The argument, that M10 should be viable for AI made me die a little on the inside. It's supposed to be a TD not an Anti-Infantry Bulldozer
Indeed, but with snares now available to all German factions crushing is a real risk. If you run in you are in serious danger of being snared. Worse still if you kill the shooter you get instantly snared (assuming you fall below the damage threshold). I agree that M10 and Cromwell rounding up infantry and then squashing them is stupid, but these tanks may need to be treated differently because of their insanely high speed and rotation. |
I do think Ost is just a downgrade of OKW at this point, but let's keep trying the patch first. There are a lot of buffs to Ost in it.
If the Bofors and mortar pit are dealt with as well that would also come as a straight buff to the faction. |
Aerohank makes a number of excellent points, follow his advice.
I would add that you should take into account what your opponent is trying to do. If he goes PPsHs on cons, the STGs will make sure he has no good choices. Closing he will get melted but up close he suffers terribly, as they gain vet they also suppress. If on the other hand a player is fighting a rifle blob on the move LMGs are the way to go, shoot and scoot.
On city maps STGs just feel so strong because of the ignoring of cover bonuses. |
The LeiG does nothing without player input, that was removed as they removed it's suppression
Since this is factually incorrect (the ISG auto fire on any spotted unit), I don't know how to address it directly. However, I will say I think you are misreading me. I am saying by and large the gun is placed in a location by the player and then ignored. Occasionally it is called upon to barrage an area (for instance when attacking an emplacement).
Also the ISG barrage and auto fire range are identical, at least at vet 0, and both of these are less than the mortar pit, and at vet 1 they are still less than the mortar pit. |
The ISG is a terribly designed unit. It does not have the RoF of mortars in an attempt to limit its long range sniping, but it also is a unit which requires little to no player input. Annoyingly it snipes high value units with little input from the controlling player. Buffs or nerfs to it are hard because it is trying to be a mortar and a mobile artillery gun. The indirect fire for the OKW should never have been this unit, but I fail to see how to address this now without changing the unit. OKW could easily have received the 120mm mortar or another true mortar, which would have been a better fit for the game.
Mirage is absolutely correct that should the unit be changed in anyway it must receive a range of buffs to compensate.
The confusion the weapon has on its roll is quite obvious in its vet. Is it meant to be close to the front line and fire (speed and received accuracy important)? Or is it meant to sit far back and have the player direct its fire (range and RoF important)? |
The loiter skillplanes actually cost 200. There is a similarly-named ability in the CAS commander that only strafes in a single line (and costs 110).
However, the total cost is not necessarily 460 munitions. This is dispersed between 3 people and is (thus) easily achievable (2-3, sometimes 4 times in a game, depending on your resource control). You only have to pull this off once, and you won the game. Just bait the enemy to blob their armour by presenting your Tiger(s).
This was one of my concerns about the JT. With things like skill planes assaulting a JT in a team game should be near suicidal. I often find that I wait until the last possible moment because almost anything is better than an all in gamble. If I lose the gamble as Allies the game is now over, at best I can continue to stall around 1 VP until they amass enough armor.
Annoyingly the P47's strafe is less effective and runs into more AA than the Axis version giving a much less impactful rocket barrage. |
Mediums without crush are not performing their role as infantry deterrents. The increase in snares should have already addressed the crushing problem. If the issue is the cromwell and the Wolverine I would recommend removing it from those two alone, although I think that the point of the cromwell is to lance in and try to punish infantry.
I never considered these units to be overperforming. An AT only tank crushing infantry just means that you are free to use snares or AT guns since the player is quite low on actual AI.
Another option might be to slow down the tank every time it hits an infantry model (can this be done?). This would limit the rate at which squads could be crushed. |
I think the title here a little strong, but I agree with the OP. The issues he raises are certainly something to consider for a balance mod.
FRP removal for all factions would be so amazing. The USF major could have an On me! ability instead. |
These are generally good, but the removal of crush from tanks is going to make for pathing nightmares. Crush is an important mechanic reducing it to heavy only means very few if any use of it. Is the issue that Cromwells crush too well? |
Commando regiment should not have 4 high munitions cost abilities and commandos. At least 2 of these should be changed to something else.
Royal Engineer regiment needs love. The flame mortar is a joke, currently sits near the bottom of abilities in the game.
Royal Artillery is bad. Even with the Sexton getting a buff I see no reason to pick this doc. Occasional flares over the lines is fine, overpriced coordinated fire is marginal, Valentine is not sufficient for cost and pop (also why would I would to pay a premium for a unit designed to stay out of combat?), Sexton is currently terrible is getting less terrible in patch, and the overwatch is bugged and useless. Considering how much artillery is intended to be dropped by the player overwatch just won't be available anyway.
Of the other commanders, which are all locked behind pay walls. Most of them are ok, some are very good, all are better than the free ones. Arty cover is still very powerful and I don't understand why I would want to spend munitions on anything else once I have it. Making the forward observation point better as a result is silly. I will continue to use the arty cover instead. The forward observation point should be considerably reworked or discarded. It may even be better to remove it entirely and place the sexton or croc in the doctrine. |