|
I'd like to point out that the Luger is much worse than the other handguns in the game (1911 wins wars, etc...).
Just a little odd when the German officers are both of the "assault" variety. |
|
I think the simplest way to lessen the need for the Jackson is to adjust the M1's AP Rounds ability.
1.8x Penetration instead of 1.5x.
Reload speed x.8 (1.25x as long)
Cost to 20mu
This doesn't affect its performance vs anything lighter than an OKW Pz4, but makes it more able to fight off heavily-armored enemies. Having a downside (slowing rate of fire) gives it a new option to be counterplayed.
Decreased cost makes it more reliable, and makes up for the ability giving enemy lights and mediums an opportunity.
Some Stats:
Far range at vet 3, penetration is 304 with 1.8x, 253 at 1.5x, 169 by default. Pak40 is 247. Tiger armor is 300, Panther is 260-286
Ability lowers M1 reload speed close to the Pak40's. |
|
Assault Engineer vet 1 (.9x RA) does not work in the live version, but is fixed in the preview patch. That should help them scale.
Ever notice, though, that pro players never use Rangers or Paras? |
Infantry sections reinforcement cost is already below 50%, please don’t make stuff up, IS would cost 34 to reinforce otherwise, and they are even more cost efficient with bolster
Infantry sections are not OP, so not having reinforcement cost at 50% divided by # of models is fine.
I'm not making anything up. Infantry Sections are an exception, but even they used to have 50% reinforcement cost. Infantry Sections were 35/280, paying for 4 models, then 28/280, paying for 5. Now their initial callin cost is lower, so they're not consistent with the rule. Volksgrenadiers too, with 25/250mp, now 25/260.
My issue isn't that it's OP or anything like that, I just preferred when reinforce cost was consistent. But that doesn't really matter. The important part to me is that Grenadiers should remain uniquely expensive, but made cost-effective in another way. |
You can only get T3 units sooner in Proposal B if you don't lock them behind Battle Phase 3. In theory, you could lock all of them, although it'd be a little weird to be able to build a structure you can't make anything from yet.
The timing are completely unchanged in Proposal A. The point of Proposal A is to move the fairly pointless tech island between T3 and T4 to between T2 and T3, giving you somewhere to put the Puma.
I should have clarified that I meant for B, yeah. I don't think any T3 units should come without B's BP3, and that a building with no units right away is too weird and confusing.
Proposal A is good, but BP2 being pointless for most commanders feels wrong.
So, I'd prefer a cost shuffle (BP2 to T3) over requirement switching, because the current structure is very intuitive and established. |
To be honest on Grenadiers, I wouldn't even mind reverting it, but Grenadiers I believe in terms of damage output deal enough. Yes they will get swarmed by other units are there like the MG 42 and PGs to zone out units like Rifles or control units like Tommies.
Their firepower is already very good and they can attack at max range.
That's a very good point. I was hesitant to suggest an RA buff, since I like the idea of them as expensive glass cannons, but I would even prefer that over making them cheaper.
Make them harder to hit or something like that, that they can remain longer in battle, would be a better change.
Yeah- maybe drop the RA to .88 from .91? Or could be tied to vet to adjust scaling, of course. |
|
Interesting thoughts-
I'm not sure if Ostheer needs any of its T3 units sooner, though.
I think the simplest solution is to move some of BP2's fuel cost to the T3 building. This would make the Puma and Stug E come earlier (which they both need, I agree) without much alteration. Maybe it would make T3 skipping easier, but that's pretty niche as it is. |
|
I'm just going to keep saying this-
I dislike the Grenadier reinforcement change because it homogenizes the factions. Their higher cost is unique.
Instead, I'd recommend improving their cost-effectiveness by increasing their firepower. It has the added benefit of scaling control. You could increase rifle DPS for early game, or MG DPS for late. |
I believe the justification of increasing (17%) the Bren Carrier's armor is ridiculous.
I had the exact same change in my UKF redesign mod. It only increases the WASP UC's armor back to what it had been, and that can only happen after T1. The WASP is the faction's only non-doctrinal flamethrower, and it comes late for that. The faction's weakness is in attacking fixed positions, so they NEED something that can do that.
The WASP wasn't even that popular before the UC armor nerf, but now it's gaining back some ability to push, which is its only job. |
Current issue is that the performance of this TDs is practically same from range 60 to range 40.
There many parameters that can change to solve this issues like:
Lower accuracy at long ranges so they at least can miss vs PzIV, increases their ROF at long range so that they benefit at closer ranges and so on...
This is a good idea. Heavy target size isn't different enough from PIV size for it to work now, but that could be adjusted too. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
