Why does the Hetzer cost 10pop?The Marder has a better gun in most respects (longer range, wider angle of fire, more damage) and only costs 5pop. I seriously doubt the extra armour/health and one MG are worth +5pop when its only real uses are a) take hits and b) be a less agile Stug. As for the ambush, does anyone really use it? You even have to invest in doctrinal abilities just to get the damn thing to rotate while cloaked. And the gun only does 87 damage anyway (when it penetrates...).The Hetzer is just way too specialized (and too bad at what it is supposed to do) for its cost. It is a Marder with a way worse gun and better protection, but it gets countered pretty much the same way Marders do, and there is little it can do by itself. And it is yet ANOTHER damned unit that has to lock down to do its best in a faction that is supposed to be mobile, but canīt do it like the Marder, which at least can be moved and locked down immediately. The PIV IST also costs 10pop.It can only be used as an anti-infantry unit, unless you buy willy pete rounds for it in the Scorched Earth doctrine so it can STUN vehicles. However, it is another unit with questionable performance. When used against Allied elite infantry (and why the hell would you use this thing for anything else given that it is just a PIV so AT guns and tanks counter it much the same, except it can barely retaliate against the latter unlike the Wehr PIV), you can constantly see it underperform. RRs laugh at the sideskirts, and zooks will laugh just a little bit quieter, as Ashfallīs calculations showed in an older thread. Also, it has shorter range than the Wehr PIV, so it is likelier to take damage. And yet again, its special skill is "letīs take away our mobility so we can fire a little faster". I mean, Ok, I have been using this thing pretty heavily lately and at least it can DO stuff, unlike most PE units (though the lack of Axis Expert Engineers means it cannot reach the kill counts I have been seeing Staghounds get), but it is still not worth 10pop. Speaking of anti-infantry vehicles that are way over-popped: the Nashorn costs 13pop.I like the Nashorn because while it is fragile, big and slow, at least it can kill infantry from a distance. And does that pretty damn well. Except this thing needs even more support than the PIV IST when it comes to Allied tards just doing suicide charges against PE vehicles. Wait, excuse me, I shouldnīt call Allies tards for doing that because if it is works, it isnīt stupid, after all. And if you combine that with even a single light vehicle, the Nashorn is toast since it is yet another goddamn assault gun in a faction that already has FOUR (LATHT, Marder, Hetzer and Stupa... so itīs five assault guns with this thing). Oh, by the way, it is another one of those units that becomes more powerful by locking down.Generally speaking, PE are a faction too easy to overwhelm, so I do not understand why their units have such high pop costs, particularly when most combinations cannot properly support each other the way other factions can. Why is the PE Panther 15pop when PE donīt get pop-less repairs, MG42s to stop counter-attacking Allied elite infantry and other stuff? Hummel 10 but costs more fuel than Howitzers and fires less shells? Stupa 11 (why the hell would this thing cost 11pop when its main fighting power works on cooldowns and its Allied counterpart, the Churchill AVRE with Petard, costs 10pop? ) ?And on top of this, you see that PE are paying a premium for their mobility not only in pop, but in fuel. What? Why? Why the hell are you making PE pay more pop when they already have to pay extra fuel for mobility? Is the Hummel more versatile for being mobile artillery? Is the mortar halftrack a good AT weapon for being mobile? And all of this leads us to a very interesting little problem when you compare PE specialist vehicles to Allied specialist infantry: whereas some Allied units lose pop but not effectiveness, PE only lose pop when the unit dies completely. A six-man Ranger unit is just as good as a two-man Ranger unit if the PE player is somehow unable to concentrate enough firepower to nullify those Rangers, same deal with Airborne. And given these guysī toughness, you know as well as I do what the chances of that are. But do they pay extra pop for this? Six Rangers = 6pop. Six RRs = 6pop. Very few Allied elite infantry units pay more pop for less people (assault Airborne and mechanized infantry). PE gets discriminated against by making its players pay premiums for mobility, even though a) that mobility does not come associated with the toughness other factionsī mobile vehicles get, b) a number of its vehicles have to lock down to squeeze their greatest potential out of them and c) they are not noticeably versatile so as to justify their cost.
Currently, the only way an IST is useful is having stun on it and to make it basically a shield while other units do damage.
The hetzer is 10 pop because its PE's MBT, ala sherman/p4 it doesnt have a turret but makes up for it by being more pop efficient.We dont need 8 pop IST's that would just make them way too pop efficient, 2 of them together are already a nightmare do we need to make that the staple start of PE?The nashorn is a bit trash, i dont think pop reduction is the right way to go it should simply recieve a bit of a range buff.
I have never done any retarded quotes?
101 did not answer just with opinions. He answered with facts and math, [...] I donīt know what else you expect him to do.
Please enlighten me as to the purpose of the spotting scope. What isn't working?
The low crew survivability and lack of effective recrew units in the PE arsenal are not insignificant factors however; on that basis, there may be justification for a small manpower decrease by 20-30mp.
We can't price based on the effect of something might happen - it's just impossible to accurately quantify.
However, it's a fair point that it lacks a USP. If it were to get some kind of unique ability (and I'm not promising anything, just interested), what would you like to see?