USSR OP vs Wehr

[boc120]

I think that the Soviet AT gun needs to be looked at again.  It has excellent range and terrifying damage.  It regularly 2 shotted my pumas.  It also costs less than the American AT gun.  I don't see much for changes to it in the 1.30 changelog.  Now that it can be recrewed, perhaps it wasn't toned down from before?  When it needed to be really good to make up for it being lost if decrewed?

[IJoe]

I think that the Soviet AT gun needs to be looked at again.  It has excellent range and terrifying damage.  It regularly 2 shotted my pumas.  It also costs less than the American AT gun.  I don't see much for changes to it in the 1.30 changelog.  Now that it can be recrewed, perhaps it wasn't toned down from before?  When it needed to be really good to make up for it being lost if decrewed?

Soviet AT gun requires a building, and an upgrade to be available for purchase. So I wouldn't call it  fairly cheaper than the american one.

[cephalos]

but it's cheaper than US one. Soviet AT needs only 35 fuel to come up, while US one needs about 80 ( not sure).

[Venoxxis]

I think that the Soviet AT gun needs to be looked at again.  It has excellent range and terrifying damage.  It regularly 2 shotted my pumas.  It also costs less than the American AT gun.  I don't see much for changes to it in the 1.30 changelog.  Now that it can be recrewed, perhaps it wasn't toned down from before?  When it needed to be really good to make up for it being lost if decrewed?

Soviet AT gun requires a building, and an upgrade to be available for purchase. So I wouldn't call it  fairly cheaper than the american one.

Wehrmacht AT-gun needs exactly the same. (upgrade+building) And its even more expensive!
And hey again IJoe, this is one of these balance issues which will show up into the future as i tried to explain to you. Balance is still far aways from perfection. Actually perfection isnt reachable by anything or anybody at all, but coming more and more close to it makes a better game.
The journey is the reward!


best regards

[Joshua9]

I'm glad i'm not the only one that thinks that at gun is scary. Range seemed crazy to me, but I just kept wondering if I was imagining it and he was using the observation ability.

I like that it comes cheap, but it should be cheap quality, a stopgap against light vehicles in conjunction with ingenery mines, as a trade off for going snipers...a mild compliment in late game to everything else russia is fielding.  Poor accuracy at long range would be suitable in my opinion.  There is an upgrade after all, that could make it a more viable weapon.  Right now every game I find myself asking my friend if he got that upgrade...answer is always no.

It could definitely just be balanced with cost, but Russia has more anti vehicle capablity than any other faction.  Su-85's are very powerful if the player goes light tanks, if he wants an infantry option, for my money, I would take tank hunters over shrekked grens any day(they seem like perpetually firedup airborne teams), if he wants a tank battle, he has upgraded t34's and the IS-2's, to say nothing of doctirnal compliments.

another thing I didn't mention about the t-90 is that it will kill a puma that isn't upgunned.  Not overly fast, and I don't think its neccesarily game breaking, but every other vehicle in that upgrade will kill a puma.  It would be nice, though perhaps a loss of some continuity, if the puma didn't have to worry about a fast t-90 as much as a fast t-70.  T-90's have a powerful anti infantry role, and given the backup within their tier, are not left to twist in the wind against vehicles.  For balance, I don't overly like that a puma will have to make a retreat against these, get some repair, and a gun upgrade, and then make it back on the field just in time to deal with the vehcile's support.

[Zerstörer]

I'm glad i'm not the only one that thinks that at gun is scary. Range seemed crazy to me, but I just kept wondering if I was imagining it and he was using the observation ability.

I like that it comes cheap, but it should be cheap quality, a stopgap against light vehicles in conjunction with ingenery mines, as a trade off for going snipers...a mild compliment in late game to everything else russia is fielding.  Poor accuracy at long range would be suitable in my opinion.  There is an upgrade after all, that could make it a more viable weapon.  Right now every game I find myself asking my friend if he got that upgrade...answer is always no.

It could definitely just be balanced with cost, but Russia has more anti vehicle capablity than any other faction.  Su-85's are very powerful if the player goes light tanks, if he wants an infantry option, for my money, I would take tank hunters over shrekked grens any day(they seem like perpetually firedup airborne teams), if he wants a tank battle, he has upgraded t34's and the IS-2's, to say nothing of doctirnal compliments.

another thing I didn't mention about the t-90 is that it will kill a puma that isn't upgunned.  Not overly fast, and I don't think its neccesarily game breaking, but every other vehicle in that upgrade will kill a puma.  It would be nice, though perhaps a loss of some continuity, if the puma didn't have to worry about a fast t-90 as much as a fast t-70.  T-90's have a powerful anti infantry role, and given the backup within their tier, are not left to twist in the wind against vehicles.  For balance, I don't overly like that a puma will have to make a retreat against these, get some repair, and a gun upgrade, and then make it back on the field just in time to deal with the vehcile's support.

1) Yes the AT gun needs some cost increase and some range nerf(its fot +5 compared to the US AT gun which isn't a huge difference unless you were facing a vet2+ AT gun, upgraded with unvetted pumas) because these were in line with the previous handicap.
Damage wise, no. It is inbetween the US AT gun and the pak without camo or AT rounds.
2)The T90 does practically the same damage to a Puma as a Puma 20mm does to an m8-Far from crazy
3)Soviets have about the same AT power as WH...for obvious reason

I would take tank hunters over shrekked grens any day

Put mildly, that's crazy talk

[Joshua9]

I probably have to defer to you overall on that point, but from my experience I don't know...

given AT grenades and AT mines tank hunters get, and very effective anti vehicle weapons, not to mention the kind of damage they do to buildings, they seem quite well positioned as some of the best AT in the game, if they are still less general purpose and less resiliant than grenadiers.  These guys are not slow, and don't seem to have the same aiming pause issues that shrek units have. 

as to the AT gun stats, very interesting that they are between the other 2 AT guns in standard damage output, which doesn't seem that harsh.  Maybe it is all about the range.

yeah, my point about the t-90's damage to pumas wasn't so much that it was ridiculous as it just made everything in that light vehicle cue a capable counter to pumas.  Granted, and upgraded puma will beat one 1 on 1, for the loss of anti-infantry ability. 

[GodlikeDennis]

That's the whole point of upgrading pumas. When you do so, they beat all the other light vehicles. If not, they don't even scratch them. If you don't want to sacrifice AI power, build a Stug (lol) or geschutzwagon or get stormtroopers.

[Joshua9]

well yeah, I know that, but I think I was just having some real bad games where russia had an edge on me and not only had some hard hitting infantry on the field but t-90's pretty early.  After playing some more games last night, it seems like upgrading pumas when russia techs first to light vehicles is a no brainer, and that rushing and swarming a couple of those and a stug(lol) around the first su-85 is a capable way of dealing with its superior firepower.

Tank hunters are still a pain, but nebels help(obviously I've been using a lot of t-3), and yes, they don't scale like grens, so i'll come down off that rant and just say that their AT grenades still do too much damage to buildings in my opinion.