Profile of Australian Magic

Jump back to quoted post20 Dec 2016, 15:41 PMGluhoman

firstly we need to buff Molotov, cus they are shit

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 06:06 AMpigsoup

high risk high gain. you either do enough damage to go directly to T3 or pay measly 160mp and 20fu to get a ATG.

Jump back to quoted post19 Dec 2016, 10:13 AMMr.Smith

If people want to provide feedback on how a PTRS-free mod would look like, they don't have to wait for WBP1.4.

People can already trial this by:
- Picking Soviets
- Announcing to their opponents in the lobby that they will NOT be upgrading PTRS
- Going for their T1 build

Then, people can post these replays on the thread dedicated to gathering such feedback. This will help convince us that T1 doesn't require any manipulation to be competitive (costs / AT / OP Penals).

However, if we didn't include a PTRS option to T1, people that would like to explore that option would not be able to explore this in the premises of the balance mod.

I understand that PTRS will hurt the purity of the design of T1. Nevertheless, this idealised purity for Soviet T1 was already thrown out of the window the moment OST/OKW were given the option to rush their own light vehicles. Otherwise, I don't see the reason for such a strong reaction to this change.

Most of all, I don't see any replays to support this outrage.

Jump back to quoted post18 Dec 2016, 20:55 PM__deleted__

+1

Return penals to 1.1 state, remove PTRS give them DP28 return flaptrack change and make it live. Then start experimentating.

Because I dont know even if M42 would do well without rebalancing everything

Jump back to quoted post18 Dec 2016, 16:26 PMZombiFrancis

Must it be restated for every single person every single post every single thread?

The m42 is firstly a doctrinal unit, which necessitates redesigning the commanders its in. That's out of scope.

The m42 is in its own right a particularly terrible AT gun. Like the PTRS is becomes outclassed. T1 doesn't need more units that become obsolete by the midgame.

The m42 has been suggested to have a T70 gun (I've publicly tested that mechanic on my own in the past and found it to be awkward and unnecessary for the faction and tier.) and also to be garrisonned and retreatable like the raketen. The gun looks silly when garrisonned because it wasn't ever meant to be, and a 6 man retreating AT gun squad will likely be as obnoxious as maxims retreating. Hello deathloop.

T1 is not actually suffering from its lack of AT counters. It suffers from redundancy with T0 and T2. (Specifically with conscripts and maxims forming suitable frontline infantry units.) Adding an overlap in the form of an AT gun will only add to that redundancy. All the m42 does is provide another unit to spend manpower on that's detouring a player from building the necessary T2 for ZiS or teching to T3 ASAP. You're still going to need a ZiS against heavier tanks.

T2 has the maxim and ZiS which overshadows T1. Overshadowing T1 doesn't make T1 useless or have no viability. It just means that one option is clearly superior to the other.

It's also worth noting that T1 currently synergizes well with T2. This means a great deal for 2v2. (I think that synergy could be improved, but again, that's another issue and further out of scope.)

I could go on.

Jump back to quoted post18 Dec 2016, 12:16 PMOnimusha

Ptrs was a good idea, need only something like molotov to clear buildings instead of flamer. Stop. With molotov after tech penals are ok with ptrs. If they are underperforming for their cost just make penals cost 280 like a rifleman or tommy. But please don't try again with flamers, the problem wasn't their damage until the are close range, the problem is only that flamer damage is aoe, and blob flamers on durable squads is too OP, vs retrating squads too. Ppsh will not change this thing.