Love for the Marder 3

[Consti255]

After the aim time reduction the vehicle is still not performing so well, i mean yeah its a TD with a 75mm gun, but it has signifikant downsides compared to the Pak40 HT.

1. is way slower
2. it counts as tank and gets destroyed by enemy AT fire really fast, the Pak40 HT has the 15% damage reduction which safes it numerous times vs enemy AT fire and let is survive with a little bit of HP back.

what to change?
In general the marder is cheaper than the Pak40HT but also comes a tier later which justifys the cost drop.
I think a little speed buff for him could help him alot. Its like the Hellcat but without the benefits of a Hellcat.
It shouldnt be a crazy amount but still noticeble.

What do you think?

[Warhawks97]

what HT are you talking about?

Only WH has AT HT which costs 300/35. But i think you are talking about the Puma right? Thats a Puma, not a HT.
Puma has a few advantages though. It has 70 range when shooting from ambush and a good rate of fire.

But usually i prefer the Puma due to its speed.



In terms of how much damage they take, a gun deals more damage to the Marder but that one also has a bit more HP. So in terms of shots needed its about equal i would say.
Handheld AT like bazooka deals equal damage to each of them.



But generally speaking, i would make the marder and geschützwagen a bit cheaper. Like 320 MP or 330 (same btw for Hellcat).
Its funny that an M10 in general costs less MP and fuel than this thing.

[Walderschmidt]

Hell, make it 300mp and 25 fuel.

If it’s gonna suck except for the rare times it actually hits, might as well make it as cheap as it actually was.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

25 fuel, sure. So it becomes another cheap throw away spam unit. The Us AT HT costs 25 fuel and its not even close to the marders performance.

BK has it with their dump shit hard hitting heavy gun carriages which barely cost any fuel.

[Walderschmidt]

25 fuel, sure. So it becomes another cheap throw away spam unit. The Us AT HT costs 25 fuel and its not even close to the marders performance.

BK has it with their dump shit hard hitting heavy gun carriages which barely cost any fuel.

Yes. It performs better than the Marder with slightly less survivability.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

25 fuel, sure. So it becomes another cheap throw away spam unit. The Us AT HT costs 25 fuel and its not even close to the marders performance.

BK has it with their dump shit hard hitting heavy gun carriages which barely cost any fuel.

Yes. It performs better than the Marder with slightly less survivability.

Wald

well, you never used the marder then apparently. The HT is not even close in terms of damage, pen power or gun range. I would be fine with a slight MP cost decrease but thats it. Its not the marders fault when comparable units are that cheap to build.

[Red]

Which US AT HT are you talking about?
The one from Armor doctrine? Then I agree!
But there are also these, that can act as artillery, and as such they bring something to the table no Marder ever can (as long as you do not consider the Grille a Marder-variant ).

[MarKr]

Get ready...Hawks is about to give you a lecture about AT guns and why that arty thing is not not an AT gun

[Walderschmidt]

25 fuel, sure. So it becomes another cheap throw away spam unit. The Us AT HT costs 25 fuel and its not even close to the marders performance.

BK has it with their dump shit hard hitting heavy gun carriages which barely cost any fuel.

Yes. It performs better than the Marder with slightly less survivability.

Wald

well, you never used the marder then apparently. The HT is not even close in terms of damage, pen power or gun range. I would be fine with a slight MP cost decrease but thats it. Its not the marders fault when comparable units are that cheap to build.

Lecture me daddy

[Warhawks97]

The US 57 mm HT costs 20 fuel. We cant put the marder this low in terms of fuel.

I wasnt talking about the 75 mm which isnt primarily an AT unit. Its pen stats are not that great and has no cammo and 60 range. So its not comparable to Marders. And that one costs 35 fuel.

[Walderschmidt]

I didn’t say to make it 20 fuel. I said to make it 25. So we’re in agreement.

Wald

[MarKr]

I'd say to just put the 75mm HT, Puma and MarderIII/Geschützwagen all in T2 buildings, make them somewhat same in costs and distribute them among doctrines based on doctrine theme.
All of them have the same gun, almost the same crap durability and are non-CP units and because of that they overlap in their role and so having two of these available in the same doc is sort of pointless.

[Warhawks97]

25 is dirt cheap. A lot of vehicles that are worse cost 25. This thing essentially oneshots vehicles, from ambush even shermans from a range of 70. 35 is the minimum such hard hitting units should cost. TbH the M10 is also already dirt cheap.

As i said, fuel is ok for me, but the MP cost not.

I'd say to just put the 75mm HT, Puma and MarderIII/Geschützwagen all in T2 buildings, make them somewhat same in costs and distribute them among doctrines based on doctrine theme.
All of them have the same gun, almost the same crap durability and are non-CP units and because of that they overlap in their role and so having two of these available in the same doc is sort of pointless.

No. Just no. We are already at a point where too many units are available in just two buildings. We can just as well remove half of the production buildings from PE. Early tier buildings are filled with like 16 units while higher tier buildings feel kind of lost bc there is nothing in there. Half of the tec is required to get literally one unit.

Idk how brits and US gets it done, but their units are pretty evenly stretched across the tiers. But axis not. Their low tier buildings have 90% of all units but cost literally nothing while the high tier buildings cost a lot.

I already suggested to move a few units from the second building to the third building and in return removing stuff like the logistic company upgrade and put some of the stuff from log company to tank support building and so on.


At some point we might as well get rid of any tiering.


And for the doctrinal part:
Yes, i am suggesting to add puma variants accross the doctrines rather than being available everywhere as reward units. The marder is nice to be a PE thing in general.

[MarKr]

Omg, sure so we'll rather keep arguing ad nauseum about changes to costs of these units and keep two of them in doctrines even when their literal problem is that their function is the same and when you get one, the other becomes obsolete. Even if they had the same cost - give me one reason why you would ever get marder from T3 building when you have already the 75mm Puma/HT in T2 building for the same cost?

[Warhawks97]

Omg, sure so we'll rather keep arguing ad nauseum about changes to costs of these units and keep two of them in doctrines even when their literal problem is that their function is the same and when you get one, the other becomes obsolete. Even if they had the same cost - give me one reason why you would ever get marder from T3 building when you have already the 75mm Puma/HT in T2 building for the same cost?

1. as said many times, i would rather move more units from the overcrowded logistic company to the tank support building. Units like marder, Pumas, 75 mm stubby HT and so on. Turn the Jäger command into a dedicated tank production facility so that there will be more units in it than just one.

The Support building would become cheaper while containing everything that has a big gun but doesnt count as Tank. The Jäger command gets all the armor.

If you move the marder to T2 and playing as TS doc and choosing tanks, there will be only one Jagdpanzer left in this building. The two PE buildings are literally empty and only the TS doc fills one of them (depending on chosen path).


The current logistic company is like mixing up a tank factory with motorpool.


2. The marder is better in stationary defense. The Puma when you need quick frontline support.

3. As said, i would prefer to have all the pumas in the game to be rather doctrinal rather than everywhere.

[MarKr]

Whatever, so unify them, put them all into T3 buildings and assign each doctrine just one of them.

But then Axis players: "reeeeeeeereeeeeee I cannot counter early Shermans, I have to rush T3 building and in there I can get tanks so why even bother with marder at that point?"

2. That's why I said assign each to one doctrine based on what fits the doctrine.

3. Yes, we've all seen that suggestion like 5 times. We're not talking about the "puma variation" vehicles in general here.

[Warhawks97]

Whatever, so unify them, put them all into T3 buildings and assign each doctrine just one of them.

But then Axis players: "reeeeeeeereeeeeee I cannot counter early Shermans, I have to rush T3 building and in there I can get tanks so why even bother with marder at that point?"

Lets see. Well, right now you can get hard hitting 75 mm AT weapons on wheels pretty early into the game.

Make the inf support center an independent one (aka like supply yard) and drop logistic company cost to 200/25. No more logistic company upgrade needed. The support center would cost 250/30 or 35. So at the end PE would pay 70 fuel and 500 MP. Pretty much as they do now. Any upgrades for heavier stuff in the tank support building (like stubby Panzer IV´s, bergetiger and so on) would require an upgrade within the building as to make sure the requirments for those remain about the same as they are now.

US pays 625 in order to get a normal 76 mm AT, not to mention a mobile one.
Axis is at 450 MP for a pak 40 and 80 fuel just as US. So from a technical point of view not much would change (if anything) in terms of ressources required.

PE pays currently 75 fuel to get heavy AT gun which can be even mobile and 500 MP. Its like having a Hellcat in the Motorpool.


PE buildings are like: Logistic company has it all, Tank support and Jäger command fighting out which one is actually needed. Like sometimes the Support building wins, sometimes the jäger command wins.

[MarKr]

Oh, so here it comes. When you came up with your tiering changes, we said no. Then we agreed to the Supply Yard and now it will be "well, US have their supply yard available early, so let's do the same for (another faction)" then that's done and the next thing I read here will be "well, now US and (another faction) have their buildings early so now we just have to do (the next thing on that tiering changes list)".

If that's your plan, we should just return the Supply Yard back where it was.

[Warhawks97]

Oh, so here it comes. When you came up with your tiering changes, we said no. Then we agreed to the Supply Yard and now it will be "well, US have their supply yard available early, so let's do the same for (another faction)" then that's done and the next thing I read here will be "well, now US and (another faction) have their buildings early so now we just have to do (the next thing on that tiering changes list)".

If that's your plan, we should just return the Supply Yard back where it was.

oh boy, i am suggesting a lot of things regarding tecing stuff. Like the "tec drop" of WH when you progress from tank IV´s to anything bigger. The tec cost there is higher than the the tec cost to reach tank IV´s.

Why are you acting like a pissed boy and completely focusing on this "make inf support building independent" thing. Its not about this building. I mean this building is out of debate. Its not that important. The reason i suggested this was in order to keep the tec cost at the same level as they are now in still managing to spread them better across the buildings available.


Just look how its done with CW and US. Each building is nicely filled with the appropriate units. And each has a "in building upgrade" (for CW its the officers and command tank) that unlocks further units within these buildings. But they provide you with a variety of units. Axis is more like: "Lets put everything in one building and then one unit in another building".

As i said, when you move the Hetzer to the logistic company as well (which by that point is not just a logistic company anymore), the Jäger command would be down to two units in SE doc and one unit in TS doc when going the tank line.

Units on axis side are simply badly distributed across the buildings with the very last buildings (which make up for like 50% of the entire tec cost) only reserved for a handfull units, mostly some sort of elite tanks if at all. And this one aspect i really hate when playing as and against axis.
As axis i am pissed that i need one fucking expensive unit to get one damn unit i need. Meanwhile, when facing axis, i do now that my enemie has all capabilties unlocked within two buildings basically while i need to go till my last building.

[MarKr]

And because US and CW has it, Axis need to have it too, because...? Axis have units that are usually stronger in those last buildings, yet are not an absolute necessity to have to win the game. You said yourself several times that you often don't go for the strongest units. If you don't wanna use them, don't. If you wanna use those units, you will have to pay the teching price. But I'm not changing half of the teching system because "allies have it that way".

[Walderschmidt]

I’m about done with tech change discussion as well.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

And because US and CW has it, Axis need to have it too, because...? Axis have units that are usually stronger in those last buildings, yet are not an absolute necessity to have to win the game. You said yourself several times that you often don't go for the strongest units. If you don't wanna use them, don't. If you wanna use those units, you will have to pay the teching price. But I'm not changing half of the teching system because "allies have it that way".

Well, you suggested to move marder to the second building which is just absurd.


And no, its not an "allies have it so axis needs it too" thing. Units like Panther are not a "can have" in late but a must. And Pershings, comets, MK VII churchills, they are also beast and dont require a special building.

Aside of that your logic is just wrong. PE has Stubby Panzer IV and King Tiger in one building. Just the lost Hetzer sits in the other building (along with Marder, but idk when you move that one).

Things get just extremely cramped and i dont think its in any way logical that one unit requires more tec that 99% of the other units.

As for WH. Panthers or Tigers are a must have. I dont get them often because the game ends earlier or my mates doing this job and not that they are not needed in longer lasting games.

[kwok]

What about just a range buff so it has a similar long range AT role as the US HT. If we can’t agree on a cost drop maybe a performance buff to justify the price and add differentiation between units.

[Walderschmidt]

What about just a range buff so it has a similar long range AT role as the US HT. If we can’t agree on a cost drop maybe a performance buff to justify the price and add differentiation between units.

Yeah, +5/10 range would be nice and give it a chance to get a shot, maybe two off before it gets recc’d by Grayhounds 🥲

Let’s test it out.

Wald

[MarKr]

Well, you suggested to move marder to the second building which is just absurd.

How's that connected to teching?

And why is it absurd? If the 75mm HT/Puma is available in the second building, I don't see a single gameplay reason why Marders cannot be there available too. You said yourself that in terms of durability Marders are about the same as the HT/Puma. They all have the same gun and they all cost about the same. If they all get camo, what does it matter if you buy in T2 building a Marder, HT or Puma? Yeah, yeah Puma is more mobile but they would all be "non-CP self-propelled 75mm that can camouflage".

Given how similar they all are, it is actually absurd that the Marders are in T3 buildings.