Profile of Olfin

Jump back to quoted post4 Jan 2021, 05:52 AMFunPolice

The main idea behind a late game strum cost reduction is essentially to make it easier to replace a strum if it gets wiped. A strum wipe is just a massive set back late game compared to any other faction with their relatively cheap engineer units. I do understand that strums early game have a ton of power which is why this effect would only really happen in the very late game.
Within the balance patch discounted strums probably wouldn't be built beyond getting more repair since combat wise they aren't needed anymore. Obers will be out by then and likely have some amount of vet and volks will likely have 3+ vet and those mostly outperform strums that late into a game. The repair truck does help currently but if you end up going battlegroup as your first tech you pay a very large cost for that second repair. Just to clarify this is in no way meant to be some big buff to OKW (they already got several of those) but would kind of just be like a nice QOL thing for them. Easier replacement of the repair units in the extreme late game when the unit is largely ineffective in combat and when they would be insta wiped from rocket would just be a nice thing to see happen.

Jump back to quoted post3 Jan 2021, 18:03 PMFunPolice

So this is probably a bit of a weird idea but what would people think about giving strum pioneers a cost reduction late game?

Like say after you get Panzer Authorization they would go down in cost to like 280 manpower (-20 from base) and then like 6 pop (from 7)? At least the intention is that Strums are largely ineffective late game as a combat unit and as such making it easier to get a second repair squad (or third if counting the mechanized upgrade).

Thoughts on something like this?

Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 13:32 PMgbem

the T-34-85 does not outperform the P4J... its more reliable since it reliably tanks an additional shot through hp as opposed to armor... but the P4J shoots faster and is better vs infantry


also im all in for the T-34-85 to cost 140 fuel... just make it available nondoctrinally at T4...



sure... then reduce the T-70s cost to 60 and reduce T3 cost to 40 fuel... then lock 7 man behind T3 instead of mobilize reserves...



yes and the soviets have to pay alot more than 30 fuel due to retarded sidetechs... which have been only band aided as opposed to addressed entirely




do you know what saturation means or does that king tiger profile picture of yours cloud your thinking?

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:30 PMgbem

and then you also have to consider that light armor is mostly intended to fight infantry... having a light armor generalist isnt gonna do you good since armor saturation begins in the medium tank phase/lategame.... having the T-70 perform worse than the luchs vs infantry is nonsense

Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 18:30 PMgbem

yes the luchs is 10 fuel (14.3%) cheaper than the T-70 while being quite superior against infantry in open (nonclustered) or against heavy cover (post T-70 nerf) in exchange for being worse vs vehicles...


but then the T-34 is 30 fuel (25%) cheaper than the P4 but is inferior to the P4 against armor and infantry... but yeah the T-34 is soo OP we need to nerf it!...


and then you also have to consider that light armor is mostly intended to fight infantry... having a light armor generalist isnt gonna do you good since armor saturation begins in the medium tank phase/lategame.... having the T-70 perform worse than the luchs vs infantry is nonsense