Profile of Enkidu

One issue I always have with Brits, is that everything always feels so expensive MP wise. I’d like to see Tommies changed to match grens. Make them a 4 man, 240 MP unit; make bolster a universal upgrade that gives them explosive resistance in the late game but no 5th man; make them win slightly vs grens in cover and lose out of cover; and reduce their upkeep and reinforce cost so that the faction can actually play around support weapons and emplacements without constantly struggling with MP.

There is enough about the faction that is different to maintain faction identity with 4 man Tommies.

The thing that bugs me about the 105 isn’t a balance issue, it’s the same thing that bugs me about all of the heavy support artillery style units (Brum etc); and that’s how slowly they fire their projectiles.

I know that it kind of has to be like that because they need to shoot over obstacles, but it’s so immersion breaking to have a tank fire a round that travels slower than a trebuchet flung pumpkin. The shells just kind of plop out of the end of the gun and it’s not very satisfying.

Setup and tear down are actually big concerns with the maxim especially. When you’re talking about a potentially spammable unit that you don’t want replacing cons, having it extremely vulnerable while trying to reposition is a big deal.

For a heavy generalist?

270 armour, 960 effective hit points, price reduced to 540 MP 200 FU, accompanying nerf to the fire rate of tank destroyers.

+1. I’d go even lower on the fuel to 180 even. I also agree that the Pershing is the best example of how a heavy tank can fit in with other units without nullifying mediums. Pershing wipe potential is too high though.

The counter argument that this design style wouldn’t work in large team games is fair, but it begs the question of how much do you want to balance around large team games? 4v4 games are a crazy mess of spammy chaos. Fun for some, but with a very different sense of balance. 4 players worth of AT gun walls and tank destroyers is going to erase any single piece of armor; should heavies be designed around that though? It can certainly be done, but then those units become unrealistic to acquire or deal with in 1v1 and 2v2.

I’m of the opinion that heavies should just be more like generalist panthers in terms of cost, timing, and durability; and as such should fit better into a combined arms force. With less of a gulf between heavies and mediums, you get to see, use and counter them more often in 1v1, and the match revolves less around them in bigger games.

I think that heavies should basically be panthers with better AI. Give them similar health and armor to panthers, similar cost, same range and AI as current heavies. Keep them capped at 1 to encourage unit diversity.

Basically, if you pick a doctrine with a heavy, it should be accessible and affordable, but counterable enough that it isn’t oppressive. I feel like heavies should be just another cog in a combined arms machine and not an all in that you sit on.

Oh, I should also mention I feel like the frontal armor on panthers (and heavies) should be decreased a bit from 300 so that AT pen values can be played with. Maybe not needed though. Is-2 is the worst offender in this with its 360 frontal or whatever the heck it is.