Some people on the balance team are advocating for final tier side tech as a more equitable solution than tying heavies to all tech buildings etc.
Do people like this proposal?
This was brought up a little while ago, and I think it could work really well. The only problem I can see, though, is how the per-requisites for the final tier would work. Some factions have massive variations to their tech costs, depending on if they're rushing or unlocking everything.
In the quote below, I figured that the 'T5' tech should be priced at the mid point between the minimum viable price (i.e. rush) and the maximum possible price (full teching).
Note: I realized when re-reading my numbers that I assumed the 'rush' build still had each faction unlocking/building every level of tech, which isn't necessary. OST could skip T3, OKW could skip a truck (skip Mech, for lowest costs), etc. I've updated those numbers.
Anyway, numbers. The idea, as Vipper suggested, is to add a "T5" to every faction, who's purpose is entirely to unlock heavy tanks. It would work much like an OST BP, in that you'd research it at your main building, and it would cost some amount of MP and Fuel. The goal of this "T5 Tech" to standardize the amount of MP and Fuel every faction has to spend to reach heavy tanks.
Detailed explanation of numbers -> As a result, our "T5 Tech" should cost:
OST: 200mp/10f
OKW: 0mp/0f (Free)
USF: 140mp/20f
Sov: 0mp/20f
Those numbers seem pretty fair to me, for a "heavy tank tech" unlock.
If those prices seem inconsequential, they could be used as a starting point, since all they do is equalize the prices between factions. A more substantive cost could be added to those prices (ex. +200mp/+40f) if the intention of "T5" is to delay heavies, or increase the resource investment needed to field one.
Also, what (if any) further nerfs do people think would be needed in conjunction with the above?
Mostly AoE nerfs, so they don't go around wiping squads (or forcing a retreat) in a single shot. Heavies should be good/great 'generalists', but not to the degree they are now.
Base jackson is fine since its rof isnt too destructive and pen doesn't delete armour frontally.
Improving sight and hvap brings it back closer to original intentions.
Ya? Ya?
What is your vet nerf? I can't seem to find it.
In any event, the Vet 0 M36 is not Ok, either.
With 220pen at 60 range, it has a 100% chance to pen every medium (except OKW P4, OST P4J), meaning that it can 4-shot every axis medium. It also has its high mobility as well as high moving accuracy. A vet 0 M36 is still very, very powerful.
The M36, SU-85 and Firefly are all good at kiting. It's how they're designed to operate.
The Jackson would not be the problem unit it is if diving it killed it like it kills the SU-85 and Firefly.
Sure, except the problem is all the other things I listed that make it amazing. The Su85 is vulnerable to flanking and rushes, since it's a slow-ish case-mate; the M36 is not. The Firefly is vulnerable to flanking and rushes, since it's slow-ish with with a slow turret rotation speed; the M36 is not.
That means that if either of those units (SU85/FF) overextend on an attack, they become incredibly vulnerable if the axis player decides to counter-attack. The M36 doesn't have the issue; if you start pushing back, they just retreat while still dealing tons of damage (0.75 moving accuracy).
They're all supposed to be good at kiting, that I agree with - the problem is that the M36 has all the tools it needs to maintain that kiting advantage. There simply aren't that many times when you'll be fighting one at close range.
As for how to make it bad close up?
Cut it to 480 HP, then give it a timed ability that gives it 0.75 received damage but tanks its mobility.
or
Slow down its rate of fire (slashing its DPS) so it has to use its range advantage. This is how the Firefly works.
#1 has been vetoed multiple times; an HP reduction is not happening.
#2 Doesn't fix the problem, as I pointed out above. Also, dropping its DPS against heavy/super heavies may not be desired.
But this is what a tank destroyer is for. It should be able to snipe at vehicles from range.
The problem is if those vehicles do pull back, it can dive after them like a premium med too.
It needs to be a slugger or a sniper, it can't be both.
When one of those vehicles pulls back, the M36 just follows it at max range, while the infantry (or Scotts, M4s, etc.) clear everything else. The M36 is so exceedingly good when kiting (sniping) that nerfing its ability to 'slug' isn't going to change anything (also how would this be done without lowering its HP?).
The best idea I've got is making it 480 HP, but the problem there is that makes the KT, Elefant and Jagdtiger two-shot it.
Missed this before, but lowering its HP has been effectively vetoed by the balance team. As you pointed out, it makes it far too fragile vs. super-heavies, which are very common in team games (why it was increase to 640hp in the first place).
A unit that has to stay at long range can't dive and brawl.
The Panther's advantage over the StuG is its ability to dive into enemy lines to secure kills. The casemate StuG can't do that because it's a casemate and can't let anything get behind it.
That's what makes the Jackson so powerful: it can dive and secure kills where the SU-85 and Firefly can't.
I don't think its ability to 'dive' is entirely what makes it OP; it's the ability to push units off points in combination with the strength of other USF units, and in combination with it being an excellent defensive tank.
If USF is attacking, they can keep the M36 at max range and consistently chip away at enemy tanks (except super-heavy TDs), forcing them to retreat. If those Axis tanks back off, that means USF rifles (or other infantry) can come in and wipe everything else, since OST (and to some degree OKW, but much less so) is so reliant on vehicles to counter infantry.
Meanwhile, any counter-attack can be easily stopped, as the axis tanks won't be able to dive (can't catch up) the M36s, and as such, won't be able to provide infantry support.
Take that away and it's a fast SU-85 without self-spotting.
And 50% more moving accuracy (0.75 vs. 0.5)
And a turret
And HVAP
And incredibly good vet (325/390 vet 3 pen + HVAP!?)
And a crew
And the ability to bypass pop-cap
It's not good against everything per point of fuel though. It's 185 FU.
It pulverises everything up to and including Comets in a close range brawl, but it's a fair fight against much cheaper tank destroyers at range.
The Jackson doesn't need splitting into a medium silver bullet and a heavy silver bullet. It just needs to be good at range and bad close up, like the other 60 range TDs.
Fair point regarding the panther.
As for the M36; it's essentially the fastest tank in the game, has 60 range, and the best moving accuracy. Keeping it at max range is really easy, so nerfing its close range would do nothing.
We really only have the current units that are in-game to work with; if we're lucky, we might be able to pull SP-Campaign specific stuff, but iirc, there are limitations there, too. That's why I (and others) have been suggesting the M10; it's a TD that exists in the current game, that could be moved to somewhere else.
Indeed that's the most reasonable solution. And not a pure nerf like many are suggesting.
The thing is, it would be a pure nerf to the M36, sort of. If the M36 were split in two (one good vs. mediums, the other heavies), it would likely be split into... the M36 and M10, for the reasons I said above.
The M36, being the visually bigger TD, would almost certainly be the "good vs. heavies" tank, so it would be nerfed in terms of its strength against mediums.
And vast majority after P4s just bee-lines to P5s, ignoring existence of StuG.
Pretty much only players who seem to use them are top players+dane.
Like the StuG/JP and Panther are intended to be, yes. Unfortunately, the Panther has the same issue the M36 has, where it's good against everything. That's partly because of its design, but also partly because of the "60 range TD Meta" right now.
At least in the case of the panther, both Axis teams have access to 'lighter' TDs, which should fill that roll better once the Panther has been 'specialized' into specific roll (likely good vs. heavies, bad vs. everything else).
You have been arguing for OST as a benchmark a lot. In some parts it makes sense IF the whole concept of a benchmark makes sense, which I briefly remarked that this is often not the case. Also your benchmark faction must be balanced within itself. What do you do if you have good line infantry but the cost/performance for an AI vehicle of zhe benchmark faction is absolutely shitty? Give every faction usable line infantry and nerf the shit out of their AI vehicle?
In the current state of the game, it does not make much sense to have a benchmark faction. The best thing is to cluster units that perform well for their cost and potential counters, and then balance other units according to them. In one situation we can nerf the IS2 because the Tiger is decently balanced. But this does not mean that the 251 has to be nerfed until people don't really use it anymore like the M5 (just exemplary)
While not trying to sound too pedantic, I think they key thing to note is "In the current state of the game, with the current development resources, it does not make much sense to have a benchmark faction." Conceptually, the idea of a "benchmark" makes a lot of sense, and as Vipper pointed out, OST is probably the best candidate to be that 'benchmark', since they're the most "complete" faction (no missing tools).
One thing that may be worth looking into, however, is how these changes have affected the game speed over the years. If, for example, after all these changes, infantry TTK in 2015 and 2020 is about the same, then there really hasn't been power-creep. Yes, the numbers could all be "bigger and better", but they've cancelled each other out. Since no one's looking at the numbers while playing, their actual values don't matter too much - instead its the end result that's important (i.e. gameplay).
In addition which faction is the benchmark is quite irrelevant. Its like saying I prefer to call my length units meter over feet
Maybe the best approach is to actually copy what the International System of Units did, and move away from using a physical thing as the benchmark (grens, or an actual 'prototype Kg') and instead move to a concept (TTK should be X seconds, a Kg is now conceptually defined).
Right now, units seem arbitrarily balanced around each-other, with the 'balance point' constantly shifting. Because of this, I'm not entirely convinced achieving balance is possible, simply due to the complexity of the system. We might like the balance between Grens and Cons, but a 'too strong' T70 might mean that Grens need a slight buff, which then shifts the Grens/Cons match up (simplified example). With a longer "chain" of unit interactions, finding a balance point for all the units is likely impossible.
An alternative approach could be to define a single match up (ex. Gren:Cons should end in X seconds, with Y health/models), then 'lock' those two units' stats, and then balance around that; adjusting similar units to that match up, and then units with less and less relations (ex. mainlines -> MGs -> mortars/light IDF -> LVs -> ATG, etc.).
T4 Tech - Needs a different focus
The issue wasn't the price of getting to T4, it was the units within. They're all incredibly situational and expensive (the units, not the tech). Reducing the T3 -> T4 cost by 15 fuel isn't going to make these units any better.
1. The panther is still really expensive; the STUG is more viable as a TD, due to its higher DPS and range than the panther. Additionally, if you do save up the 490mp/180f (iirc), you might as well save the extra 190mp/50f and get a Tiger, as that's a much stronger unit. There's also the whole "60 range TD" thing which makes going for a Panther a risky choice.
2. The brummbar is still going to impose a heavy micro-tax, and even then, it's only really good against blobbers. The P4 and Ostwind are simply better choices, since they're cheaper, arrive earlier, and don't require manually firing every shot. Also, axis doesn't need a "bunker buster", either. This update does increase its armor by 20, but I don't think that makes it a better choice (in most cases) than a P4 or Ostwind.
3. The P.Werfer is still going to be situational. It's good against static infantry and support weapons, but because the rockets always take a long time to hit, using it against moving infantry is tricky; you can't use it point-blank like a katyusha or caliope.
Grens - Good change
I agree with Vipper's sentiments about another mainline infantry buff, but at this point, that's just the path we're on. Making current grens 'The Benchmark' would require severely adjusting ~6 other mainline units, which just isn't going to happen with the frequency of patches we're getting.
Brummbar - Needs a different focus
The armor change is decent, but still not great. As I said in the T4 changes section, the brummbar's main issue is its incredibly high micro tax (literally manually fire every shot). This doesn't make sense:
The Brummbar is a 40-range (or 45?), slow, case-mate, ~150fuel anti soft-target unit, and it requires constant micro.
The M8 Scott is a 60-range, fast, turreted, ~75 fuel anti soft-target unit, and it can accurately auto-fire on the move.
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
