What are you talking about? The AEC is 50 fuel... the Puma is 70 fuel on a fuel starved faction... Its fine.
Its 20 fuel cheaper...
there's more to balancing beside just making the unit's performance fit their cost. There are times when a unit needs to be scaled up or scaled down.
In this case the AEC is stuck in a position where its bad scaling doesn't justify buying it. It is awful against infantry and struggle against anything heavier than a halftrack. The british need a decent light tank destroyer to offset the weakness of the PIAT and the lack of tank snare.
If cost is such a concern, buff the AEC and make it more expensive. |
|
The Tommies' reinforcement cost of 35 mp is still too high.
They might have very good long range dps, but their close range dps is rather low. Furthermore the tommies are awful on the move.
their reinforcement cost should about around 32-30 mp. |
|
the AEC shouldn't get more accuracy against infantry. The ost are likely to be in the t2 stage while the AEC shows up and will be helpless against an anti-infantry AEC.
For anti-infantry duty the british already have the universal carrier with its wasp and vicker upgrade. Design wise the british doesn't need another light vehicle for anti-infantry purpose. If you want a light vehicle for hunting infantry, you should be getting the UC and upgrade it. I do think the Wasp is vastly overpriced at the moment but that's its own issue.
lastly, the AEC serve as the british' main light vehicle hunter. The tommies lack a reliable tank snare and the PIAT can't hit moving vehicle. Therefore, the AEC and the bofor need to be strong enough to protect the flanks against rushing tank. The aec need the range to fight the puma, ostwind, and pziv while the british get their cromwell on the field. |
720/160=4.5 or 5 shots needed to kill from any tank or at gun, that isn't a pak43.
easy to say that now, but when the axis do bring out a jagdtiger, elefant, or pak43, the 720 hp is a pretty big weakness. |
|
vanguard is definitely the strongest atm, as it has access to the over-performing Commandos and croc. However it's not inherently broken, they just need to nerf the commandos and croc.
I personally dislike the concept of the tiger ace. Even with all the economic disadvantage that apply, it still feels really strong in 1v1. |
That doesn't change the fact that their units have the lowest HP ingame. (Except Riflemen and Stuart.)
i didn't know any of their units had non-standard hp
jackson? I think it is actually the only unit in the entire game to have 480 hp.
Their heaviest unit is also limited to the bulldozer and the E8, both of which only have 720hp.
720 hp itself is actually "non-standard". everyone else either have 640 hp or 800 hp. The US is the only faction that's stuck at 720. In practice 720hp still means 4 shots kills from a tank, but the 80 hp do make a difference against schreck. |
|
it is extremely annoying how much damage the Churchill can soak up, but at the same time 280 armor isn't really that much. The kv-1 have 270 armor and it isn't really enough against the axis anti-tank.
the churchill would need to have 320 armor and 1040 hp at the least to be a good meatshield, maybe 320 armor and 1280 hp. It would also need a pop reduction as well. Right now it cost 18 pop, almost the same as the tiger's 19. If it get a hp nerf then it would need a pop reduction to ~16. Presumably stuff like the firefly and the HQ 25 pdr get a buff as well.
Anything less and it's going to be as useless as the kv-1. The kv-1 have been in varying states of useless ever since the doctrine was release. |
Well a 10s reload is pretty high, but then again it has crazy penetration and offers the tulip rockets as a fast KO mechanic.
If you want to turn it into another generic tank destroyer thats one idea, but it sure as hell shouldn't have an 8s reload if its going to maintain the tulips, penetration, and insane vet bonsus.
I like the fact that its a unique unit with a unique manner of play style, if you want an overall awesome anti everything tank the brits can always just take the comet. The firefly functions like a tank sniper right now and I think that's pretty neat.
no denying the tulips are extremely powerful, but at the same time it's also expensive. Less so in a 4v4 but in a 1v1 and 2v2 it's an definite luxury.
Right now the firefly is "unique" because it's a gimmick tank. It's a gimmick tank that rely on its alpha strike to be useful.
It's not a competitive tank because the resource investment required to use its gimmick is prohibitive outside of 3v3 or 4v4. |
U.S. Tanks are debatably the most durable in the sense that they all have nondoc smoke and good stabs, allowing for tactics that minimize damage taken.
hardly. the smoke have a significantly delay time and require your tank to stop moving. It's meant for covering an attack, not escape.
the cromwell's raw speed also make it a better evasive tank than the sherman.
The panzer 4 have armor, the cromwell have speed and size. the sherman have neither of these.
Relic should have just increased the armour to 180 as-per the first Balance Preview, instead of increasing the penetration.
a buff in hp would be better. There's a lot of axis weapon capable of ignoring even 180 armor.
Right now the USF armors are two glass cannon trying to cover each other.
the cromwells are easily more survivable. The cromwell can easily detect and escape dangers that would have killed a sherman. |
Need a source, I've seen the FF fire from a distance that seems roughly the same as that of an elepant and when I use it the range seems alot more than a jackson or SU85, I might be wrong, but if possible provide a screenshot of the game files.
Firefly range is 60, same as the jackson and su-85. They all pretty much serve the same role as their faction's main tank destroyer.
the elefant is 70 |
Firesparks
CPU - Easy
Firesparks
Relic Entertainment
