1.4 Tank Hunters

[SnappingTurtle]

I don't think a molotov is thrown by spinning it, I think it's thrown like a shot put.

[Cranialwizard]

I don't think a molotov is thrown by spinning it, I think it's thrown like a shot put.

I've thrown a few. They're best when thrown underhanded at short range though if you're good you can chuck it pretty far with an overhand throw.

Spinning is a problem, unless the rag is tightly secured to where it won't move if held upside down then it won't be such a problem, you just have to worry about the flame going out.

Molotovs are fun and dangerous

Back OT: Yes a AT mine health buff is a good option here.

[SuperSoca]

People, here i came again with balance questions to perturb you all. Sorry, but I came with Humidity and I'm in the best of intentions with no "fanboy aspirations" about any faction or these things. 

I know that the post is long, but I like the details and I want to explain it right to make sure that all understand the point.

Recently, I've discussed extensively and intensively with some high lvl players  (like Itaperuna, Cebi and SgtYoda/3Pastel1Choops - all 3 players are lvl 16 on 1v1 automatch, being Itaperuna top 18 PE/US 1v1) about Tank Hunter squads. They all play EF almost all day with me ultimately, with all factions. Again, please don't take this as arrogance, I just want to show that we have some knowledge about the game mechanics.

In our evaluation and conversations, we find that Tank Hunters need some changes that I will suggest later.

Well... the problem is that: Tank Hunters squads are supposedly to be an soft counter to armor, specially the light armor. Why? Because the fuel cost and time to take the first of them on the field: They just cost 35 fuel to make.

1.) Lets analyze with others early AT's:

US: 15+50+45 = 110 fuel (the high amount necessary is justified because US have the fastest capping of the game).
Wher: 35 + 25 = 60 fuel (for a "flankeable" pak or spend 75 ammo to get a Panzerschreck)
Brit: 15 + 35 + (25 for a static 17 pounder, 15 for a static boffors (only effective against light armor like AC's, HT's), 45 for a Stuart or 75 ammo to upgrade a Sapper) = 75/65/95/0 fuel (75 ammo)
PE: 20+35 OR 20+30+40+40 OR 20+30+15 (50 ammo for TD for a OK use) = 55/130/65 fuel
Soviets: 35 fuel. Only that. 

Soviets have the fastest deployment and cheapest AT unit (in fuel cost to make the first unit) of the game.

2.) Tank Hunters are a soft Anti-Armor counter like airborne, rangers, etc, like all other anti tank infantry is. But these units have reinforcement costs far beyond the 28 mp cost of TH (Airborne/Ranger = 45, PG = 45, Grenadiers = 37, Sappers = 35)
All these units mentioned above are T2 units or doctrinal units (and cost more fuel, as mentioned before).

3.) With a little more fuel (35) The "Tier 1.5" tank hunters can go out on the world with Soviet AT Gun, making a complete anti-tank solution, for light and heavy armor, with mines and at nades, for just 70 fuel.

4.) Tank Hunters perform so well against infantry, when used in large numbers that make difficult to use infantry to counter a large blob of this unit, that supposedly was to be a anti-tank unit.

5.) Tank Hunters have a too high probability to pierce trough heavy frontal armor (like phanters, P4, Willberwind, Ostwind, StuG, StuH and so on) and they shot very fast (I don't write down the exact time, but think is about 5s, 3 second less than a shreck)!

6.) Tank Hunters have other abilities like AT Nades and "Teller mines" (I really DON'T see this as a problem, like post creator related. PE can do the same thing and this is not unbalance, as mine locations are somewhat predictable and clever players allways bring a mine detector).

7.) We think that players should use TH and other ATs solutions together to make a effective, balanced and interesting way to deal with axis armor. For example: TH + AT gun, TH + Mines, TH + Su-85 or T70. But actually, players just can make a large amount of TH squads + sharpshooter teams and just blob, there is no effective counter for in current patch, nor skill/little micro necessary.

This all above is just to give base to arguments. Our suggestions to balance the Tank Hunter:

a) Decrease weapon penetration values (specially against heavy armor), but let damage as it is. This will ensure that he is a counter ONLY for light armor. TH in conjunction with AT Guns would still perform great against AC's, SC, Puma, HT. As the Axis armies need bigger amount of fuel to make heavy tanks, Soviets should need a equally larger amounts of fuel to make a effective counter against them.

b) Increase Squad cost and reinforcement cost: As mentioned before, the squad cost AND the reinforcement cost is too low, this ensure that a player can't just blob them. Player will need to be more careful and smart, using them together with other units, making ambushes, placing mines, etc.

I think 320 manpower and 35 reinforce cost should be OK. Compare:

Rangers = 400, doctrinal unit.
Airborne = 375 (need a 125 ammo up), doctrinal unit.
PG = 360 or 25 + 75 ammo. Tier 2.
Brits = 320 + 75 ammo, tier 2 unit.

Other comparison:
Airborne unit have a 6 member squad. The proportional reinforce cost per member is 72% of a new squad (375mp)(remember, doctrinal, require ammo...).
Ranger: 69% (doctrinal)
Soviet TH: 40% 

c) Decrease firing rate a little. Something about 1s or 1,5s should be ok.

"a" and "b" is urgent thing. I suggest strongly it to be done.
"c" Its a suggestion that may not be necessary if "a" and "b" is made.

Sorry for the long post, I can attach replays if necessary.
Plz read and counterargument freely if you wish.

[Blackbishop]

Currently we set mines to be used after Men agains Tanks is researched but this definitely would help to balance those guys.

[Paciat]

Tankhunters shouldnt be compared to other AT infantry. They have puny rifles, low HP lower xp bonuses than US infantry. They aren versatile as shreck Grens or PGrens. However Naval Infantry are a problem. 1 squad with its cheap upgrade can replace a squad os Strelky and a second squad of Tankhunters. No extra fuel needed.

[SuperSoca]

Currently we set mines to be used after Men agains Tanks is researched but this definitely would help to balance those guys.

The mine is not a problem blackbishop. I think its OK.

Tankhunters shouldnt be compared to other AT infantry. They have puny rifles, low HP lower xp bonuses than US infantry. They aren versatile as shreck Grens or PGrens. However Naval Infantry are a problem. 1 squad with its cheap upgrade can replace a squad os Strelky and a second squad of Tankhunters. No extra fuel needed.

Sure, If they was to be so versatile, they would cost 400mp instead 280, have a 70% reinforce cost and be a 2/3 CP doctrinal unit that don't come to game at 4 minutes or need 100+ ammo upgrade to be really efective. 

Naval Infantry I think its OK as far I played with them, but can't give a precise testimonial because dont remember costs, reinforce, etc, etc, as I'm not so found of this doctrine.

[GodlikeDennis]

This thread isn't about OP NI. It's about THs.

They are fine. Their low reinforce is tied to their low health. They do piss poor damage and cannot penetrate most tanks from the front. They bounce off and do 0.15 deflection damage, which is extremely minimal. They are ineffective against infantry and pretty crap against light vehicles without the Men Against Tanks upgrade. With it, there is a combined tech cost of 75FU. Honestly, they are pretty crap.

[Joshua9]

"crap" seems like a definite overstatement...

these guys coupled with a single well placed mine will guarantee a dead tank(it ALWAYS immobilizes), be that tank vetted panther or tiger, and they can handle it on their own. god forbid your tanks are too close together when it goes off. They are blazing fast, so while they may not penetrate frontal armor at a signifigant rate(I'll take your word for it...that small percentage does add up fast to me, given their rate of fire) it hardly matters, as they will often overrun flanks and put expensive tanks on the retreat to go lick their wounds.

By itself, I don't have a problem with the damage they do though, and with the two changes to mines mentioned in this thread, I think tank hunters will become much more reasonable for the price, not to mention the apparent nerf that is coming for guards, who are such effective backup midgame in small numbers.

I do hope that something will be done about the damage at grenades do to buildings(this also nullifies the point of making bunkers anywhere but deep into your own territory-tank hunters make shorter work of them than airborne and come earlier)  Running headlong into base defenses doesn't seem like it should be a strategy that reaps the kind of rewards it does.

[Blackbishop]

Yes, IIRC TH AT nades vs buildings were nerfed, don't remember if their upgraded version was.

[RedGuard]

TH's suck and are kited by armor and killed by infantry, if anything they're a liability unless you trap or immobilize somehting

they're the worst AT option available to any faction i'd rather have zooks!

[vonklaus]

This thread isn't about OP NI. It's about THs.

They are fine. Their low reinforce is tied to their low health. They do piss poor damage and cannot penetrate most tanks from the front. They bounce off and do 0.15 deflection damage, which is extremely minimal. They are ineffective against infantry and pretty crap against light vehicles without the Men Against Tanks upgrade. With it, there is a combined tech cost of 75FU. Honestly, they are pretty crap.

Yeah in 1.3 they were insane, now they arent that big a deal especially against high vet tanks they basically do no damage and get ran over trying to throw there grenade. I only build then against Panzer Elite.

The only thing that drives me crazy is trying to kill them with infantry when im screening tanks. They pop into camo so fast u can normally fire 1 round at them.

A sniper at riflemen blob sounds quite expensive to be that good, the strum ingency with flames & at riflemen blob that Yauz used on me 1 game was much scarier/ impossible to deal with.

[Joshua9]

really?

cuz wehr tanks just don't kite that well.  They aren't very fast, and tank hunters ARE, especially with ability boosts, doctrinal or commisar based.

[RedGuard]

haha are you sure we're playing the same game?   

ostwind, panzer IV, panther, tiger, you can even kite infantry with a king tiger given its tracks arent damaged 
did i mention puma  AC and whirlbe too

[Joshua9]

constantly unsure.  I am well aware that most of you guys are better players.  more replays between you better players would be appreciated...maybe they won't match up with my version...heh.  By the way, given that you, as a solid player are privvy to making these, I think that the best argument you could make for your point would be to post more.

but sans that, are you saying tank hunters aren't fast?  or that wehr tanks are particularly apt at kiting?  they certainly have nothing on the tanks of other factions in that way...russian tanks are better for it, american tanks are better for it, cromwells are better at it...its not a strength I think they need to have, but I find that when my russian opponent is going a heavy infantry strat coupled with tank hunters, that tanks become a liability, even vetted.   You can't be saying that if 4 squads of relatively cheap tank hunters do get close enough to a vet 3 panther or p4 that their guns coupled with at grenades won't destroy it in seconds.

[RedGuard]

im saying that its very easy to kite infantry no matter what infantry it is, or any vehicle it is. it is easy believe me and your infantry will take heavy losses in the process while tanks are repaired for virtually no cost

the only way to counter vehicles with infantry is to use AT guns, or to seriously surprise the enemy or catch them not looking