Cons vs. Penals
Penals could go for a SLIGHT (+10mp) price increase (and increased reinforce along with it). More importantly, Vet requirements need to increase. They currently level incredibly quickly, and losing even a Vet 3 squad in late game isn't as impactful as it should be.
Cons need their Vet 2/3 bonuses toned down a bit so they don't become so resilient in the late game, especially with the 7-model upgrade. Alternatively, the 7-model upgrade needs the reinforce cost and cover bonuses removed.
Ideally, the choice should come down to having a cheaper but better mid-game unit that falls off late-game (cons), or a more expensive unit that scales slower but better into late game (penals).
T70
Needs to be either be delayed even further, or toned down a lot. Personally, I'd prefer the later of those two options. The cannon needs to be less effective vs infantry than it currently is; copying the stats of the M5A1 or AEC cannons might be enough of a change. Additionally, if needed, remove "recon mode"; this gives the unit tons of late game utility (especially at Vet1) that other comparable LVs don't provide (LOS, Capping).
M3A1
Probably lesser known, but moving accuracy for the units inside needs to be lowered a LOT. Chasing retreating units with a flamer engie squad inside is simply too cost effective, and far too strong. Putting a flamer in the HT should make it effective vs. garrisoned or stationary units instead (i.e. avoiding suppression), where moving accuracy isn't really an issue.
IS2
Front armor to 300 (-75), vet 0 range to 45 (+5). Yes it's a dramatic change, but it's warranted. Axis simply doesn't have the super high pen, high mobility/range TDs allied factions have access to. The added range is to standardize it to other call-in heavies (Tiger, KT, Pershing) and provide is a bit of a bonus for losing all that armor. Additionally, the range vet bonus would need to be adjusted down slightly, so it's total range with vet doesn't increase.
Putting further thoughts. Instead of callin range nerf! We can beautify it as a AT refresh.
From high level looks like this
40 range
Med tanks no changes
45 range
Call ins changes, standardised them since they do AT and AI brawling well. IS2, Pershing, Tigers, Crocodile (ok poor croc but...)
50 range
Panther no changes. As it sits between AT prowess of TD and AI of callins(loosely put AI..)
55 range
Jp4, Jackson, su85, firefly. Superb AT prowess that gains sweet vet but with zero AI. (hmm jp4..)
60 range
JT, Ele, ISU152
Heavy TD call in, self explanatory.
Puma, M10 - squishy guys like older days of 60Td, seems fine unchanged
70 range
Big Pak and Big Mac Pounder, no change. To counter heavy Td
I like the idea, but there's a few critical things I'd change.
1. Croc at 45 range would actually be a massive buff, if we're talking about the flame attack. If we're talking about the cannon (and so, the normal Churchill, too), this would still be a +5 range buff; I'm not entirely convinced the churchill needs that range increase.
2-A. I think moving the heavy TDs to 60 range would be a bit too much of a nerf. Their main weakness is horrible mobility and a lack of a turret, but their advantage is +10 range over any other TD. Reducing their range to only +5 over other TDs would mean they would be incredibly easy to "poke" at, considering their awful rate of fire. Additionally, it means less "reaction time" for the Heavy TD to move when being attacked/flanked. I would change this category to 65 range.
2-B. The M10 and Puma both have 50 range right now (not 60). I agree with leaving them as is, but bumping the Puma to 60 range would be extremely oppressive against any form of LV-play.
3. Both Heavy AT emplacements have 80 range right now (not 70). I agree with leave them as-is, giving them +15 range over heavy TDs (no one uses them, so a slight buff could be warranted), or I would reduce them to 75 range, to keep the range-gap the same as it is now.
4. What of the Su76? Right now it's a 60-range turret-less light-TD. I suppose it would also be lowered to 55, however that leaves the STuG in a similar role, but at 50 range.
5. Comet is missing, but it's currently at 45 range.
Updating your list, I would have it something like this:
40 range
Current medium tanks and any other vehicles with 40 range (churchill, etc.). No changes.
45 range
Heavy Call-ins; Standardize Tiger, KT, Pershing, IS2, etc. to 45 range. The IS2 gains +5 range at vet 0 (to bring it to 45), but they all lose any +range veterancy bonuses. Any other vehicles currently with 45 range (comet, etc.) are unchanged.
50 range
Panther, STuG, Puma, M10 etc. No changes. AT vehicles either too cheap or too resilient to warrant 55 range.
55 range
Jp4, Jackson, su76, su85, firefly. All lose 5 range. Dedicated tank destroyers.
65 range
JT, Ele, ISU152. All lose 5 range. Heavy TDs; expensive, slow, doc-locked, and without a turret.
75 range
PaK43, 17LB. All lose 5 range. Static ATG emplacements.
I see where you are coming from , but it's not unfair for everyone in a ranked matched to play the roulette wheel on an equal footing rather than some people already knowing what numbers they will get before the spin.. It's actually a lot MORE fair for everyone involved to have an equal footing and then let the ELO do its thing.
Neither situation is ideal. I've had days/nights where the larger modes have become literally unplayable, because it kept matching me with the exact same high-skill 4player group, which I had no chance of beating with random players. But on the other hand, that high skill group paid for the same game I did, so they shouldn't be forced to wait ages just to play with their friends.
I've also been in the opposite position, where I've had a 4player group of new players; getting them to stick with it if the queues were 30+ min would have been impossible.
The only problem is that you get massive ELO punishments if you lose vs an unranked team (less than 10 matches played together), even if this team consists of top players only.
I think this is the much bigger problem. Pre-made teams should probably use the average of the player's skill with their currently selection factions when match-making, rather than the current system which essentially assumes none of them have ever played before.
2- 5 range difference between TD and the targets they are meant to counter, is not enough as had already been tested when Jackson got their range cut down. Sander has already said that this change won't be implemented overall at all.
3- 55 rak is basically 60 range for all that matters. It's not getting kitted by 60 range tanks with AI.
These two just don't line up for me. Yes, I can see that there's a difference between Tank AI vs. an ATG and an ATG vs. a Tank, but how can 55 vs. 60 range be simultaneously negligible and unit-breaking? If it's negligible, then the Rak should be able to be 60 range with no other changes, and if it's "unit-breaking", then that +5 range buff should've been a massive change for the Rak43. As is, it seems to be a slightly change; neither negligible nor unit-breaking, which is exactly what I would expect from a +5 range change.
I just don't see how a -5 range reduction to 60-TDs would completely ruin the unit, when they'd still be maintaining their Hp/Armor/Mobility. All the change does is slightly increase the risk when playing at max range, which most people seem to not do, anyway. It also gives a 5-range window where an ATG could actually fire on those TDs, rather than the current "margin of error" window.
As for Sanders dismissing the idea; that doesn't mean the idea is without merit. The balance team has done an excellent job so far (mostly), but they're not infallible.
While I like most of these changes, I don't think the suggestions for the TDs (Su85, M36, P5) would really change all that much. Raw pen doesn't appear to be the main issue; it's the ability to kite everything, combined with high mobility and reasonable survivability. A pair of Vet 0 M36s still completely invalidate any/all medium tank play, which is supposed to be the natural counter to strong infantry... which Rifles are. The same can be said of the SU85 and P5, although to a lesser extent due to mobility and range, respectively.
The playerbase is simply too small for that kind of change, and forcing pre-mades out of automatch entirely would be completely unfair to those players. Even SC2 at its peak mixed pre-mades and randoms.
The only solution I can think of is making the match-maker MUCH more strict when matching a pre-made with randoms, so you don't end up with massive discrepancies in skill that destroy any hope for the random team. Ideally, when searching as a group, your opponent shouldn't be more than 100-200 positions lower than you on the ladder; unfortunately, I get a lot of games where the difference is 500-2000.
The ELO system already handles this: if being in an arranged team makes you win more, your ELO goes up and you get pitted against individually more competent solo queuers
It also happens at the top end; even the best 'random' team is going to get destroyed by a decent pre-made. Good coordination is extremely powerful, and can make up for a surprisingly large skill-gap.
Make up your mind, are you talking about patch from before heavy tanks changes or patch from year ago?
There's only been one patch that touched heavies or TDs since GCS2, which was in Sept 2019; before that, they've only made minor changes to mediums. So 'before heavy tank changes' and 'from a year ago' are the same thing.
If going light vehicle into medium is "rushing medium", then everything is, even going tiger into panzer4.
All there is needed is to revert heavy tanks damage profile and CP changes.
Not really. Player 1 rushes an LV because it's basically required, then transition to a medium if they're still dominant, since it'll be uncontested. Player 2 then skips their own medium and goes TD to counter that, so then player 1 also need to go TD.
If by rushing medium you mean going light vehicle into medium tank, then yes.
That part about heavy tanks being unviable is complete bullcrap. The meta last patch was stalling for heavy tanks. If you didnt notice you are posting in thread about 1v1 tournament.
Nobody ever is going straight into TD in 1v1 unless they are losing game hard already and need to counter enemy armor.
Almost no call-in heavies (more Goliaths than KTs). The M36 is literally USF's 3rd most common vehicle after the ambulance and M4A3.
And yes, LV -> Medium; as we've discussed in this thread, LVs massively impactful for some factions (T70 was built ~75% of the time, luchs only around 50%).
Medium tanks will be viable again after these retarded changes to heavy tanks from last patch get reverted. Just as it used to be. With 60 range TDs in game, just as before.
Before the heavy change in the recent patch, no one went heavies because they came so late that the enemy would always have a ton of TDs, making them nonviable, just like mediums were. The only viable play back then was either rushing a medium and hoping it paid for itself before 60-range TDs showed up, or simply rushing 60-range TDs (or panthers) yourself.
It was only in rare fuel-starved games where mediums really had any lasting impact.
So in current meta heavy tanks feel so hard to counter that top players feel the need to rush them every game just so they dont get completly shutdown by enemy heavy tank.
Your solution: lets nerf counters to heavy tanks.
Can i ask what is it supposed to achieve?
I never said we shouldn't nerf heavy tanks. I'm just saying that if we do nerf them (we should), TDs, especially 60range ones, need to nerfed too, so that heavies don't become entirely useless. Also, reducing the strength of 60-range TDs means that mediums might become viable again.
Heavy tanks: Expensive and very late to arrive, very durable and strong vs infantry and armour, but low mobility and availability
Medium tank destroyers: Premium accuracy and pen at a high cost, meant to zone out enemy armour from range
Medium tanks: Low target size but low armour, mobile and can work well vs infantry and work the flanks
Light TDs: Premium 60 range, low pen, high rof, can function in multiple roles (Su76 barrage, Puma aimed shot and recon, AEC tread shot and command vehicle)
I like the idea, but a distinction needs to made between turreted medium TDs (FF, M36, Panther), and case-mate TDs (JP4, Stug). They have very different rolls (defensive vs. offensive), and would likely need to be adjusted to better suit them (likely smaller target size on casemates).
Also, light TDs having 60 range could cause some issues if their pen is high enough (return of mass Su76). If other TDs were going down to 55, I wouldn't want to see light TDs having more than 55 range, either.
And what do you do with vehicles which are balanced around having 50 range? Also those same heavies unlock 50 range at vet 2.
This change will never be applied, because then you need to start adjusting the whole vehicle ecosystem. I'll even argue that 5 range increments on vehicles is bad, cause it feels like there's basically no difference at all. It's basically there to give the vehicle with advantage the first shot but not necessarily to play around been able to shoot without retaliation.
Vehicles at 45-50 wouldn't be changed, so that match-up would stay exactly the same. Vehicles that were at 60 would now be at 55, which is still 5 more range, as you said.
As for 5-range increments being 'bad on vehicles', I disagree with that. Firstly, if 5 range increments feels like basically no difference at all, then -5 range on 60TDs should feel 'like no difference at all'. Secondly, the Rak43 ATG was recently buffed by exactly 5 range, to (coincidentally) 55 range - exactly where the new TDs would be, and by the same difference some are asking for. Thirdly, there's currently several vehicles balanced around the '5-range increment' at 45-range: Tiger, Tiger Ace, KT, Comet and Pershing. It's also important to note that the last 3 (KT, Comet, Pershing) do not gain any range with vet, meaning they are permanently at 45 range.
Lastly, this really wouldn't change that much in the vehicle ecosystem. With the current "10 range increments", we have a bunch of vehicles with 60 range that out-range a bunch of vehicles at 50 range. Lowering those 60TDs to 55, still means they'll out-range those 50-range vehicles - there's just a smaller margin for error.
0
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
