RC1 New Unit Balance Thread

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:28 pm

If you find something unbalanced or unfair, post it here.

Movement speed of super heavy tank destroyers needs to be reduced (Jagdtiger from 5 to 3 or 4. King Tiger from 5 to 4.)
Movement speed of all Panther Tanks should be a 6.

British M7 Priest and Sexton still to cheap (167 and 137 should be closer to 270 and 245) By Comparison, the SU-122 has 4 ammo 12 SA 10 HA to the Priest 7 Ammo 11 SA 9 HA.
All American self propelled artillery guns are also priced too cheaply. Priest, 75mm, 155mm, sherman 105 are too cheap compared to the normal towed artillery guns of the same calibre. American 75mm HMC should have gun range 2.

Sherman M4A3E2(76) is currently better than Panther Gs (Sherman 19 HA, 22 gd, 483 price vs Panther at 19 ha, 16 gd, 729 price). Price needs to go up or stats need to go down.
Sherman M4A3E2 should also get nerf to ground defense.

High end Rocket artillery guns are too powerful BM-31 and Wurfrahmen, and should have their HA and SA lowered slightly.
Low end Rocket artillery guns have too little ammunition (all rocket artillery currently has 4 ammo. Wufrahmen and BM-31 should stay at 4, low end units such as the 15cm Nbl 41 and BM-13 should have ~6 or 7)

Close defense values on super heavy armor needs to be reduced. King Tiger 6, IS-2 6, and M26 5 should be reduced to 4s and 5s, preferably all 4s.

Panzer3L · Post by **Panzer3L** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:30 pm

Kerensky wrote:High end Rocket artillery guns are too powerful BM-31 and Wurfrahmen, and should have their HA and SA lowered slightly.

I think reducing their range would be better.They simply dind't had the same fireing range as a 15cm arty in reality as you know.

Another thing.
I still think that arty and PaK should have reduced attack values when they fire after they moved.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:05 am

Did someone make the tactical bombers more effective against armour in RC1? I find them tearing a hole through the enemy armour in the early war.

El_Condoro · Post by **El_Condoro** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:56 am

I am not sure what the issue is in terms of stats but IMO a Churchill VII should be eaten alive by a IS-2 but when they go against each other head-to-head in Urban Warfare they are even. I haven't checked the prestige of each but IS-2s are fairly expensive.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:18 am

The problem with tactical bombers is they are too effective early war when every unit has terrible air defense values.
Stuka B is a 6/4 SA/HA.
Pz IIs, Early PZ IIIs, have 2 air defense and 6 air defense.
Cruiser IV has 4 air defense, French tanks have 9 air defense except char B at 11.

Stuka G is a 4/8 SA/HA
Panther, Tiger, ShermanE2, T34/85, IS2 has air defenses of 13,17, 16, 9, 20.

Early war units have pitiful air defense values against air units with minimal attack values.
Late war units have amazing air defense values against air units with still minimal attack values.

Churchill 7 costs 428, about 100 less than the IS-2. IS-2 and Churchill both have 26 ground defense. Churchill also has very poor attack values 8/8 compared to IS-2 at 12/18. It makes a fantastic roadblock though!

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:14 am

I disagree with your first post.

Allies are suppose to be cheaper so at the same prestige value, Allies can buy more units as in the real war.

If you increase cost then you will have to increase prestige for allied units in all scenarios and MP maps.

Allies need more units as in real life to combat the strong Axis units.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:02 am

Razz1 wrote:I disagree with your first post.

Allies are suppose to be cheaper so at the same prestige value, Allies can buy more units as in the real war.

If you increase cost then you will have to increase prestige for allied units in all scenarios and MP maps.

Allies need more units as in real life to combat the strong Axis units.

Although I don't agree with that philosophy, that's not what I was referring to.

M7 Priest (armed with a 105mm) compared to a standard American 105 towed artillery piece.

wino · Post by **wino** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:35 am

Not a equipment unbalance.

I have made the following test : make Axis to be played by AI, do not make any moves while "playing" Allied side. The Colonel difficulty.
On USA East Coast and Greece AI was not able to achieve victory. That is IMO sign that scenario is unbalanced or AI is not good for such scenarios. I would bet on first since AI is good in other scenarios.

I think such test can be done fully automatically for all maps.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:07 pm

American Sherman M4A3E2, Sherman M4A3E2(76) both need reduction in close defense (In addition to other nerfs). 5 -> 3.
British Sherman Firefly needs a buff in close defense. 1 -> 2 or 3.

British and American M3 Stuart needs a reduction in close defense. 5 -> 3 or 4.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:29 pm

Upon further game play, Russian infantry 'may' need 1943 upgrades similar to the other nations...
Maybe, going to need more testing to be certain.

apanzerfan · Post by **apanzerfan** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:11 am

Kerensky wrote:Sherman M4A3E2(76) is currently better than Panther Gs (Sherman 19 HA, 22 gd, 483 price vs Panther at 19 ha, 16 gd, 729 price). Price needs to go up or stats need to go down.

Panthers Gs stats should be increased...

http://community.discovery.com/eve/foru ... 3011901458

Up close and personal, Shermans and T-34's had the advantage because they were faster, lighter and there were lots more of them. But one on one they were NOT any better than a Pzkw IV Ausf. G.

And since someone mentioned Panthers... one on one, they were better all-around tanks than the Tigers, precisely because they weren't so heavy they couldn't maneuver. But the Germans couldn't make anywhere near enough of those, either.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:24 am

Panther is actually in a pretty good spot, it beats all but the best Allied tanks (Comet, M26, IS-2) but it has unnecessary problems with the M4A3E2(this American tank badly needs rebalancing).
+1 movement to D A G Panthers, and maybe +1 GD to Panthers D A G (15/15/16 is rather low, considering the IVH/IVJ is 14/15) should solve it nicely.

apanzerfan · Post by **apanzerfan** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:25 am

i second.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:43 pm

Kerensky wrote:American Sherman M4A3E2, Sherman M4A3E2(76) both need reduction in close defense (In addition to other nerfs). 5 -> 3.
British Sherman Firefly needs a buff in close defense. 1 -> 2 or 3.

British and American M3 Stuart needs a reduction in close defense. 5 -> 3 or 4.

Agreed Shermans are way too powerful.

In Urban warfare a Russian infantry unit can not touch it. It's 0 killed for 3 or 4 losses.

Also a T34/85 can not touch it. the T34/85 was superior, not inferior.

Iscaran · Post by **Iscaran** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:43 pm

M4A3E2 is way to powerful in all.

This tank usually had the short barreled 75mm gun identical to the M4A1 tank, which was no match compared to the 75mm L70 in terms of armor penetration.
Even the larger 76mm gun developed later on and retrofitted on some Jumbos was no match for not even Panther's armor. Tiger and King Tiger being even more troublesome.

See => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
"Although tests against armor plate suggested that the new M1A1 76 mm gun would be adequate, testing against Panther tanks was never done. This would have shown that the gun could not penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the center of the gun mantlet at 100 meters.[40]"

Therefore the HA of M4A3 should definitely not be larger than that of Panther tank. Ground defense of Panther is also too low IMO. Final Panther series should be only slightly below a Tiger I actually so raise by at least 2 or 3. Maybe make it gradually increase from D (15) => A (16) => G (18). In fact the front armor of Panthers was even better than the front armor of Tigers. But the issue was the only half as thick side and rear armor.

Anyway Panther was still MUCH better armored than even the latest IVH or IVJ models - that is currently not at all reflected in stats.

I think Panther D with 15 GD is still way too low.

EDIT: I also find it strange that an Opel Truck has superior Air Defense value compared to the other transportation vehicles. Although it has a plane above the cargo area I dont think this plane is in no way better projectile resistant when compared to the topless Sdkfz 251/1 and 250/1. I suggest to either reduce Opel AD to 2 or increase the other values to 4 both.

pstamatis · Post by **pstamatis** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:51 pm

CAS bombers do nothing but scratch to heavy tanks (even with 4stars). This makes these useless in later warfare.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:35 pm

pstamatis wrote:CAS bombers do nothing but scratch to heavy tanks (even with 4stars). This makes these useless in later warfare.

please be specific.

Which country, which planes?

pstamatis · Post by **pstamatis** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:17 pm

yes, sorry, I was reffering on Axis and Soviets. I have no opinion for the Allies as I am not very familiar with their units.

Ju87 D (&R) should do some damage, even on heavy tanks. Instead, they do nothing (0, -1 damage on normal ground) while these take casualties too. I believe they should have better hard attack stats.
From the Soviets, historically speaking, Il2-Shturmovik (especially Il2M Tip 3M known also as flying tank) had great performance on german tanks. As I saw, they have better stats than the german JUs but they can neither do any damage to german tanks.
Correct me if I am wrong but historically , king Tigers were vulnerable only from the skies.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:24 pm

pstamatis wrote:yes, sorry, I was reffering on Axis and Soviets. I have no opinion for the Allies as I am not very familiar with their units.

Ju87 D (&R) should do some damage, even on heavy tanks. Instead, they do nothing (0, -1 damage on normal ground) while these take casualties too. I believe they should have better hard attack stats.
From the Soviets, historically speaking, Il2-Shturmovik (especially Il2M Tip 3M known also as flying tank) had great performance on german tanks. As I saw, they have better stats than the german JUs but they can neither do any damage to german tanks.
Correct me if I am wrong but historically , king Tigers were vulnerable only from the skies.

Yup. Tactical bombers of all nations are awful in mid and late war, only good at attacking units in transport. But fighters strafe units in transport just fine too, so why bother with tactical bombers?

The problem with tactical bombers is they are too effective early war when every unit has terrible air defense values.
Stuka B is a 6/4 SA/HA.
Pz IIs, Early PZ IIIs, have 2 air defense and 6 air defense.
Cruiser IV has 4 air defense, French tanks have 9 air defense except char B at 11.

Stuka G is a 4/8 SA/HA
Panther, Tiger, ShermanE2, T34/85, IS2 has air defenses of 13,17, 16, 9, 20.

Early war units have pitiful air defense values against air units with minimal attack values.
Late war units have amazing air defense values against air units with still minimal attack values.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:47 pm

If I remember correctly they are better if you use artillery to suppress the tanks first. Then do an air attack.

RC1 New Unit Balance Thread

RC1 New Unit Balance Thread

Re: RC1 New Unit Balance Thread

Re: RC1 New Unit Balance Thread