. JP4 and StuG penetration is fine vs everything except heavies. They literally penetrate all nondoc armor (except Comet and Churchill) with 100% chance while having the highest ROFs for their class.
And I did say that, but most ppl who replyed probably missed it out. I said that in terms of perfomance vs mediums, Stug and JP4 are by far the best, considering all other TDs also do have 100% of penetration vs Axis mediums.
Point is being, you dont need so much options to fight mediums, you already have plenty on them.
Their ROF even offsets the low pen chance vs heavies partially.
It offsets, but its not a reliable offset. As allies if you see heavy tanks, you can freely get firefly\Jackson\SU85 and be sure that it will do its biting most of the time. Stug and JP4 can sometimes do great and sometimes they can do piss poor. Considering that few additional hits can change everything, I would have trade this ROF for penetration at any moment.
Unless Allies get a Pershing, Comet or ISU or something, Panthers are 100% optional and rather are a playstyle choice than necessity. As Allies, TDs are your only vehicle based anti vehicle option. But we had this topic already many times
So pretty much if they are playing with anything but the stuff they play in 99% of the situations. Except for USF. But USF in general hardly need heavy tank. |
ROF wise, the JP4 and Stug are the best TDs in the game.
ROF for TD hardly means anything without penetration. Firefly has a garbage ROF but its still very usefull and powerfull TD simply because of its raw penetration, its less effective against medium armor while being effective against heavy targers.
Stug and JP4 have good ROF but very poor penetration, meaning that they are effective against medium targers, but they are slightly better then premium mediums against heavy targets. Stug is cheap counter to mediums, while JP4 is somewhat counter for allied TDs and mediums, but it hardly can be massed, so its more of a single support unit.
Point is being, when it comes to TDs axis do have problems vs heavy armor, since aside from AT walls, the only thing that can reliably fight heavy armor is panther.
Honestly I never understood this design, why would Axis get TDs which main goal is to couter mediums, while Axis objectively already has so many tools to counter mediums, while against heavyes they have no other reliable option but panther.
Not to mention that Allies can potentually get more heavy tanks and faster in general then Axis. |
Still, JLI can operate as individual squad, PFs are exclusive force multipliers, they will struggle even vs engineers on their own.
Feels like you are negative multiplier of allied units perfomance. Cmon, they are that weak.
|
Well if you put this way, then no matter what you actually do cons+t2 would always be preferable, at least for 1v1. I'm still not a fan making doc units into a basic army.
In any case soviet chose betwen T1\T2 was always an unnecessary gimmic in desing, considering even in its best days all main point of soviet T1 was an abuse and cheesing, be it 2 men sniper\sniper in m3\flame m3.
Then whole T1\T2 should be rethinked, maybe with whole tech cost ajustements, T1 and T2 would be requared to get T3, in this case T1 would be a stable part of teching and roster, meaning it would be easier to ajust as a part of teching rather then optional chose. |
They aren't when you have to put 160mp into tech to get them out.
Which is why, while similar, they are not equivalent to PF. PF design does a much better job overall. Both in utility, smooth scaling, AI and AT. It doesn't mean stronger, but it doesn't feel bad using or facing them.
There's also the fact that getting PF doesn't mean you lock out of getting access to an MG and an AT gun.
If Penals are "problematic" it's only because the tier is composed of them plus a sniper and a clowncar unit.
Even if T1 had some sort of AT\MG even in this case overall correct penal design is bad. Penals are suppose to be stronger mainline inf replacement in their correct desing, but expensive squads are not working early on, because your mapcontrol would be non-existant. Even if T1 build speed\unit production speed would have been lower, this 300MP is just too much to handle.
Penals as unit, is very strong in early game mopping the floor with any other mainline inf, so their cost is justified, because they do and act like a 300MP unit. Point is being this concept is not working.
My idea is, rather then going into a long path of remaking tier unit roster, penals overall power should be a bit streched out from "all strate of the bat" to "from early to mid to late", this will allow them to played as their design intend - mainline inf replacement and become cheaper allowing you to at least be close to 1:1 ratio in terms of units on the field.
|
So you want much weaker SVT conscripts for much higher cost and arriving later?
How is that going to help with anything?
You would butcher units only strength and they would get literally nothing in return, because you are still completely incapable of fielding more of them in the early game, so what you're basically saying is killing the unit.
And you want much stronger squad which arrives later and sacrificing early game map countrol, while giving nothing in return in mid game.
Penals are too strong for early game to cost less. I would rather see them weaker early and be cheaper while being stronger in mid\late game. At least T1 would be more reliable and penals more affordable. |
|
Penals should be just cheaper, while some of their AI should be locked behind free upgrade.
Because while they are very powerfull, overall presence on the field suffers badly in 1v1, while in teamgames, they perform much better, since teammate can carry you a bit early and in retern you provide almost rolf-stomp inf.
Point is being, I would rather see them with 2 mosins\3 SVTs while cost being droped to 270\280 MP, with T3 providing free additional SVTs for all non-PTRS squads. Maybe even grenades for non-PTRS squads aswell.
But honestly there are a lot of possabilities how to make soviet tech better. Like molies and AT should be one upgrade. Cons 7-men grade should be for sure spleet up between T3 and T4. With T3 unlocking upgrade and providing 7 men, T4 upping this grade and providing buffs or vise versa.
Honestly a lot of soviet changes, sometimes feels like they were made as a bandage, without looking at whole faction and rather looking at specific lacklaster units and patching them instead of how faction works. |
YOUR Grenadiers, not mine.
Git gud.
Sorry, bored from picking 5 men grade  |
You.... do realize that soviets currently have lowest win rates.... right?
In tournaments? If its the case, then its most likely due to top players during tournaments rarely pick soviets, most of the time they pick UKF\USF.
I didnt see relic post win-rates for automatch anyway. Not like, I'm saying soviets arent weakest allied faction, not over-all weakest, but I would like to see win rates. |
I understand from the argument that the P4 is considered UP because it cannot shoot down planes as effectively as the Soviet Quad. I do not think that there are problems with soviet units being good at the job that they're supposed to do.
You didnt even read aurguments about quad, right?
The fact Panzergrenadiers are in HQ but the forum is bitching about the M16 Quad is beyond me.
The fact Grenadiers are sucking balls against everything but Cons, but the forum is bitching about Panzergrenadiers in HQ is beyond me.
Also its kinda funny, when ppl were arguing about Quad and came to somewhat aurgumented conclusion and proving their points properly, thread become dead for a few days.
Then "FOK YOU ITS NOT" guys came in and thread is alive again |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
