Profile of Panzerjager1943

Sure lets's all use Pumas to kill late game ISU. Katitof said it so it must work.

Ele/JT are not a reliable ISU counter because of IL2 precision bombing + mark target coming in the same doctrine.

Pretty much this. Which is why Ele and JT are soft counters to the ISU, not hard. And more often than the other way around, Ele and JT are faaar more easily dealt with than an ISU.

Here's how I see the issue of Tommies.

Pre-patch, the 5-man, Vet-3, double-Bren Tommy squad was nearly indestructible. The 4-man, Vet-0, no upgrade Tommy was balanced.

Post-patch, the 5-man, Vet-3, double-Bren Tommy is now balanced.
But the 4-man Vet-0, no upgrade Tommy is basically useless and the early game is grossly in favour of the Axis, so getting that improved squad tends to be difficult if you're being continually forced off the field.

It would be good to find a balance point where the upgrade paths for the Tommies offered less of a huge advantage, but the base starting squad is still a functional asset. This would require some carefully thought-out changes.

Here is what I think could work:
-Revert the 'cover bonus' change or improve SMLE's base accuracy.
-Reduce the effectiveness of Veterancy especially regarding squad survival.
-Increase the manpower upkeep of 5-man Tommy squads, and add a note about it in the upgrade tooltip. You sacrifice some additional manpower income to have 20% more health and 20% more firepower in all your squads.
-Possibly raise or lower the cost of the 5-man upgrade relative to these changes. We will need to see how they affect the unit to decide if modifying its cost needs to be done in either direction.

Ideally, we would be able to improve the starting squad's utility while reducing the ridiculous effectiveness of the maximum-upgrade/veterancy squad. Maybe none of my changes could be used at all, but that is what I think would be the most desirable outcome. And it's the end results that matter to me most of all.

a 0.875 DR reduction means rocket arty will be substantially affected along with all forms of indirect fire AND infantry... if heavies are the problem then nerf heavy performance against AT guns... NOT a DR reduction

a DR reduction makes all AT gun counters including infantry and rocket artillery... units that are supposed to counter AT guns... much less efficient against AT guns... and this is completely unacceptable as AT walls are SUPPOSED to be countered by infantry and indirect fire

Again, I don't think 0.875 would affect Rocket Artillery much if at all. The damage they deal and the radius of their AoE is quite good and it may have 0 effect; what does it matter if you deal 81 damage or 999 damage when your soldier has only 80 hitpoints?
And as to Infantry being worse against AT guns.. they need it. The 4-man AT guns are basically only 3 men, and against the blobs popular in 4v4 they don't stand a chance. The only AT guns that can survive are Soviet ones (that's plural since they can crew other faction's weapons and turn them into 6-men) and the Racketten.

Also, how would you nerf the Heavies against AT guns? The crew are target table type of just 'infantry', so any nerf to that would also affect every other infantry man in the game. It's not the gun itself that's the problem, its the scatter vs. the crew. Heavies are reliably two-shotting AT crews right now, and it's very unfair.

Nerfing Heavies such as through Scatter or Target Table will affect their performance against regular troops, which is not desirable. They finally have a good role right now being specialized against Infantry, but they are just too powerful against the really low-crew size AT guns. So there has to be a buff to all 4-man AT guns. That or some new target table created just for them and just reducing damage from Heavies.

What i meant was before the JT nerf the JT had an advantage over the ISU since its range outdoes the ISUs support killing ability... rebuffing its range gives the JT an advantage over the ISU



Uhh if you think AT walls should be stronger and more viable then youre creating more cancer to this game... absolutely not

So the problems I see are that now that JT arrives later than ISU and deals 0 damage to Infantry, it should for no reason have the same range as ISU. It should therefore have either more range, or get damage vs. infantry (I would prefer more range for asymmetry - to keep the game interesting), because otherwise it's just going to remain a more expensive, later arriving, less versatile ISU.

As to the AT Gun wall, even with a damage reduction of 0.875x on only the 4-man teams, they're still going to be weaker in health than a Racketten gun wall (let alone a ZIS), and we all know that Rocket Artillery will continue to be the hard counter to AT gun walls. That will be unchanged by this. It is the proper counter right now and Racketten health is not high enough to survive Rocket Arty so this wouldn't be affected. It just might help with the super-rapid wipes that Heavy Tanks and Infantry have been able to do on these 4-man Gun crews, which was worsened very heavily by the most recent update. x0.875 may not even make enough of a difference. Hard to say without testing.

I’d agree that heavies are too good against AT guns, but giving them a flat 20% damage reduction would make them to resilient to indirect fire and infantry.

Why not just use target tables to tone down heavy tanks’s performance vs. AT guns?

AFAIK the problem is the target is the infantry crew on the AT gun, not the AT gun itself, and that's harder to distinguish apart from regular infantry. Another issue is that Heavy Tanks have also had their scatter greatly improved, so that attack-grounds are super precise and easily to manipulate against an AT gun crew (especially a very small one.)

Tiger is cheaper and more mobile, fires faster, and is more accurate vs. Infantry.
Plus the Commander you get him with gives you the Artillery Commander as an upgrade.

Tiger is generally overall much better. It might have less health but being faster and being able to be repaired faster gives it a bunch of advantages. Plus with veterancy that thing just slaughters infantry. King is too vulnerable with its low mobility, and very taxing to repair.