|
Back on topic about the 222.
Aside from the autocannon buff against infantry that I'd be willing to change and take away, I don't see this thing becoming a killing machine people claim it to be. |
Since the 222 thread is turning rather ugly my suggestion on what to try about the 222 are the following:
1)As already posted allow a upgrade with panzerbusche by replacing the hmg42 221 with the panzerbusche the panzer grenadiers use (campaign).
2) Reintroduce the 221 making them both available. The 221 can have a HMG with good penetration and act as cheap counter to M3 and bren carriers, have some AI capabilities, has bonus vs snipers and spot, keeps same veterancy bonuses and is recon vehicle.
The 222 can also be built (and not upgraded) a bit more expensive, maybe locked behind T3 research, has worse AI, less spotting but has better penetration and HP and it is able to help against more heavily armed vehicles like m20, T70, Stuart. It has an AT ability of some sort like stun of higher penetration and vet bonuses fit its role of a soft light vehicle counter...
Think these solution allows better tools to balance the unit out, than a straight up buff to 222...
1. There is no model for the AT rifle on 221/222 sorry.
2. I don't think we need two separate vehicles. If anything, aside from making the 221/222 more costly, there might be an upgrade for the autocannon, but it's not planned anytime soon. |
Range change alone would make it hardcounter its own hardcounters like Stuart, AEC or T70.
Hardly. The 2cm might need adjustments against infantry in the mod and price/hp, but the range buff you're making too big of a deal of. The majority of the lights are more than capable of closing with a 222 before they take too much damage and 2cm requires more than 20 shots to kill the 400hp light vehicles when you take misses into account from both target size. bounces on something like the Stuart and the 222 moving to continue kiting. That's more of a micro heavy soft counter than it is a hardcounter.
isnt this another homogenisation?
If you took out the autocannon buff vs inf, not really. What you have is a different unit that can skirmish against light armour, but never fight them directly with some ability to engage infantry at shorter ranges. It's closer to Puma than it is to the T-70, Stuart, or AEC. |
Unlikely other factions, Sov and USF don't have stock heavy tanks
Unlikely other factions, OKW doesn't have stock HMG
Unlikely other factions USF and brit don't have stock rocket arty
etc...
See what I mean?
There's a difference between not having and the unit that is there being poor-mediocre. I doubt anyone wants the 25pdrs to suck just because they're non-doc indirect fire when they should be good as its the British forces only means of indirect-fire outside of doctrines and the mortar pit.
Even with an accuracy boost for the 222 for max range and moving, it's not a laser gun people claim it to be and I'd even live with no/lower bonus accuracy against infantry if it proves to be too much of a mini-luchs. What the 222 needs, however, is the ability to actually be a unit that can kite and be a soft counter to light armour with a tad bit more hp and MG responsiveness. Terrible head-on in most cases, but enough that it can at least threaten armour without coming into harms way.
Doing this would also open more diversity than the current meta of "hug-pak wall until tanks" as there's no reason for Ostheer to deploy the 222 in most cases other than as a reactionary response to other scout cars or if they want to play with map hack spotting scopes. It's not a mobile response to anything but the weakest infantry units and the M3.
But I'll stop and say the simplest thing to get the point across:
"More expensive, better performance. Make 222 a Scout Skirmisher." |
You know why you don't see flame HT's built against UKF in tournies? Because noone plays UKF in tournies. The matchup is already pretty in favour of Ost which roll UKF early game without the need for more Ost buffs.
If you had played more than three UKF games in matchmaking you would know this, 222 gets built against you in pretty much every single game as it's a delete button for your bren WASP.
Speaking of tournaments I saw pretty great use of the 222 against USF in ESL, guess how much use of UKF we saw (oh wait I just mentioned that didn't I) 
If it was in need of a revamp it would never be touched (just like the sexton or *cough* Greyhound *Cough*)
We can't compare the 222 in a vacuum but we also can't assume everything would be completely static.
If X needs helps against X due to X then that should be looked at and adjusted accordingly. People assume that if X unit is changed X will never get changed and that's honestly bad for balancing and so many factors enter which no one even accounts for.
It's like how everyone conveniently forgets the 222 would be more expensive giving lighter vehicles like the M20 and M3 time to roam around |
1- You don't need 222 if there is no scout car on the field.
Or
2- You build it to harrass flanks and then your opponent need to build AT or t70/Stuart/AEC to counter it.
Your proposal makes it reliable to be build every match so scout car meta is definitively over and light armor are in trouble vs it. don't you see the balance gap it generates?
Cost could use adjustments if it's too good, but I don't think light armour would be in that much trouble outside of the scout cars and AA HTs which are other issues pertaining to the design of those tiers and not the 222. I will say it again. We can't compare the 222 in a vacuum but we also can't assume everything would be completely static.
And what's wrong with it being reliable in all match-ups? Are T-70s and Stuarts not seen in both match-ups along with the AEC against Ostheer and OKW? |
222 is a scout car and actually the best scout car in-game since its counter any other ones. What do you need more?
You do not use it a lot because what it's suppose to counter isn't meta actually.
To counter light armor you have faust + pack + 2xshreck squads + 222, isn't it enough?
And you think Ostheer can easily get all that? Paks cost 320mp and lower your infantry presence and is slow to maneuver and can be flanked. PGs requires 340 manpower and then an additional 120 munitions which means no Tellers, medical bunkers. 222s are not a real counter to light armour outside of scout cars and I don't think Ostheer needs a cheap disposable scout whose viability is incredibly limited.
The 222 should be a viable unit even when the heavier light vehicles appear rather than providing sight and minor harrassment. 45 range would allow it to chip armour without being in danger, but it's damage output is not high enough to rip light vehicles a new one and it doesn't have perfect accuracy, still liable to missing small vehicles like the M20 with its 16 target size.
Making it more expensive also opens up the time M20s and M3s have.
The 222 could probably use a slight buff, but that accuracy against Infantry is extreme. I'm pretty sure you'd be making it a more effective AI vehicle than the Luchs for a fraction of the fuel cost. The 45 range would also cause problems as it would invalidate LT tier. Furthermore, if it got a buff, it would need to be more like 40 or 45 fuel as I find that 15 fuel for the 222 is too little for what it already does.
Luchs 2cm accuracy: 0.775/0.65/0.56
222 2cm accuracy vs inf: 0.56/0.36/0.27
222 2cm vs vehicles: 0.06/0.04/0.03
Of course, 222 2cm has better moving accuracy and has accuracy bouses at vet but the MG is still the main source of damage for the 222 against infantry. Also It is more costly at 260manpower/35 fuel.
|
You already have the flame HT in tier 2 that deals double the damage as a single wasp Bren for 30 more muni
a 222 buff would break balance vs brits and force you into the overpriced 440mp AEC every game. 222 already hard counters PIAT tommies/Vickers/Bren carrier and the sniper, not sure it needs a buff.
It's also funny people mention the 222 being outgunned by the stuart or T-70 that arrive a minute later when the WASP bren upgrades at the same time a 222 can be built (the former being utterly helpless against it because zero IS snare unlike faust).
222 is a unit with its own niche, it can rush a sniper/m20/Bren WASP and pay for itself even if you trade. It's not underpowered in any way, I come up against my fair share of top players that rush a 222 and even into the lategame it has it's use for chasing off shocks/tommies (not to mention doctrinal spotting scopes and smoke).
How many flame half-tracks do you see nowadays along with 222s even in the tourney games? Because from NA ESL, unless it was from me, the number of 251/222 units ranged from 0-1. That should be telling how useful/less Ostheer light armour is.
Also I'm sorry, but just because the Brit's anti-light vehicle option suck outside of ATGs and AEC doesn't mean the 222 should remain as it is. Pretty sure if the 222 gets changed, other stuff would need to be change in response, but this is about 222 not Brit anti-light armour. Furthermore you ignore the cost increase of the 222, delaying its timing giving units like the Bren, M20, and M3 more time to work.
Why not lower the price of the Ostwind? Seems to me like at its current performance level that it would be a good fit. 70 fuel/300ish MP. Done and done.
Why not buff the 222 which is in more need of help than the Ostwind which is also locked behind BP 2 and T3? This would help expand Ostheer's lack of light vehicle play outside of call-ins in the current meta of Allied light armour rushes. |
I don't like the extra range, but i definitely like the direction of the other changes. Basically the 222 needs to be a little stronger so that it is capable of taking on the other light vehicles in pairs.
I think the range would make it a little too good at AI and sniper killing.
Thing about using it in pairs is that it's very clunky until its model gets reworked causing it to take a ton of space up making maneuvering difficult. Even in pairs, 222 is not guaranteed to kill the other light vehicles unless it's a T-70 or Quad. AEC two hits the 222 and fires quickly while Stuarts can immediately shell-shock the first one and only take 3 (4 if with health buff) to kill a 222 while having Captain support. AEC is more MP intensive of course, but Stuart is cheap in MP and also comes in the same tech with the Captain if we take that into account.
The range buff would also only apply to the 2cm which gets no bonuses against the sniper aside from the bonus it gets to infantry in general if these apply. To be death to infantry it still needs to close in. A range buff would also make it unique as it rewards micoring the 222, but punishes the 222 trying to slug it out of Allied light tanks which shouldn't be its role and the cost would make losing the 222 to careless play more painful.
USF Lt vs Wehr t2.
222 arrives later than m20, and can kill it.
AAHT arrives later than 222, and can kill it, but will suffer damage.
Pak can be used to counter AAHT.
Rifleman can be used to counter Pak.
Mg, Grenadier and Panzergren can counter rifleman.
And M20,AAHT can counter Mg, Grenadier and Panzergren.
->In other word, both sides have ways to counter each other.
Now with new 222.
222 kill AAHT with long range while poor AAHT can only chase.
222 kill rifleman from a far, using grenadier for scout, or spot for itself at vet 2.
222 kill m20.
222 unstoppable.
50 fuel + 90 seconds build time later.
57mm atgun arrive, only to find corpse of its mates...
->See what I mean?
Or USF back-techs into bazookas forcing the 222 to stay at autocannon range which isn't particularly effective, just more so than it is now( also it already spots for itself (50 sight). M20 superior mobility, smoke and small-target to escape and still harass flanks or M20 mines as possible bait. Furthermore, there's the crew for a soft counter if it wants to dive-in vs infantry as its MG is still set to range 35.
AA HT can still do a number and would be a defensive unit given the 37mm has enough ammo to one clip the 222 still.
Ost lights also have different role then allied lights, 222 is a direct response to M3 or M20, not expensive all arounder.
That's a terrible role, like the AEC prior to its buff. Only being a response to a specific unit is a bad idea especially when said units have something scarier coming not too far off like Stuarts, Quads, or T-70s which the 222 is helpess against unless you're building multiple 222s, but multiple 222s hurt MP income far too much and are liable to being killed off. Furthermore, 222 comes later than either of them and losses its minimal impact after about a minute as it's not powerful enough and its current cost doesn't warrant a stronger 222.
Buff Katusha BM13
Stay on topic. Thank you. |
Overall I like the concept, however ahistorical it may be.
In terms of balance I think this wouldn't change too much about any matchup except for USF vs Ost; this thing reliable countering LT tier would make M20 rush even more of the meta than it already is, because M20 would have to kill snipers by 5:00 mark or it would be gg. This in turn lends itself to mines.
So tbh I think that it should recurve your changes, but come only with MG and have to pay 50 muni for autocannon.
Thing is that's the sniper being too potent vs USF which is a change needed of its own like higher received accuracy and cooldown/aim time always using the max at all ranges. Incendiary could also use a higher aim-time. Of course USF Vet/inf or M1919(prefeerably double M1919s turned to one m1919 only) need to be tuned then this needs to be tuned and that needs to be tuned, etc, etc.
I know there's a lot of stuff to add to the mix.
I wouldn't say it needs 50 munitions for the autocannon unless the price is adjusted because for 260mp/35fuel then you've got a slightly beefier 221 with the relative same damage output. |
0
SturmTigerN.W.Fresh
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
