Profile of CombatMuffin

Support crews are more or less fine, right now. Maybe Soviet mortars are a little too slow, and perhaps the pak needs something to give it an edge (accuracy at far distance?).

All of these complaints and frustrations about flanking are not directly related to crews, but rather, small arms fire damage.

I don't think the proof is in the .sga files? I mean, it could be buried in the code somewhere, but I have definitely seen criticals in the game.

Its not common, but it happens: you run around, find an enemy squad, first volley of shots is fired and a man goes down super quick. That was a critical. Sometimes even behind heavy cover.

I agree though, it would be nice to know the chances of a critical happening, and to know exactly how they interact with the game. Until we have an approximate formula, we can't really equate them

I think there's another issue here that seems to be overlooked. Granted this issue has little to do with balance and all to do with aesthetics, but it's still important.

If durability of Ost weapon crews was the issue, then I feel increasing the overall health of the unit rather than placing more "entities" in the crew is a better option.

The visual design of both armies has the Soviets with a greater amount of "entities" on the field at any given time to show just how massive the ground army was.

By lessening the gap between the two, and giving the Germans more of a visual presence in bodies, it cheapens the feeling of overwhelming numbers for the Soviets.

This is also true of the engineer and pio squads. I really, really wish the Ost pios would only be 3 man, vs 4 man engy squads. You could very well adjust HP on pios to make it more balanced.

This creates a problem though. There dev's seem very adamant about leaving all infantry with 80hp, using armor for durability, instead. Many weapons are designed around this 80hp per entity (mortars, for example), so if they began with health discrepancies, it would probably break the initial design philosophy and seriously complicate the relationships between different units: even tank vs infantry.

As for the visual impact, I agree its an aesthetic difference but it is irrelevant in terms of competitive play and balance. If having a competitive environment means I have to fight 3 man soviet crews, my personal opinion is so be it. However, I'd agree that before the game comes down to that, the devs can try to pull off their aesthetic goal, while reaching a nice balance.

combat muffin, would it be okay for you, that i take this as a part of the guide? because its perfectly written. i might take out "distance", because distance is not anymore important in a conscript vs gren fight looking at their accuracy, and "critical hits", because im not sure wether they exist. i will ask one of the devs about this though!

Of course man, take it and paraphrase it all you want!

I am curious what you guys think of the Mortar HT 20% faster cooldowns bulletin. If Im not mistaken, it takes 45 seconds for its abilities to recharge, using the bulletin it would take 36. Its only 9 seconds, but if in games where you use more than one or use them very aggressively, it could make a small improvement?

and that doesn't means this gun is not a effective anti-tank weapon, it's an answer to the German Panther and Tiger Tank, and it has proved itself of capable destroying both Tiger and Panther, and it's frontal armor is impenetrable for Tiger I & Panther at point blank range.

please google before you write down "Not an anti-tank role" I just don't want replying the ignorance ppl's naive comment anymore

You don't have to be disrespectful about it, man. You don't get to decide who's ignorant and who isn't.

In contrast to your argument, I could just as easily say that you are ignorant, because you "assumed" in an earlier post, and I quote:

...dev want all soviet players use Ram as a Counter too axis armor and meanwhile making almost all soviet tank overpriced for it's combat capabilities.

I've never read devs saying this is what THEY wanted, so putting words into their mouths is brash, at best. Ignorant at worst.

Sticking to what you said: Yes, the IS-2 is too expensive for what you get, no doubt, but you also have to remember that, in the state of the game as it is, you can support your IS-2 in better ways than the Germans can support their Tiger.

How?

The IS-2, regardless of doctrine, can be supported by SU-85's which, excepting StuG's, is cheaper than any other German AT solution. Its also superior 1 to 1.

Given these two variables, there are more chances that IS-2 will be supported by an SU-85, which outranges Panthers and Tigers. In fact, given the economical contrasts between both factions, it is very hard for the Ostheer to field a Panther AND a Tiger at once (415 fuel). So logically, making it a little harder for the Soviet to bring an SU-85 and an IS-2 (oh look, 416 fuel!!! very similar) is not that unbalanced after all.

Now lets assume both players have battled conservatively. They have played their cards right, and th egame is VERY close. Both bring their heavy Tanks, and both have their T4 tanks... They have spent 415 and 416 fuel each. Big investment.

Unless the German player pulls an elaborate flank, the Soviet player can just take potshots at both targets, and those two targets WILL NOT be able to fire back. The German Smoke is defensive, and it will help them retreat, but NOT win the fight. Spotting scopes are very good, but they require you to be static. Same with Hull down.

Now sure, if both players just have those two tanks, the Tiger will win, most likely. Units are meant to be asymmetrical in the game, but not identical in match ups. Making it less expensive would increase the chances good soviet players can support it with SU-85's, and then the Germans have serious issues escalating that kind of firepower.

I still took the time to reply to you, though...