanks (and very often even more amoured). How can one want to nerf rak if Soviets have dual purpose, even more durable ZiS guns?

Jump back to quoted post14 Jun 2020, 17:03 PMVipper

One could also keep it powerful ability but make it doctrinal.

For instance it could replace T-34/85 in Advance warfare and the rocket strafe replace the HMG strafe and then the comdo would require a specific commander to pull it off.

Ram could then be adjust accordingly.

Jump back to quoted post6 Jun 2020, 15:38 PMKieselberg

Only if both would overpeform, which isnt the case.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2020, 18:11 PMachpawel

Yep. Test this first and done.

Next step could be to remove them from cons too allowing them for a bundled molotov and at nade package. CEs are cheap and they should build them.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2020, 12:38 PMthekingsown10

At the very least grenadiers should be allowed to build sandbags ... literally like every other faction in the game has.. and they all rape grens